4 'The Daily Tar Heel Monday. February 3, 1986
0 ! L, -. 0)
in', J W
i nx n r ' 1 . r f r f r " , i
3 J ) : 7 t 'VS
1
no
iff'(dnv
OJQSLm WdDlf
Li&lLIL
ShMi Sim dmm fimdls
By RACHEL ORR
Staff Wrifer
Students may voice their opinions
concerning the University's investment
policy in South Africa by voting
Tuesday on a referendum that calls for
complete divestment of UNC funds
from companies conducting business in
South Africa.
The referendum, sponsored by the
UNC Anti-apartheid Support Group,
was added to the ballot after the group
submitted a petition with 2,346 student
signatures to the Elections Board, said
Bruce Lillie, Elections Board chairman.
UNC's endowment board has about
$6 million, 8 percent of its total
endowment, invested in companies with
business interests in South Africa, said
Dianne F. Crabill, administrative
assistant to the associate vice-chancellor
of finance. All the holdings are in
companies that abide by the Sullivan
principles, she said.
Student Body President Patricia
Wallace, an ex-officio member of the
Board of Trustees, said the policy not
to divest was a business decision.
Wallace said members of the Endow
ment Board felt it was their responsi
bility to make good business deals, not
political statements.
Last year, the University liquidated
26,000 shares in companies that were
not following the Sullivan principles in
South Africa.
The companies the University has
invested in do less than 12 percent of
their business in South Africa, and
divestment would cause endowment
funds to be more susceptible to market
fluctuations, Crabill said.
J. Clint Newton, chairman of the
BOT and the Endowment Board, said
some members of the Endowment
Board questioned whether the student
body as a whole favored divestment.
Newton said if the referendum
indicated an overwhelming student
mandate for divestiture, the Endow
ment Board might reconsider its deci
sion not to divest.
Ray Wallington, a member of the
UNC Anti-apartheid Support Group,
said the referendum was very important
because it represented the students'
voice on the issue of divestiture.
Wallington said, "Basically it's a
symbolic gesture."
Dale McKinley, a graduate student
in political science from Gweru, Zim
babwe, who worked to get the refer
endum on the ballot, said if the vote
showed strong student support for
divestment, it would help in trying to
get the University to change its policy.
"The South Africa question is amoral
issue for this University," McKinley
said. "It's not good for the Board of
Trustees to put profit first."
He said if the vote favored divestment
the support group would try to get
Chancellor Christopher C. Fordham III
to go before the BOT on the issue.
McKinley said members of the UNC
Ahti-apartheid Support Group planned
a rally at noon today in the Pit to
educate students about the situation in
South Africa and to encourage students
to vote on the referendum Tuesday.
Wallington said the group had also
posted flyers around campus and placed
cards on the tables in Lenoir Hall and
Chase Cafeteria.
ComircM' mem wkeHkeir
sMdem ff fees ho(wM g m llobbylimg
By RANDY FARMER
Staff Writer
Campus Governing Council members remain
divided over a referendum that would allow student
fees to be used for political lobbying. '
Last December, the CGC approved putting the
referendum on Tuesday's general elections ballot by
a 10 to 5 vote. If approved, student groups could
petition the CGC to allocate funds for lobbying on
issues that "directly affect students" at the local, state
and national levels.
The CGC would have to approve the expense by
a two-thirds majority.
The Student Constitution prohibits the allocation
of student funds for activities, services or events of
a political or religious nature. If passed, the referendum
would amend the constitution.
The bill is intended to give students a greater voice
on issues that directly affect them by giving them
lobbying power through student fees, said Student
Body President Patricia Wallace, one of the bill's
authors. The raising of the drinking age was an issue
she had in mind when writing the bill, she said.
Wallace said student governments at other univer
sities, such as N.C. State, had the right to lobby for
or against legislation vising student fees.
Charles Bryan, (Dist. 15) who voted against the bill,
said the money could be misused. Student funds could
be used to support political lobbying that did not affect
students, he said.
