Veto of district plan sought
Staff Reporter
Bv GENE LINN
TOPEKA—Two Lawrence state representatives are to meet with Gov. John Carlin this afternoon to ask him to veto a Kansas House redistricting bill they say splits the KU student vote.
State Reps. John Solbach and Mike Glover, both Lawrence Democrats, have said the bill takes away much of the power to keep schools open.
The legislation would place all of Glover's 48th District west of Massachusetts Street, and would move the KU campus and Oread area out of Glover's district into a new 48th District.
Glover would pick up heavily Republican districts in west central Lawrence.
The bill went to the governor yesterday after the House unexpectedly decided not to send it to a conference commit-tee.
The House had a chance to送 it to a House-Senate conference committee because the Senate had made two minor changes in the budget.
HOUSE MAJORITY Leader Robert Frey, B-Liberal, a model minister to committee. Democrats want the House to support the mandate.
"Fifteen minutes before the vote on the bill, we were prepared to try to work out a compromise," said House Republican Leader John C. McCain.
"But Glover and Solloch ask us they couldn't accept the republicans' compromise proposal, so we made a decision," she said.
The substitute motion carried 98-19, with Solbach and Glover voting "present."
Glover said all of the compromise proposals would have split the student vote and called the proposed given to him.
"In effect, Vogel told me I could have a safe Democratic candidate if I'd let them student the vote." Glover said.
seat 14 of diehcnim spout the stunnet vove. Glover said,
"I told him if he was going to take advantage of the
Vogel said his proposal basically would have placed Glover back in his old district.
"WE JUST would have shifted three predecessors in the present bill," Vogel said. "The Democratic evidence evidently favors us."
Holderman said he was not very familiar with the political make-up of Lawrence precincts, but that Vogel's speech in question was less provocative.
However, Solbach said the Republican plan did not correct the defects in the bill's redistricting of Lawrence.
He said the Republicans would have had the votes to pass Voelk's or岩胁 in the conference committee.
"We had the choice of leaving the gerrymandering in the bill for all to see, or of sending it to committees and having it taken away."
Glover and Solich are to meet with Carlin at 3 this afternoon to ask him to vote the bill to force House Republicans to repeal it.
"We chose to leave it in."
"WELL EXPLAIN what it's wrong with the bill and ask
sabu if it he thinks the House will sustain the veto."
Sabu
He said that the Democratic proposal would still split the
Oread neighborhood, but that it would restore much of Glover's student constituency.
Bill Hoch, Carlin's press secretary, said the governor had not changed his mind about the bill since last week, when he had said the House would have to "clean up" some sections of the bill in avoid a veto.
However, Democratic Majority Leader Fred Weaver Daxter Springs, said he would not ask the governor to veto a bill that would allow him to have a Senate majority.
Solibach and Holderman said Carin might not vet the bill because this would give House Republicans a chance to pass it.
"If the bill is vetoed, it opens the entire map up," Holder-mar said.
"I think that if the bill comes back to the House, the center of controversy would be over a Douglas County district."
THE REDISTRICTING legislation gives Douglas County an additional district, which is shared with Johnson County.
Holderman said that Johnson County legislators were unhappy that Douglas County would gain the district.
"If the bill comes back to the House, Johnson has more representatives than Douglas, and Douglas County might be safer."
If Carolin will not veto the bill, Sollbach said, he and Glover would argue before the Kansas Supreme Court that a judge should not be subject to a
The Court must approve the redistricting plan and it could declare the bill unconstitutional if it rules that the vote of any block of people, such as blacks or students, was deliberately split.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Thursday, March 8, 1979
The University of Kansas—Lawrence. Kansas
Opponents of fluoridating city water spoke at the last two commission meetings.
Fluoride advocates present their side
By SHIRLEY SHOUP
Staff Reporter
Proponents of fluoridation received equal time last night to respond to testimony from anti-fluoride spokesmen and other witnesses to a testimony at a city commission hearing.
Vol. 89. No. 110
The commission is to vote Tuesday whether to continue fluoridation in the city water supply or eliminate it.
A KANSAS LAW says it is unlawful to sell sodium fluoride unless it has been colored.
