4
Wednesday, April 5, 1989 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Measures needed to update buildings for wheelchairs
The recent proposal to increase parking fines for parking illegally in a designated handicapped space on campus is a positive step that improves the University's efforts to make campus buildings accessible to wheelchairs.
All campus buildings have some accessibility but once inside the building movemeet can become a nightmare.
Murphy Hall is the least accessible building on campus. A freight elevator not intended for student use is the only means of travel between floors. The music library in Murphy Hall has a second floor that is completely inaccessible. And adding to that, there are steps at the end of some ramps in the building.
That is only a small example of the difficulty those in wheelchairs experience on this campus. The Military Science Building, Twente Hall and Smith Hall also have several accessibility problems.
By law, the University is responsible only to provide students with access to every program, not every building. That means if a class is offered on the second floor of an inaccessible building, the class would have to be moved. That could become both time consuming and tedious for the students and the instructor to make other arrangements.
Not providing better access for those in wheelchairs is an insult, and it violates their civil rights. The last thing anyone should have to worry about is whether there is an accessible bathroom, library or auditorium.
Stifter fines for parking in designated handicapped parking spaces would make it easier for the disabled to get to the building, but what's going to help them once they get inside?
Jennifer Hinkle for the editorial board
Kansas needs a new prison to solve long-term problem
Kansas legislators have once again voted to put off the prison issue.
OK, so they approved a plan to ease prison overcrowding. But temporarily easing a problem is a far cry from finding a solution.
Prisons are not a new issue in Kansas. Constituent are tired of hearing about prison problems. Probably, the legislators are tired of it as well. But at the rate they're going, they will hear about it again and again and again, each time another Band-Aid solution wears off.
On Saturday, the House approved an $11.7 million Band-Aid to ease prison overcrowding. In the process, they rejected a $47.9 million plan to build a new maximum-security prison. The Senate will face the approved bill next. If the House bill passes the Senate, existing prisons would be altered and expanded to accommodate more prisoners. The prison in Lansing, one that would be renovated, was built in 1867.
The discussion in the House was forced by a February court order from a U.S. District Judge, which required legislators to alleviate prison overcrowding by July 1, 1991, or be prepared to release prisoners at that time.
Perhaps the current plan will keep the state from being forced to release prisoners who have not finished their sentences. It does not, however, relieve the legislators of the responsibility to plan for the long term. Kansas needs to keep criminals off the streets for their sentenced terms. The House is trying to make sure that we do that through 1991. But what about after that?
In the long run, we should not have to release prisoners because we have no place to put them. At some point we will need to make a major investment in a new prison. There is no way around it.
What more can be said? Bite the bullet. Face the music Deal with the problem.
Karen Boring for the editorial board
The editorials in this column are the opinion of the editorial board. The editorial board consists of Julie Adam, Karen Boring, Jep Euston, James Fuarqhi, Cindy Harger, Jennifer Hinkle, Grace Hobson, Jill Jess, Mark McCormick and Mark Tillford.
News staff
Julie Adam . . . . .
Business staff
Debra Cole...Business manager
Pamela Noe...Retail sales manager
Kevin Martin...Campus sales manager
Scott Franklin sales manager
Michelle Garland...Promotions manager
Brad Lenhart...Sales development manager
Linda Hoppe...Production manager
Debra Martin...Asst. production manager
Kim Coleman...Co-op sales manager
Corey Glassell...Clasellier
Jennine Hines...Sales and marketing adviser
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and less than 200 words and must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University of Kansas, please include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed to or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staffer and Administration Building, 530 W. 46th Street, 21st floor, cartoonist and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University Daily Kansan. Editors, which appear in the left-hand column, are the opinion of the Kansan
The University Daily Kaanan (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of
Kansas, 118 Stuart-Fifth Street, Lawrence, Kan. 60045, daily during the regular
school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and finals periods,
and Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage is paid in
Lawrence, Kan. 60044 Annual subscriptions by mail are $50. Student
subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
Postmaster: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118
Stauffer Flint Hall, Lawrence, KC 66045.