"Spending other people's money who do not feel
that way should not be done," Bryan said.". . .(Student
groups who wish to lobby) should use their own
money."
Todd Patton, (Dist. 17), voted for the referendum.
"I think there are adequate safeguards (against
misuse)," Patton said. He said there were issues outside
the campus that affected the students.
Jane Gordon, one of the bill's authors and
chairwoman of the executive branch's student affairs
committee, said it was unlikely that the amendment
could be misused.
"A two-thirds majority is quite a mandate," Gordon
said. "It is highly unlikely that some radical group
will have fees appropriated."
Lisa Jacobs (Dist. 8) voted against the bill. "I
personally feel that the CGC has no business trying
to represent student views on national issues," Jacobs
said. "I certainly wouldn't want most of CGC members
representing me on a national level.
"If I were upset about something like tuition hikes,
I wouldn't trust my CGC representative to represent
me," she said. "I would write my congressman."
Jay Goldring, (Dist. 7) who voted for the referendum,
said students should have the opportunity to lobby
collectively for issues. "If Student Government cant
decide, who can?" he said. "We need a lobbying
structure for students. I think Student Government
is appropriate."
Bill Peaslee, (Dist. 9), who voted against the
referendum, said: "Basically, what's going on is there
are some people that want Student Government to
act on international issues. Student Government should
concentrate on issues here on campus. It's a matter
of getting the best return on where you're spending
your time."
Wallace disagreed. "The Student Government is
looked to as the voice of the students," she said. "If
Student Government is held back from lobbying, then
who will do it for the students?"
The bill does not say the CGC will fund the College
Republicans or the Young Democrats, she said.
Peaslee said students could use other avenues to
lobby for or against legislation. He cited organizations
such as the N.C. Student Legislature, the Young
Democrats and the College Republicans.
"I think it's wasting the Student Government's time,"
he said. "It's opening a box that you dont know what's
in it."
mBM pIlaoD a tmM off W leWni-nsiaife
By DEMISE MOULTRIE
Staff Writer
Referendums concerning the renewal
of ARA's food service contract and the
mandatory meal plan will appear on
Tuesday's general elections ballot.
The mandatory meal plan referen
dum will be like one passed last
semester, in which students voiced
opposition to the meal plan. The other
referendum allows students to vote on
whether they want the University to
renew ARA's contract, which expires
in March.
"Most students feel that ARA is too
expensive for the quality of food they
get," said Jaye Sitton, chairwoman of
the Campus Governing Council Rules
and Judiciary Committee. "The only
student input conies through the Food
Services Advisory Committee. There
are very few students on that
committee."
Board of Trustees Chairman J. Clint
Newton disagreed, saying students had
excellent representation in Student
Body President Patricia Wallace.
"Patricia Wallace is a forceful,
articulate speaker," he said.
The CGC voted at its last meeting
to present the meal plan referendum on
each general elections ballot until 1990.
The referendum asks students whether
they support the $100 meal plan,
possible $25 increases in the plan and
the possibility that the plan could
develop into a full room and board plan.
Sitton said students would, through
referendum, ask the Board to reconsider
the mandatory meal plan. "I hope the
Board of Trustees will recognize that
students are dissatisfied with the
mandatory meal plan and ARA Food
Services," she said. "If they don't, I will
be disappointed."
The results of last semester's poll
which indicated students disfavor of the
meal plan were sent to the administra
te..'
4 W
tmmi mm $m QGtunB
Jt" -
r ,9
L . -' m. ,)iy;,;:'v:::;":"':r-:;,jfipw
. ' v. m. . : ,;i .
,:;':;.;X; . jjjfe C; fey & . ' 3. "W . It
r"- ..'. i
w 4 'J -y W i 4 -mi- . & . W leJ
WJM IXMB
CRABTREE VALLEY MALL, RALEIGH 782-0637 103 E. FRANKLIN ST., CHAPEL HILL 929 0343
tion, Sitton said. But the BOT did not
act on the referendum, saying the 10
percent of the student, body that voted
did not represent student opinion as a
whole. -
Newton said the BOT judged student
referenda based on the size of the vote
and the turnout. "We dont run the
Board of Trustees by referendum, but
we will use it as an indicator. We Ve
never turned down a student group that
makes its case." -
Sitton said last year's turnout was as
high as turnout in the national elections.
