4A Monday, October 28.1996 OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN VIEWPOINT Parking officials stingy with a generous budget It appears the parking department is at it again. Not only are they ignoring students, but they also are doing it at students' expense. Most of the parking lots on campus are in a constant state of disarray. They are either under superficial construction, or the lots are in such desperate need of construction that potholes line each space. The inadequate lighting in parking lots leaves students unsafe at night. Several attacks have occurred in campus lots—a genuine cause for concern. Unfortunately, the parking department has declined to make even minor improvements on many of these lots. Their major project now is fixing the Jayhawker Towers lots. However, there has been little visible progress even on that venture. All of this wouldn't be so startling if the parking department was a revenue-starved operation. But it's not. In fact, in the face of budget crunches everywhere else on campus, the parking department is living high on the hog. The most recent itemization of receipts and disbursements for the parking department projected a net revenue "carry forward" from fiscal year 1996 of $160,000. That's a substantial amount of money. But even more astonishing is that year-to-date, the carry forward for February 1996 is $193,000. And although the fine and event rates have gone up this year, the amount allocated to lot maintenance barely moved. In fact, the parking department anticipates more than a $300,000 increase in revenue for Fiscal Year 1997 ($1,655,000 in FY'96 to $1,989,500 in FY '97). Despite this 20 percent increase in revenue, students won't see many benefits. Instead, that money is going right back to the parking department employees. Even if the original carry forward amount is budgeted and accounted for in February 1997, the parking department still has an additional $33,000 to spend. They surely could make some minor repairs around campus with that extra cash — fill a couple of potholes, install a few security lights. In 1996, the parking department allocated $80,000 to lot maintenance. But even though revenue will increase substantially, the lot maintenance allocation will only increase by $1,500-less than 2 percent. The most notable increase in the allocations was to the parking department "Salaries & Fringes" category. The department raised its own salary by $17,687.48, which will be spread among full-time and student employees. The bottom line is this: The parking department has increased its revenue substantially, but has not allocated even one-third of the extra money to be spent. Ultimately, KU students deserve to know where the extra money is going. The responsibility of the parking department is to monitor parking rules and regulations. When those rules are broken, the parking department has an obligation to issue parking tickets. That money comes from people involved in the KU community, and it should be returned to them in the form of lot improvements and upkeep. Unfortunately, right now, it's not being spent wisely. ANN MARCHAND FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD AMANDA TRAUGHBER Editor CRAIG LANG Managing editor MATT HOOD Associate managing editor for design KIMBERLY CRABTREE CHARITY JEFFRIES News editors DARCI L. McLAIN SARA ROSE Public relations directors Editors Campus ... Susanna Lóźń Jeans Strait ... Amy Meyvé Editorial ... John Collier Nicole Kennedy Features ... Adam Ward Graphic ... Bill Petulla Associate sports ... Caryn Foster Online editor ... David L. Teaska Photo ... Richard Dovitelli Graphics ... Helen Musser Andy Rohrbach Special sections ... Amy Meyvé Wire ... Debbie Staine KAREN GERSCH Business manager HEALY SMART Retail sales manager TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser JAY STEINER Sales and marketing adviser JUSTIN GNUPP Technology coordinator Business Staff Campus mgr...Mark Ozdemik Regional mgr...Dennie Haupt Assistant Retail mgr...Dana Centeno National mgr...Nathan Moyer Human Resource mgr...Heather Valier Production mgr...Dan Kopec Lisa Quebbaman Marketing director...Eric Johnson Creative director...David Hewett Shelly Wachter Mass Impact mgr...Dena Piscotte Internet mgr...Steve Sanger Shawn Trimble/ KANSAN Idealistic Internet plan is neither wanted nor needed It's not pretty to watch your parents, raised on LP's and the Jackson 5, try to set a VCR clock. It's even scarier to watch them tinker with the Internet. Nevertheless, folks in pre-Internet generations are trying to turn back the clock and join their children in the information revolution. Lagging far behind in the progression of technology, as always, is the government. Yet the government practices the unique habit of pretending to be on the "cutting edge." Hence, President Clinton's much-hailed proposal to bring the Internet to "every home in America," spending $350 million to $650 million on "the next generation of the Internet," according to a piece on CNN Interactive. What a great idea. If there is one industry in desperate need of government subsidies and that desires government intervention in the worst way, it's the online industry. Why, Bill Gates already is at poverty's doorstep, as we all know. And America Online is in incredibly dire straits. Or not. The online industry arguably is the most thriving in America, with the widest potential for growth. When Netscape is posting earning increases in the 300 percent range, the online industry hardly can be said to be in danger. Yet the government insists on dumping money into the Internet, in the hopes of raising its speed. I was up late last night working on homework, but I also spent a great deal of time trying to come up with one example of something that ran faster after the government became involved. I came up with one answer: debt. Deficits and financial woes grow faster with government help than anything else. But outside of that very narrow, very negative area, government never has made anything work better by dumping money and imposing restrictions on it. STAFF COLUMNIST Take the postal service. Its inefficiency is not the fault of the workers. They do the best they can. But government is a heavy monkey to carry on your back. For the Internet, it may be even worse. "Most learning is not fun," he said. "It requires