One of the roles of the media is to keep public officials accountable. In the article “Too many absences for two SA senators,” we did just that.

The Students’ Association bylaws clearly state, “more than three unexcused absences shall be grounds for removal.” Former Sens. Cole Breuer and Jared Ellefson exceeded that limit — Breuer with seven and Ellefson with four.

Those are the facts, and we chose to publish them for two reasons:

1. Attending Senate meetings and voting on the issues is one of the main responsibilities of a senator. SA has its unexcused absence policy for a reason. Breuer and Ellefson were not representing students when they missed those meetings.

2. Ellefson was one of the three candidates running for SA President. If a candidate has four unexcused absences, students should know.

Nothing in the article is incorrect. The letter to the editor in this week’s issue states, “the article itself blatantly calls Ellefson a liar.” We want to respond by saying simply and respectfully, “No, it doesn’t.”

Our reasons for running the article are stated above. We have nothing against Ellefson personally, and there was certainly no intent to attack him.

Our facts about Ellefson were not based on hunches, personal feelings or assumptions. They were based on attendance records and word-for-word accounts from the former SA president and vice president and Ellefson himself.

We understand that the article did not put Ellefson in a positive light. For that, we do sympathize with him, as well as with his close friends who are also upset. But in the end, we printed the truth and sometimes that hurts.

We stand by the article as it was published.

Stance: Journalists play an important role in keeping public officials accountable.

Editorial Board:

Emma DeJong, Editor-in-Chief

Hannah Baker, Managing Editor

Jamison Lamp, Opinion Editor

The editorial board meets and agrees on the issue of the editorial. The editorial represents the opinion of The Collegian.

Since 1921 students at SDSU have been organizing the largest student-run two-day agricultural exposition in the United States. We at The Collegian are proud such a great event is at our university.

The committee comprised of 135 college students puts the event together. The Animal Science Arena is staged with a majestic red barn and died green wood chips. The setting and tone of the arena is perfectly quaint. Props to maintaining a the barnyard feel.

Throughout the two-day event the students put together judging classes for high school students during its Friday morning sessions. This is an excellent recruitment tool for students.

With showmanship events including 150 students, involvement crosses many majors. This is an excellent way for our farm-loving students to share their love of animals with others.

There are a few things worth noting about the organization of this event. First off, the event has run seamlessly for many years. To host an event this successful for a number of years takes sound leadership and hard work. Other organizations should look to the organizers of this event for leadership of their organizations.

The group clearly identifies each person’s duties by naming them superintendent of their specific area, even down to the dance superintendent. Wouldn’t you love to say you were Dance Superintendent? Clear organization is key to the success of the event.

Another fun fact is this year Little “I” featured a llama as part of comedic portion of the event.

Stance: We support Little I and encourage groups to learn from the clean organization and leadership the students possess.

The election days are April 3 and 4, and we at The Collegian think there is one right choice: Jameson Berreth and Wyatt DeJong.

For one, they’ve got the experience.

Berreth has served on SA for two years now, this past year as the State and Local Chair. DeJong spent a year as the central region vice president for National Future Farmers of America, from October 2010 to October 2011.

When we were told these two students were teaming up to represent and lead our student body, we couldn’t have been happier. Not only are they the best choice on this ballot; they would be viable candidates on any ballot. And we don’t throw out praises carelessly.

This has nothing to do with the fact that they share a part of their names with members of the Editorial Board. For real. There is actually no relation.

The choice is simply obvious. In a conversation with either Berreth or DeJong, it takes only minutes to know they are natural leaders. They are friendly, charismatic and always genuinely interested.

But personable personalities do not equate to good leaders. We are confident that if elected, this pair will actually accomplish realistic tasks. We base this upon their history. Last fall, Berreth was a key student in getting the Legislature to discuss the Good Samaritan Alcohol Policy — even if it was voted down.

The two other pairs are Jared Ellefson and Libby Trammell, and Brady Duxbury and Josh Johnson.

Both pairs have admirable qualities, but they just don’t match up to Berreth and DeJong. They don’t have the amount of leadership experience, and their reach on campus is much smaller.

We are quite aware many students may not know what the Students’ Association is. (Read the inside section to find out.) But if you are on campus at all next week, you won’t miss the posters, flyers, sidewalk chalk and free candy bombarding you.

Don’t be that person whose vote is won by a Tootsie Pop. Vote for the qualified candidates: Berreth and DeJong.

Stance: Vote for Jameson Berreth and Wyatt DeJong.

Editorial Board:

Emma DeJong, Editor-in-Chief

Hannah Baker, Managing Editor

Jamison Lamp, Opinion Editor

The editorial board meets and agrees on the issue of the editorial. The editorial represents the opinion of The Collegian.

Our founding fathers set forth a government with clear stipulations for the President, Congress and the Supreme Court. What they didn’t outline was how transparent each branch of government must be. Not because they were big on secrets but because for them open government was just common sense.

Times have changed, the world has become more dangerous, and government has used that as an excuse to keep secrets from the people who pay its bills. It wasn’t until 1966 that the United States passed its Freedom of Information Act, which makes all records controlled by the federal government available to the public. There are nine exceptions pertaining to active police investigations, threats to national security and proprietary information among others.

