OCR Text |
Show PACE 4 IE THUNDERBIRD MONDAY JANUARY 25, 1988 ALI. ARE RESPONSIBLE FOl THEIR OPINIONS Anyoi e can take a shot at authority. Various people choose various ays to take that shot, some ways being more acceptable than oth as. One SUSC administrator complained that the letter to the editor in the Jan. 19 issue from one Robert Lorin was a cheap shot. As much as some easy targets might wish, there are no I. vs against cheap shots per se, but the shooter should be will ng to sign his or her name and face whatever consequences might accrue. That's what the first amendment and letters to the editor are for. Unfortunately, Robert Lorin whose true name is Robert Lorin Keller and his associates sought to write a letter and avoid the responsibility. As an editorial staff, we are responsible for everything that is printed in The Thunderbird, but only to a certain extent. Many opinion pieces submitted, including that from Keller and friends, do not conform with our philosophy. When any opinion is submitted, a name must accompany it. Before printing the letter in question, we demanded a name in addiiion to the acronym S.A.D. Since the paper's representative was only marginally conversant with Keller not knowing his true last name Keller apparently saw this as an opportunity to take the dishonest cheap shot with impunity. To be sure, a measure of responsibility for this deception must lie with this newspaper, for too much trust was placed in the writer. This trust was at the expense of the target of the letter as well r - all of the readers of this newspaper. Trust is, of course, a two-w- , street and it is hoped that the trust in this newspaper will not nave been damaged by Keller's deception. We ha' e not often been faced with the problem of dishonesty from letter writers, but when a hoax or other matter of dishonesty has bee suspected, we have taken steps to confirm validity. Some controversial topics have been addressed through the "Opinion" section of the newspaper and have been presented in a mature, responsible manner. The Thunderbird has placed trust in 'hose wishing to speak out and has not resorted to checking three forms of I.D., frisking individuals or checking into personal records before printing opinions, it will be a shame if this nc'v becomes necessary. The Th nderbird respects the myriad opinions of the campus commun v and enccurages all to speak out But this newspaper cannot a d will not be used as a wall to anonymously hide behind v lile throwing stones at others. Keller ay have thought that this was the case and that he would n be required to own up to his opinions, thus sparing himself j y goat horns in the eyes of his target and perhaps, his target colleagues. We affirm in the strongest terms that this is not tru . View on senate spending was slanted NEWS AND VIEW'S OF SOUTHERN UTAH STATE COUECE CEDAR CITY I rAH VOLUME 82, NUMBER 15 Editor Dan iv Stewart Associate Lisa Jane Laird Copy Editor Mitch Connell Photo Editor Richard Engleman Sports Editor Tiffanie Florence Entertainment Editor Dawn DeBusk Senior Staff Writer Nicole Bonham Production Manager Gavin McNeil Advertising Manager Lynn S. Dennett Faculty Adviser Larry Baker The Thunder. ird is published each Monday of the academe year by and for the student body ot Sou- iern Utah State College and is not affiliated with the College's department of communic ation. The views and opinions expressed in The Thunderbird a re the opinions of the publication's individual writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the institution, tac ulty, staff or student body in general. The unsigned editorial directly above is the opinion of The Thunderbird as a single entity. Letters to the editor must be typed and include the name and phone number. Only the name will be printed. Names will not be withli- id under any circumstances and the editor reserves editing privileges Letters must be submitted by noon Friday for inclusion in the following week's edition. The Thunderbird- editorial and advertising offices in SUSC Library 103 Mail at SUSC Box 7758. 9384, Cedar City, UT 04720. Phone (801) to your report, was illegal for Moe to spend even the money 'earmarked' for travel let alone to transfer another $1,000 into a travel account. The senate committee assigned to investigate this matter was chaired by Charles Smith. It was his duty to discover the facts and report them to the senate as a body. Based upon his report, we, the senate, formally petitioned the ASSUSC President to return it In the Jan. 19, 1988 issue of The Thunderbird, you published an article on page 6 entitled, Senate spending." Moe's senator for business, communication, and feel compelled to technology, respond to the inaccuracies, both stated and implied, contained in your report. In the fourth paragraph it stated that $1,000 was placed in a "discretionary fund termed travel." What occurred was that the THE bTOOENf senate." Contrary TO THE EDITOR: As senate a imfornially 'earmarked' $1 ,000 for travel but never formally voted on it. This means the money was not available to President (Monica) Moe (or anyone else) without formal senate approval, vet it was taken anyway. A? student government officers, we take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the Associated Students of SUSC. Article 5, section 7:P of that constitution plainly states that "the senate alone shall have power to appropriate funds allocated tc the MORE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR the monies she unlawfully appropriated. She said no. The situation escalated until a special meeting with Vice President (Sterling) Church convened. At this meeting, Moe agreed to return $1,154. At the following senate meeting, Smith proposed that the senate pay $575 of the UIA expenses and put $500 into a travel account to cover upcoming convention expenses. The senate passed these proposals thinking $1,154 had already been returned to us. We were wrong. The money that was in our travel account, minus $154, had come from our own current expense DEALING WITH S.A.D felt cheated and misled. We, as a senate, voted to rescind the $575 and the $500. To date, the senate has spent, willingly or otherwise, over $1,150 towards UIA expenses. account. I to your article My objection that you biased your comments so sharply as to was Monica Moe as an of circumstance" who had done nothing "illegal" while casting Smith as an "extremely vocal am senator" and villain. outraged that the senate should be cast in such a poor light when we were seeking a solution to a difficult situation. We felt that Moe's violation of the ASSUSC constitution was not malicious, and, therefore, we did not pursue more severe courses ot action in response but anytime money is spent without approval, it is illegal. Journalistic integrity is a valuable commodity and should so not be compromised heedlessly. portray unfortunate MAY BE "victim Laryrn Jones FOUND ON PAGE 6. |