"Rose has gone too far this time."
Student leaders reject allegations
on behalf of the Student Senate, we would like to respond to the questions raised in last Wednesday's guest column by Todd Thomas.
allegations Eblen made. While we respect the right of Eblen to criticize Student Senate regarding Senate financing of the University Daily Kansan, the allegations made go much further than disagreement with a budgetary decision. Eblen states, "Now comes an interesting, er, offer from Senate sources. If the Kansan will lay off any criticism of student politicians for finding a way to cut its funding by 50 percent, these allegations will not be helpful to see that the Kansan gets a reasonable share of some supplemental funding that may be available. And if not... well, the implication is obvious."
Basically, Eblen accused Senate of extortion, of exchanging "good funding" for "good press." However, the allegation is made without any legitimate shred of proof. If you examine the editorial, you will note that there are no facts, no quotes, no logic upon which to base this very serious accusation. The facts, not rhetoric, demonstrate the inaccuracy of Eblen's allegations.
Fact: Although Kansan criticism of Student Senate has increased dramatically since the recommendations of the Finance Committee, the Kansan has actually received a $50,000 increase in their allocation for fiscal year 1991. Clearly, the Kansan had good press and increased financing is not valid.
Fact: Nobody in either the deliberations of the Finance Committee or Student Senate stated or implied that Kansan financing was dependent on good press. The Kansan was cut for legitimate and defensive reasons, not because Senate had not been willing to accept it. There were no plots, no politics, no deals, period.
Fact. Even if someone had made such an offer, no member of Senate has the ability or the authority to make such a "deal". Furthermore, even if financing with "strings" attached was not possible, then the Kansas has the money we cannot take it away — making any "deal" null and void.
We could continue, but we believe this is sufficient evidence to prove that Eblen's charges are invalid.
The bottom line is that there were twice the amount of requests from groups as there was money available. Senate, with as many deliberating body, is forced to make tough decisions based on fiscal realities. Groups that resort to unfounded allegations in response to a budgetary decision are doing a great disservice to the Senate as well as to students.
The Kansan is uniquely influential. Many students rely solely on their articles for campus news and information.
R. Brook Mennes is student body president.
Pam Hollan is student body vice president.
We must take vehement exception to the guest column, "Drastic cut will hurt the Kansan," written by Tom Eblen. Kansan news adviser and general manager, which appeared in the March 29 newspaper. The Kansan was not financed as much as it had been in past years. Eblen objected to the spirit and nature of the budget
cause and attempted to defend his organization. Yet, he did so without substantiating his claims For the person responsible for the training of Kansan reporters, that is especially disturbing. He practiced shoddy journalism by failing to check original sources and relying, instead, on hearsaey. He goes too far by accusing Student Senate of extortion.
1. We resent the attack on Student Senate's integrity. Eblen relied heavily on information provided by Julie Adam, Kansan editor. However, Adam was entirely unable to tell Senate leadership how her information could be construed as an offer. In fact, when directly asked whether an offer was made, she responded, "No, I construed it as you saying how Senate would work." That clearly proves that Eblen's allegations of extortion are false. Furthermore, Eblen never appealed to the authorities of all supposed victims him by Adam. Moreover, one of the sources approached Eblen before knowing of any column and specifically dispelled any rumors about a deal.
2. The Senate cut the Kansan's budget because groups requested twice as much money as was available to allocate during revenue code hearings. The Kansan has the unique ability among revenue code groups to raise its own funds in significantly large amounts through advertising revenue. Senate then did its best to soften that blow by providing a portion (20 percent larger than any other group's allocation) of the projected 1991 windfall to the Kansan. The fact of the matter is that the Kansan's reserve fund is twice as large as Senate's "reserve fund."