Because of the FOIA every single American citizen has the right to request any document under federal control. It’s not just for journalists, it’s for everybody, for anything the federal government has on just about any topic.

The FOIA has led to every state in the union passing some form of a sunshine law. South Dakota’s sunshine laws are often rated as among the weakest. For example, a city council is required to make all of its decisions in a public meeting. State government documents are also available to the public unless they fall under one of 27 exceptions. You also have to pay for paper copies and the man-hours it took to find them.

The people who pay the government’s bills, every single tax payer, has an absolute right to know what their employees are doing. Be it the highest elected official or the lowliest civil servant. What these people do for a living impacts every American’s daily lives and they must be held accountable for their actions. That’s what open records laws are for.

The right to know what government is doing on our behalf is as fundamental as the right to free speech. Take a look at what your state, local and federal governments are doing it is your right to know. Even check out the Students’ Association on campus.

Stance: Take advantage of the opportunites you have to patrol goverment.

Just because USD is doing it doesn’t mean we should.

USD university officials approved a new alcohol policy for fall 2012 that will allow alcohol in the upperclassman housing of Coyote Village and MacFadden Hall. Of course, it initially seems like a great idea. Twenty-one is the legal age.

But let’s do it for the right reasons. Students who are 21 are legal adults and should be treated as such. We want to make it clear that we support a wet campus, and we are glad the Students’ Assocation agrees. But we do not support a poor defense for this resolution.

Here is the first whereas clause: “The freedom to consume alcohol is a major driver for students of legal drinking age to move off campus.”

It would be interesting to see some facts that back this up. But if it is just a matter of speculation, we will counter-speculate that the real driving force is price. It currently costs $2,100 per semester to live in the Meadows complex. That’s $525 per month, which only covers rent and utilities. We have to wonder how students who stay on campus could ever afford alcohol.

In the second whereas clause, it states living on campus is linked to successful graduation rates.

This may be true, but do we really want more students to stay on campus right now? For USD it makes sense because they are fighting to keep students on campus. SDSU is not in the same situation. We are squeezing students anywhere there is a space. There definitely doesn’t seem to be a need for recruitment to keep students on campus.

After discussing the matter for just 10 to 15 minutes, SA unanimously approved the resolution. We wish they would have discussed this longer and came up with some legitimate reasons for following in USD’s footsteps. And we wish they would have taken the time to consider potential consequences.

SA says they stand “ready to partner with the administration in working toward making this proposal a reality.” We don’t think they are ready for that quite yet — at least not without more thoughtful consideration.

Stance: The reasons why the Students’ Association unanimously supports alcohol on campus are not valid, and the issue deserves more thought.

Issue: SDSU switches to natural gas after years of coal power.

Switching from coal to natural gas is generally regarded as a good thing. It has been advocated as a replacement fuel for everything from cars to power plants. Natural gas is produced cheaply and easily in the United States, unlike oil. It produces far less carbon when burned than coal and doesn’t release nearly as many pollutants. It is important to note natural gas does produce carbon emissions when burned, just significantly less than coal.

Many states are reaping the economic benefits of natural gas production. Wyoming, for example, is booming, a new gas well is drilled, it seems, daily. People are making tremendous amounts of money working on wells. In many of these gas fields they can’t get enough workers, which bodes very well for unemployment rates. Other states are benefitting as well, New York and Pennsylvania are not the least among them.

This is great, especially during a recession. The more energy we can produce here the less we have to rely on the Middle East. Reducing our reliance on coal decreases our pollution output as well, making our air and water cleaner. Experts estimate there are at least 100 years worth of natural gas reserves in the U.S., which means natural gas could help keep the country powered for a century.

It’s amazing; we have a cheap, fairly clean and readily available fuel source that provides good jobs to a lot of people and environmental groups support it. That is a rare thing.

Except for one problem: fracking.

Fracking shoots a solution made of around 99 percent water and sand into a hole drilled thousands of feet into the planet’s crust. The other one percent is made of a chemical cocktail designed to help break apart rock that contains natural gas. Fracking is exempted from several EPA regulations as well. There are concerns over contaminating drinking water and there’s even claims that fracking could cause more earthquakes.

Natural gas drilling is also known to release very small amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide could ever be. Simply put, if the level of methane in the atmosphere rises, the world would probably get a lot warmer a lot quicker.

The truth is natural gas is cleaner to burn, but still has some problems. This is nothing new; every solution creates a new problem that leads to a new solution and a new problem, that is how progress works. If there are problems with natural gas they are far fewer and have far less impact than any other readily available fuel source.

Stance: SDSU’s switch to natural gas is a good thing.

When people are downtown at the bar and the lights come on after last call, many might wish they would’ve watched the clock more closely and called for a ride home. Luckily, the Safe Ride busses can be a saving grace for those who are either having a hard time standing or have had one or two drinks and don’t want to risk hurting themselves or anyone else by chancing the drive home.