discipline, creative effort and responsibility. To lie to our students and say 'turn this program on' is to denigrate education and turn it into Disneyland." Another part of Clinton's well-intentioned, but naive, proposal is to install the Internet in schools. He wants to create an education system where "computers are as much a part of classrooms as blackboards." the news— worship of the Internet. The online thing just isn't all that it's cracked up to be, he says. And he made one interesting point in an interview with The New York Times shortly after Clinton's announcement. His point is valid. The general consensus among college students is that education is pretty tough. And while neato-mosquito computer tools make it more interesting, there is great danger in pretending that This idealistic concept reminded me of a book I read last year, something everyone should take a look at: Clifford Stoll's *Silicon Snake Oil*. In the book, Stoll debunks some of the mystical — borderline religious those tools are all we need. There is more to learning than simply finding information quickly. You have to sort that information, decide what is valid and creatively use it. The Internet can't teach children how to do that. It can, however, teach them how to build pipe bombs or set fire to public buildings. In addition, the proposal makes a huge rhetorical leap in transforming the Internet from a convenient luxury to a human necessity, offering common-carrier legislation and funding to make every home wired to the Internet. True, there is something noble to Clinton's effort to wire schools to the Internet. There is a wealth of information out there, to use the popular cliché. But there is a wealth of information in Watson Library — more than any one person can absorb. The Internet just makes it more accessible — which poses the threat of making us more complacent in finding it. The Net is fun and useful but is hardly as necessary as telephone, water, or electric service. Those industries were subsidized to allow every home to be connected, at the expense of some affluent homes, of course. The moral of the story: You can bring service to everybody, but only at a high cost to some, and at a significant reduction in quality (as is seen today in TV-broadcast standards). Basically, Clinton's Internet proposal is another government attempt to grab a growing industry by the throat, in the name of fairness and quality. The online industry doesn't want it, Americans can't afford it, and nobody needs it. Andy Rohrback is an Andover sophomore in Journalism. HOW TO SUBMIT LETTERS & COLUMNS Letters: Should be double-spaced, typed and fewer than 200 words. Student letters must include the author's signature, name, address, telephone number, class and hometown. Faculty or staff members must identify their positions. guest columns: Should be double-spaced, typed and fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run. All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall, or by e-mail: opinion@kansan.com/ The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject submissions. For more information, call John Collar or Nicole Kennedy, editorial page editors, at 864-4810. A few weekends ago, I attended a KU football game with some of my friends. We had a lot of fun except for one thing. The guy sitting behind us yelled at the officials throughout the game. Sports fans need to keep in mind that all referees make mistakes We all have had an experience with this person. Who knows? Maybe you are that person. Usually the individual is male, but I have seen women afflicted with the same condition. He screams at the referre for every call — or every missed call — that does not go his team's way. He has an irrational paranoia that the officials are plotting to make his team lose. He makes the game less enjoyable for those around him because he is constantly badmouthing the referees. The job of an official is not fully understood by most fans, especially by those who shout at them. Officials are there to ensure that the game is played fairly. Officials do not take their jobs because of the prestige that goes along with them. Even sanitation workers get more respect than officials. Referees cannot enjoy being escorted by police guards after the game because of the death threats they receive. People who referee sports accept their jobs because they love the game. It is disturbing when someone yells at the officials for making a bad call. Sports officials are human, just like anyone else. Consequently, they occasionally make mistakes. The late Donald Jenson was an ampire for Little League baseball. In It's How You Play the Game That Counts, Jenson figured that in a sixinning game, the total number of decisions he made, whether on balls or strikes, safes or outs, was 146. When he figured out his percentage on paper, he could have missed eight calls and still have gotten 95 percent of the calls right. in any other profession, Jenson and others like him would be commended for their accuracy, but sports fans' demands are higher than that. Contrary to popular belief, officials are not there to interfere with the outcome of the game. That does not mean that they do not have their biases, but as professionals they put those biases aside every time they step onto a court, field or diamond. Officials have to make instantaneous decisions based on what they see. That means they have to trust their eyes. Because they are human, sometimes they do not see everything that occurs. Officials do not have the luxury of instant replay like the arm-chair quarterbacks who sit at home watching the game. Officials cannot prevent fans from questioning the decisions made during a game. They try to block out the boos and the complaints about their intelligence, but because they are human, some of those remarks get through. And, yes, it does hurt their feelings when their authority is questioned. As fans, most people hold a deep respect for the game. They should have the same esteem for the person who enforces the rules. Without them, the game would degenerate into a bloody brawl. The next time you attend a game, remember that the officials are there to ensure that the game is played fairly. If you think you can do a better job, why don't you put on the striped shirt? Deanna Engel is a Liberal, Kan., senator in journalism.