"Our biggest grievance is that there
has been very little student input," she
said.
"It would be great if the administra
tion would abolish the meal plan and
not raise it by $25 per semester if Chase
Hall doesn't generate enough money,"
she said.
By JOY THOMPSON
Staff Writer
A referendum on Tuesday's ballot
will allow students to voice their
opinion on whether the dormitory
enhancement fund should , be
removed from the University Hous
ing department and turned over to
the Student Activities Fund
Organization.
The enhancement fund was
started by students 14 years ago, so
they could furnish dorms with extra
items, Residence Hall Association
President Tim Cobb said in an
interview Thursday. In a 1972
referendum, they voluntarily added
$4 per year to their rent.
The Housing department has since
added a stipulation that if enhance
ment funds were not spent by a
certain deadline, the funds automat
ically revert back to Housing. The
enhancement fund has reverted back
to Housing untouched for the past
two years, Cobb said.
"The money isn't being spent, it
is reverting back to Housing, and I
just dont think that's right," Cobb
said. "It appears to me that the
department of University Housing
sees the $4 enhancement fee as a
surcharge on rent.
"It seems as if students have been
manipulated after their first inten
tions," he said. "They didnt envision
. . . (enhancement) as the system is
now."
Larry Hicks, business manager for
Housing, said the department was
not to blame for the delay in using
the fund. Two years ago, the state
froze all funds for purchasing,
making any enhancement expendi
tures impossible and creating a
backlog of enhancement needs.
The fund will be used this year,
he said, and housing is setting aside
major funds for enhancement and
building renovations, that would be
ongoing for years to come. But there
are many questions about the
enhancement policy that have to be
addressed, he said.
" The enhancement ' procedure has
been" complicated " by " what " Hicks
described as "a total lack of com
munication" between the housing
department and RHA.
Most of the confusion centers
around what is an enhancement item
to be purchased by the dorms and
what is a standard item to be
purchased by Housing, Hicks said.
According to the enhancement
policy, $2.50 of each student's $4 fee
goes to Housing for specific standard
purchases, such as social lounge
furniture, kitchen appliances, carpet
ing and televisions. Housing is
responsible for the upkeep of bas
ketball and volleyball courts, as well
as the maintenance and repair of
items purchased for enhancement.
The remaining $1.50 goes into a
general enhancement pool that is
overseen by the Enhancment Com
mittee. From that pool, any dorm
can petition funds for extra enchance
ment items such as microwave ovens
and videotape recorders. ,
The Enhancement Committee,
which includes RHA members, an
area director and a consultant from
business and operations, meets three
times a year to decide on requests
from dorms for enhancement items.
Hicks gave an example of how
confusing the policy could be.
Microwaves are considered enhance
ment items to be paid for through
the general dorm pooL But repairs
and replacements for these items are
considered Housing's responsibility.
"Should . . . (repairs) go through
a committee for a vote or should it
be done automatically . . . (by
Housing)?" he asked.
He said he understood students
frustrations with the policy.
"Students got together with a list
of priorities . . . (for enhancement),
and at some time it got bogged down
in committee," he said. Students
were not seeing the results of their
efforts.
"What we're doing is we're going
to address this need . . .," Hicks said.
"We're going to sit down and look
at each of the items, one by one."
Cobb agreed that there should be
a clearer distinction between
enhancement items and standard
items.
"(University Housing Director
Wayne Kuncl) ... set up standards
that he wanted to bring the dorms
up to, and I think that's fine,
fantastic," Cobb said, "but I dont
feel it is the student's responsibility
to help fund those standards with
the extra $2 per semester."
Hicks said the department was
wide open to the suggestion of
having enhancement turned over to
S AFO. But he said Housing officials
wanted to concentrate on clarifying
the policy first.