At no time was the Kansan threatened in any way. All Eblen had to do was listen to arguments made in Finance Committee and in Senate to see that there was no threat. Senate gladly ablades by Kansas open-meeting statutes, and there is usually a Kansan reporter at our meetings anyway.
3. Eblen states that, "Newspapers, however, don't make deals with political bodies." Student Senate is a political body. A more sensible argument for Eblen to use would be to suggest that the Senate not finance the Kansan at all. The Kansan is a business and a successful business at that. Most successful businesses would feel uncomfortable and compromised to receive money from a governmental source, even though the Senate has made no attempt to export the Kansan into printing specific statements, stories or ideas. If Eblen wants to get out of bed with persons, we're sure there are other groups that would appreciate his share of the blanket. And those groups aren't capable of generating such a large amount of outside revenue.
4. Eblen claims that in the Kansan's judgment they cannot make up for the revenue loss by raising advertising rates because "retailing is soft in Lawrence at this time." The Tennesseans have argued that the articles extolling the economic health of Lawrence. The articles showed that college students have more disposable income than any other demographic group. The Kansan has a captive audience of students. Retailers will pay. Additionally, there will soon be a new mall in Lawrence with more
5% The Kanans' reserve fund was not and should not be ignored when considering financing questions. Every revenue code group in the Bank of Canada requires Student Senate would like to earmark such money and
BLOOM COUNTY
have Senate consider their budget, disregarding other such funds. But that is simply improper. While Student Senate does not directly contribute to the Kansan's reserve fund, there is definitely an offset effect, which is further exacerbated when Student Senate pays for student organizations' advertising expenditures in the Kansan. If the Kansan chooses not to cover operating expenses with its reserve fund, then it will truly have violated the trust of Senate and the student body. To compromise the quality of the newspaper to allow themselves to buy a computer which would not cost the students' staff reinforces the argument that the Kansan is nothing more than a departmental group which runs to Senate for financing because it is convenient to remove that burden from the school. Student activity fee money cannot be permitted to subsidize academic departments.
6. While the Kansan whines about its $50,000 cut, consider this: To give $50,000 to the Kansan, $50,000 would have to come from another revenue code group. Where do they suggest that money come from? Legal Services for Students? Then the Kansan could run a story on how Senate irresponsibly killed a service vital to KU students. KU on Wheels? Then the Kansan wouldn't need to print as many copies of the paper, because many students would not be able to make it to campus without the bus service. Rape Victim Support Service? What's the National Carabiners' Headquarters? Explain that to a student in a serious crisis or a life-and-death situation. As responsible Senators, we could not support an increase in the finance committee's recommendation for the Kansan's budget at the expense of the other groups involved in the process.
7. Eben claims, "The Student Senators, whatever their protestations about needs, saw an opening and cheerfully took advantage of it." Seventy-three percent of the Finance Committee is made up of non-Senators. Those are the same students Eben claims Senate ignores and the Kansan serves. The non-Senators make up well over the necessary two-thirds majority to approve the revenue code budget or make cuts. Senate, in this case, simply uphold the decision of its predominantly non-Senator commission would be all but impotent, a deal such as no. To repeal, a two-thirds vote is required to make additions to a revenue code budget. We have a hard time getting a two-thirds vote on questions void of ethical improprieties. No one on Senate has the power to deliver a deal fraught with improprieties, and that is obvious from the meetings at which Eben was present.
8. As Student Senators, we are willing to put up with being misquoted by the student staff of the Kansan, because they are participating in a laboratory experience. They have other scholastic and extracurricular commitments. The Kansan is Eben's job. We would expect him to be professional. For a University staff member to attack any student without backing his argument with facts is unprofessional, entirely irresponsible and inappropriate. We challenge Eben to either substantiate his allegation with facts or issue a complete retraction and apology.
Aaron Rittmacher is an off-campus Student Senator.
Sandra Senders is a member of San Francisco.
by Berke Breathed