OCR Text |
Show Weber State College Wednesday, May 17, 1989 Volume 49 Number 77 Senate acquires control of fees By Scott Summerill Editor in Chief The ASWSC Senate passed a proposal Monday to restructure the policy governing the Student Fees Allocation Committee (SFAC) and give the Senate greater responsibility and more control over student fees increases and the process by which the funds are divvied up. The proposal, sponsored by Education Senator Randy Lewis, allows the Senate to set a ceiling on student fees based on preliminary budget reviews of each area receiving funds. The current policy starts with a zero budget and reaches a total based on the financial needs and budget proposals of campus organizations receiving support from student fees. The change would give the SFAC a set amount of money to start with. From there they would have to subtract each organization's allocations from the budget, much like a personal checking account. The budget of each area receiving student fees will be based on the previous year's allocation, and adjustments will be based on general inflation, discontinuation of temporary fee increases, special projects and salary increases necessary to mirror college policy. According to the proposal, committee members will be required to submit a preliminary review of their assigned areas to the Senate to "ascertain any special projects or extraordinary expenditures which may lead to an overall increase or decrease in total fees other than those for general inflation." The changes in the SFAC policy are aimed, according to Lewis, at allowing the (see SENATE on page 5) l ,1 - . ! I- r r . : J - 4 s A I fit . At BUT I CAN'T FIND THE TARGET. Greek Week bathtub races were a sight to behold. Pictured here is TKE tub driver Skippy Farthing and his fraternity brothers Danny Wong and Ralph Garcia. Later in the race the TKE tub became disassembled after a miner collision with a parking curb. Men's - 1st place: EAE; 2nd place: H"X; 3rd place: B0FI; 4th place: TKE. Women's -- 1st place: La Dianaeda; 2nd place: Otyokwa. (The Signpost photo: Clark Hurd) Best Panamanian policy: sit, wait A military strike against Panamanian strongman Manuel Antonio Noriega is one of the worst things the U.S. could do, said a Weber State College political scientist. The United States should use the military to protect Americans in Panama, but beyond that, this country should focus its efforts on continued economic sanctions and wait to see what the Panamanian people will do, said Dr. Nancy Haanstad, an assistant professor of political science at Weber State. "Any military intervention on our part would invoke widespread nationalism, and even those who are disgusted with Noriega would step in and defend him because he is a Panamanian," Dr. Haanstad said. Inside The Signpost Sign Off Take 1 Reviews schools at Weber State College (see Section B) News ROTC enrollment increasing page 2 Opinion What about U.S. troops in Panama? page 4 Entertainment Advice on kissing page 7 Sports Turner chosen Big Sky athlete of the week page 11 The United States will probably not "blunder in with a military assault ala Grenada," she said. The resulting wave of national pride such an invasion would invoke could easily turn the anger of the people away from their leaders and towards the United States. "We want to promote stability and democracy in Central America, but you can't come in with bayonets and force democracy. The best thing is to sit and wait and leave it to the Panamanian people to take the next step," she said. The Philippines experienced similar domestic upheaval during the waning days of former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. The United States exerted political and economic pressures, and engaged in behind-the-scenes negotiations, but the people were the ones who eventually forced Marcos out of power after that leader voided a Philippine election, Dr. Haanstad noted. Noriega recently nullified election results in Panama. "The way to get rid of a dictator is to follow the people's lead. The day is gone when you could jump into a country with both feet and not experience a huge backlash. I think the Bush administration understands that," she said. Still, Noriega could attack U.S. military personnel, or move against the base located in that country. In that case America would probably strike quickly in order to protect its citizens, she said. "But I would be surprised if we tried a unilateral invasion," she said. The Bush administration is pushing for a unified effort from Central American countries against Noriega, and although most neighboring nations have condemned Noriega for nullifying the election, they will probably go no further, Dr. Haanstad said. "We cannot intervene unilaterally in these countries as we have so often in the past. We need to take any military action with other nations, but I don't think that will happen. Leaders of these other countries will think, 'It's Noriega now, me later,'" she said. The fact that Noriega was indicted in Florida in February, 1988 on drug-running charges, and that the U.S. has signed a treaty to give the canal to Panama by the end of the century "puts an interesting twist" on the situation, she said. "But for a whole array of reasons it's best for America not to come in and involve itself in the domestic affairs of that country," she said. The U.S. has recalled its ambassador, sent troops and military equipment, is continuing economic sanctions, moved out government employees and their families, is enforcing treaty rights under the Panama canal treaty, and is pursuing regional diplomacy through the Organization of American S tates, and that, Dr. Haanstad said, is just about all the U.S. can do. "Noriega does rile your blood though, and Americans take him very personally. Americans are not like Europeans. Noriega is an affront to us. Our focus is galvanized and we want immediate action. The Europeans are more clinical and detached. They know that sooner or later this guy will dig his own grave," she said |