A series of pre-fluoride speakers, in a series of epidemiologists, biochemists, a pharmacologist and dentists, testified that no reputable studies indicated any relationship between fluoridation and oral acidity, whether fluoridation and alleric reactions.
In rejecting studies cited by the anti-hornicide faction, John Neuberger, a professor of neurology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, and proper methodology had not
He said results of the studies, which indicated higher cancer death rates in cities with fluoridated water, could be a factor in increased age, sex, race and socio-economic status.
Commissioner Jack Rose said, "You're the first person who has not indicated that floorsidation is the right thing for all of North America."
Eli Michaela, a KU professor who reseARCHES the biological aspects of mental retardation, said he could find no evidence that fluoridation caused mongolium. Mongolium is a syndrome of vitamin D deficiency associated with various abnormalities.
Opponents of fluoride have said that fluoride was a possible cause of mongolism.
Hay Clark, a Lawrence dentist, reported to the commission that the results of a commission study in Minneapolis that fluoride was not a health hazard.
John Yiomiyauian, director of the National Health Federation and a fellow member of the commission at the last two commission meetings. He was consultant for the committee.
Yiamouyiannis said he did not think he would do much good at last night's meeting.
He presented charts and copies of reports to the commission.
He told the commissioners that their decision would be of national significance.
"YOUR DECISION will determine whether we can present evidence in front of a city council and get a decision or if we can turn the court for the same decision." Be said.
Viamiyamianis said that much of the evidence recited at the meeting would have been thrown out of court as hear-say.
The commission members will discuss the issue among themselves but will not hear remarks from the public at Tuesday's commission meeting.
Endowment president meets with protesters
The RU Committee on South Africa and the Kansas University Endowment Association remained deadlocked yesterday on the controversy about South African representatives were granted a meeting with two Endowment Association members.
The Endowment Association, as part of a policy statement released last week, had refused to meet with the committee concerning South African investments.
But a meeting took place anyway when 11 members of the committee and other student groups appeared at the Endowment Association's reception office at 12:30 p.m.
Seymour repeated the Association's position that it would not agree to the committee's request to withdraw investments from companies in South Africa.
THE COMMITTEE says investments in South Africa encourage aparthief, which is the political and social separation of races.
Todd Seymour, president of the Endowment Association, and Richard Proto, association treasurer, met with the students.
He told members of the committee that the Endowment Association would be open to any written communication, but said further dialogue would be inanorable.
Seymour said, "We don't intend to have a debate."
Laird Okie, spokesman for the KU Conference on South Africa, said, "Although you have your position is inflexible, we think that dialogue is important."
Members of the Young Socialists, the African Student Association, the Latin American Solidarity Committee, the Black Student Union, KU-Y, the Academic Union, and the International Club for Foreign Students were among the 11 representatives at the meeting.
SUE REIGER, a member of KU-1Y, read aloud a statement by the KU Committee on South Africa that the KU Committee on South Africa concurred that the KU Endowment Association obtains returns on investments which come partly from foreign people in the Republic of South Africa."
Several students at the meeting accused the Endowment Association of neglecting social responsibility by continuing its investments in South Africa.
Seymour said, "This Association has studied the situation in South Africa for a long time. We think we have a great sense of responsibility."
Ron Kuby, a member of the Academic Freedom Coalition, said, "Don't you think that by not divesting you are supporting apartheid?"
Seymour said he thought the Endowment Association was not supporting apartheid.
"It is a very difficult topic," Seymour said of the difference of worthment are the difference between love and hate.
ON FEB. 23, the Endowment Association said in its policy statement that contributors could request that none of their donations be invested in corporations in South Africa.
The policy also said student and faculty sacrifices of the donations could refuse to take them.
After yesterday's meeting, members of the committee and the other student organizations they would pursue the course of their meeting with the Endowment Association.
The committee argued against this policy in a counter statement released Feb. 26, which also criticized the Endowment Association's refusal to discuss the issue.
Kuby said, "I am disturbed by the lack of dialogue. But I can assure you that we will find a way to work together."
Solemn Seymour
Todd Seymour, president of the Kaua's University Endowment Association, listens as representatives of the KU Conference on South Africa and of several other student groups
Staff Photo by BILL FRAKES
express their views about Endowment Association investments in companies operating in South Africa.