"The overall objective of the
department is to serve the students,"
Hicks said. "This is not a power
play."
. Even if students do vote to transfer
the enhancement fund , to S AFO,
Hicks said, the transfer would have
to be approved by the state.
The enhancement fee differs from
the more flexible social fee, in that
it is an integral part of the rent, Hicks
said, and it is therefore regulated by
state guidelines.
Regardless of where the enhance
ment fund is, the Housing depart
ment has to have some input as to
how the money is spent, Hicks said.'
He added that he thought Housing
was more qualified than students at
budgeting dorm enhancement
expenditures.
"One thing we should do is see
how . . . (the present enhancement
policy) works," he said. "It's never
been tested before. It's gone to the
point of committee, and then there
was the breakdown in communica
tion on both sides. It needs to be
ironed out."
ft ft Gel Si?
by suray ftHnF oMmra
n
and student attorney general all receive stipends.
Street said one reason for a stipend was to compensate
the speaker for the job's heavy workload. Another incentive
was to lessen the need for the speaker to hold another job,
as Closs did at Est, Est, Est. Street said an extra job took
time away from CGC business and made life hard for the
speaker.
Street said the new CGC vote on the amount of the annual
stipend during April's budget hearings, providing the majority
of students voted for the referendum Tuesday.
Charles Bryan (Dist. 15) voted against the stipend. "I
wanted to make it so no one on this past council who runs
again could get it," he said.
"More than likely, the people on the council now will
be eligible for it as speaker for next term. ... I felt like ,
maybe someone would aspire to be speaker for the money.
... I tried to get them to push up the date for enactment
of the stipend, and they wouldnt hear of it."
Hairr said Closs put a lot of time and work into the CGC
this past year and deserved some compensation.
The other referendum would delete a clause in the
constitution that says no more than 55 percent of Elections
Board members can belong to one campus party. The CGC
approved the referendum because campus parties no longer
exist, Street said.
"We used to have two political parties on campus," Street
said. "One was conservative. One was liberal. They were
abolished a long time ago.
"Personally I dont see any point in it," Street said.
"Students have about eight referenda to vote on. I doubt
they'll even care."
The CGC voted 7-3 with two abstentions at its last meetmg
to put the referendum to delete the clause on Tuesday's ballot.
She said the members werent concerned about reinstating
it if campus parties started again. .
Hairr said he didnt like the idea of the original clause,
which he said undermined the honor of the Elections Board.
"I really felt that whole phrase was an insult to the Elections
Board," Hairr said. "I dont think it was necessary to have
that clause in it in the first place. I think the possibility
of their party affiliations affecting the elections is minimal."
By LIZ SAYLOR
Staff Writer
Students will vote Tuesday on whether to change the name
of the Campus Governing Council, delete an obsolete clause
in the Student Constitution and give the CGC speaker an
annual stipend.
Former CGC Speaker Wyatt Closs brainstormed two of
the referendums, CGC Secretary Suzy Street said.
"The letters 'CGC dont seem to mean a lot to students,"
Street said. "It wasnt clear that CGC meant Campus
Governing Council. Wyatt thought 'Student Congress' was
clearer.
The CGC approved putting the referendum on the ballot
by consent last semester.
John Hairr (Dist. 22) said he favored the name change
because many students didnt know what CGC stood for.
"I'm tired of people asking, 'What's CGC, the Carolina Gay
Council?' " he said.
Lisa Jacobs (Dist. 8) said she didnt think the name change
would have much impact on student attitudes toward the
CGC. "Most people arent very interested in the governing
council," she said. "It has a pretty low profile. . . . Most
students are pretty apathetic about it."
Closs also authored the referendum for the speaker's
annual stipend, which the CGC approved 10-1 for Tuesday's
ballot. The student body president, student body treasurer
Remember family or friends
with Special Occasion, Get Well
or Memorial cards.
WERE FIGHTING FOR YOUR LIFE
American Heart Association vn