Not every community has a bussing system available past midnight — let alone at 3 a.m. during the weekends. For students who find themselves stumbling from the bars without a ride home, Safe Ride is one number who won’t screen their calls.

The Safe Ride busses took close to 1,600 people home on Hobo Day last year — that’s 1,600 people off the road who could have otherwise been in or driving a vehicle and endangering the lives of others.

It takes a lot to put up with people after a certain hour, especially if you are sober and the other person is drunk. An obscene amount of patience is needed and, from what we’ve seen, the Safe Ride crew does it with class. They go out of their way to not only drive people home, but they also occasionally help riders to their front doors. This isn’t in their job description. They do it out of kindness.

For the bus drivers, student monitors and all those who make the Brookings Safe Ride busses possible, we say ‘Thank you.’

Stance: Passengers of the Safe Ride busses should give the drivers and monitors a solid high-five the next time they get a ride home.

Sometimes you just have to try things.

That’s what the Student Union Activity Council chose to do, and we fully support their actions. By implementing a month-long trial, two things were accomplished: student requests were heard and a rushed decision on a costly commitment was avoided.

It would have been easy to ignore the Students’ Association’s requests. Adding an extra two hours comes at a cost, considering staff time and utilities usage. But they didn’t. It would have been easy to assume students would stay an extra two hours, and the decision could have been made without a trial. But it wasn’t.

Midnight makes sense. For one, students need sleep. Of course closing The Union does not put them to bed, but it at least encourages healthy sleeping habits. Also, studying until 2 a.m. — which was the main purpose of the extended hours — should not be encouraged on a regular basis. An extension the week prior and during finals week is understandable, since cramming is a part of the college experience, but not every night.

A trial run was a smart idea. It provided the necessary information without a permanent commitment. And to be honest, the results did not surprise us. We, the Collegian staff, are frequently the last to leave the building on Tuesday nights. When we walk to the doors, there might be a person napping by the fireplace or nodding off in front of their laptop, but that’s about it. Rarely was there ever anyone in The Union past 12:30 a.m., which is close enough to the midnight closing time, so keeping it open until 2 a.m. was not feasible.

The Union is a building for the students. The university’s website calls it “SDSU’s living room.” The staff who run the building did an excellent job of keeping that the focus. They didn’t waste money, and they didn’t ignore students.

They did try something out and acted upon the results.

Stance: The Union staff handled the situation effectively and wisely. Closing time should remain at midnight.

Let’s keep the spirit alive — in every sense of the word.
We know it’s the big rivalry. We know it can be a thrill to do crazy, extreme things in college. We know it may even all be in good fun.
But no matter what defense you want to give, throwing a dead coyote — or jackrabbit — onto the basketball court is offensive and senseless.
For one, it shows absolutely no class. We’re Division I now. Scouts and alumni will watch this game. We want them to see we deserve to be here.
Let’s take a moment to ponder something no one should have to ponder. First, one must find the dead coyote. Or dead rabbit, depending. The “where” and the “how” are a bit of a mystery, and it’s probably better that way. Then, at some point the animal will likely end up in someone’s freezer. We at The Collegian are all about personal freedom, but no one should be OK with a dead animal — complete with fur and a tail — sitting next to their stack of Totino’s pizzas. Eventually, the carcass — maybe frozen, maybe thawed — must be smuggled into the game. Wikipedia says coyotes weigh between 15 and 46 pounds. Concealing a heavy, dead animal seems to be nothing more than pointless and disgusting.
More important than anything else, is the fact that the act shows no respect for the team. Head coach Scott Nagy said it well at a press conference Jan. 9.
“If you’re the home team and you’re throwing stuff on the floor, you’re just saying that you don’t care about your basketball team,” he said. “You just care about if you’re having some fun.”
So maybe all this should go without saying. Actually, it definitely should go without saying.
Please, make us be the ones who look foolish for even mentioning this juvenile practice.

Stance: Don’t throw dead animals on the floor.

Monday, Sept. 19, marked the biggest event in SDSU history. Bigger than the Division I move. Bigger than President Peggy Miller’s inauguration. Bigger than the riot of 1992.

It was the groundbreaking for the Innovation Campus at SDSU. The 125-acre park will be a 20-year process that could take up to $200 million. The Innovation Campus is great because it is a win-win situation for everyone but the worms in the dirt where the park will be built.

The campus will allow SDSU to increase its already strong research programs by creating opportunities to expand the research into the business world.

It will benefit SDSU because research efforts will skyrocket and allow more opportunities for scholarships. And new scholarship means even more research that can create new business possibilities.

The campus will benefit the city because new businesses or a new industry could come out of the park. The park will also create more jobs and will encourage more students to stay in Brookings, or the area, after graduation.

Some students may not care about a bunch of buildings, but they should. It’s their future. Thousand of jobs could come out of the center, and it will put SDSU on new maps in different ways.

The park may take years and millions of dollars to complete, but it’s worth it. It will offer students and the university opportunities that wouldn’t be possible elsewhere.

SDSU should be proud that it has the opportunity to host such a park, because nothing but good can come from the center.