Wolf Creek approval appears inevitable
Staff Reporter
By RON BAIN
The momentum behind the Wolf Creek plant, which is already 28 percent constructed, seems unable to be stopped, although many opponents of the plant have vowed to prevent its completion.
Members of another Wolf Creek opposition group are scheduled to stand trial later this month on charges of trespassing during a recent protest demonstration.
One group that had been fighting the Wolf Creek plant through the courts apparently is reconsidering its position after losing two legal cases to the electric companies that own the plant.
Local opposition to the Wolf Creek plant probably will increase as the plant nears completion, but that opposition will have few chances to prevent the operation of the plant.
ACCORDING TO FEDERAL, regulations, plans for the proposed plant will have to be approved at public safety hearings administered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before the plant can begin.
However, the outcome of the licensing hearings, which probably will be next year, is already almost certain, according to Ron Henrickx, president of the Michigan group that filed suit against Wolf Creek. Henrickx said yesterday that the regulatory commission was unlikely to deny a license for the Wolf Creek plant, although the commission might restrict the plant's power capacity because of 'shoddy workmanship.'
operation. Opponents of the plant will be able to testify about potential dangers to people and the environment that radiation from the plant could cause, a flavor of the plant also could speak at the hearings.
Despite the efforts of Henricks' group, the Wolf Creek power plant probably will go into operation as planned. Henricks said. Members of the coalition would have to问 whether to continue battling against the plant.
The commission has never denied an operating license to a nuclear power plant that was already constructed, Henriks said. Sixty-seven nuclear reactor plants are operating in the United States.
"WE'RE NOT sure if it'll money the money and we need to continue the legal fight."
KANSAN Analysis
However, another opponent of the Wolf Creek plant, Bill Beems, Lawrence senior, was more confident that construction on the plant could be stopped.
"I think the chances of it being stopped are really good right now," he said.
Beemer was one of 10 Lawrence construction arrested on Jan. 14 near the Wolf Creek construction site for a home improvement project at the site. Beemer and the other members of the group, the Kanas Natural Guard, were charged with assault.
Two of those Lawrence students, Chris Meacham and Bill Brown, will stand trial March 12 in Coffee County.
Meichau and Brow expect to be acquitted of the charges. Beems said. Their defense will be based on a state statute that compels citizens to try to "any eminent harm" from coming to other citizens.
The Wolf Creek plant would be criminally harmful to Kansas, he said, and they have expert witn-
g the law.
However, the judge in Coffey County has not approved that testimony for the March 21 trial, so the question about its admissibility in court remains.
MEANWHILE, construction work on the Wolf Creek plant continues. The reactor has been delivered to the construction site and the 12 foot thick concrete base-mat has been poured.
"All of the tests we've done since the first one show that the concrete is good, in fact, above 65."
But later tests by an independent company showed that the base-mat was sound, Rives said. The results of those tests have been sent to the NSA to investigate the companies are awaiting a reply from the commission.
Early tests showed that some samples of concrete from the base-mat did not meet the regulatory commission's strength requirements, according to Robert Rives, a vice president at Kansas Gas and Electric of Wichita, which co-owns the Wolf Creek plant.
Henricks said the concrete tests were Wolf Creek's weakest point, and were the last hope to stop the licensing of the plant. The commission voted in favor of allowing bearings on Wolf Creek because of the original
concrete tests, even though Herrick's' coalition was unable to persuade the commission to re-peel the treaty.
BUT THE UTILITY companies, RG&E and Kansas City Power and Light Co., do not expect the battery
No hearings are scheduled at this time. Rives said. And no legal problems with Wolf Creek are reported.
He said Wolf Creek's 150-kilowatt capacity would be needed in the early 1980s, when Kansas could be facing an energy crunch caused by a natural gas shortage.
"It's an important project," he said. "It's an important alternate energy resource."
The utility companies will file an application; for an operating license with the commission in the fall, Rives says. Licensing hearings will be scheduled by the commission, probably for next year.
Opponents of the plant undoubtedly will speak against it at those hearings, but at this stage of the campaign the team is going to be clear. The plant is one-fourth complete, and it seems unlikely the owners will forsake the money they have been getting from them.
Kansans apparently are going to get their first nuclear reactor whether they like it or not.