SDSU faculty members narrowly rejected any change to the Academic Senate constitution April 30.

110 faculty members, or roughly one out of five SDSU faculty members, voted to reject the three proposed amendments.

“I was expecting the good guys to win, and they didn’t,” said Del Lonowski, a political science professor, who spoke in support of the amendments at an informational meeting April 25.

The amendments would have changed the makeup, executive committee and voting process of the senate. In an article in the April 26 The Collegian, Senator Laura Wight, a library science professor, said the driving force behind the change was that some faculty members feel their voices are not being adequately heard on campus. Despite the rejection of the amendments, outgoing senate chairman Joel Hefling, a communications studies and theatre professor, said many lessons were learned.

“There needs to be an opportunity for faculty to get together in an informal setting and talk about matters that are concerning them,” he said.

A fairly large group had input on the amendments, Wight said. The amendments, endorsed by the SDSU chapter of the American Association of University Professors, were then submitted to the senate in early April.

The senate then called for an all-faculty vote on the amendments, as required by the body’s constitution.

Meanwhile, an explanation of the reasons for the changes was e-mailed to some faculty members. The e-mail made some pointed accusations against the university administration and the senate’s executive committee.

Several weeks later, the five-member executive committee replied, sending a point-by-point rebuttal e-mail to all faculty members.

On April 25, the Academic Senate overwhelmingly voted its disapproval of the amendments. Some senators called for the vote after they said some in the university community wondered if it was the Academic Senate itself that was calling for the changes.

An information meeting about the amendments was held on April 26, with approximately 20 faculty members in attendance, said Lonowski.

Eric Hanson, a student senator on the Academic Senate, said only a few faculty members at the informational meeting were undecided when they walked in the room.

“The people we talked to, there were about four or five who were undecided but who decided by the end of the meeting,” he said. “There was a real good chance for discussion to occur for both sides where there hadn’t been a chance for that before.”

Lonowski said the issue probably won’t go away, but will get another look by the SDSU chapter of the AAUP, of which he’s a member.

“The next step comes out of AAUP and what they want to do about it,” he said. “That formal decision hasn’t been made yet.”

AAUP’s primary goals include promoting academic freedom and giving faculty a stronger voice in university decisions.

For his part, Hefling said he is encouraged by the passion of faculty members who are working to make their voices heard. He wasn’t surprised to hear there might be action in the future.

“That doesn’t surprise me that the issue may be pursued,” he said. “I would hope that if it is pursued it would be done in a more effective manner.”

#1.883427:1868652952.jpg:hanson,eric.jpg:Eric Hanson, Academic Senate student senator:

In disgust, I quit The Collegian in the spring of 2005. I felt like it was a waste of time, that nobody besides a few students who worked there even cared if it actually printed.

But I couldn’t walk away like I had thought I could. I started to wonder what it would take to make the newspaper healthy again. The ideas I wrote down then have guided me to this day.

None were that surprising. We needed a clear call for change from an outside voice. We needed a network of support among administrators, the journalism department, alumni and student government. We needed an adviser who would be an advocate for student-journalists. Our newspaper needed to look better in the newspaper racks. We needed to get on a firm financial footing.

Looking at these goals, I realized that making a better paper wasn’t about fighting The Man; it was about building a university-wide team of those who wanted to make things better.

And, piece by piece, it came together. Heather Mangan joined me in the effort. A consultant showed up, and left us with a blueprint for change. The administration and student senators worked together to fund an adviser. Sherry Fuller Bordewyk, a perfect fit, stepped into the role. She worked tirelessly to bring order to our struggling business side.

The senior staff this year had seen tough times, but, along with a clutch of newbies, fought tirelessly for what we knew we could be. Together, we took on the tough topics, the hard fights. Our sports staff pounded out a solid year of complete Jackrabbits athletics coverage.

We won a court battle for open government, multiple journalism awards and the enmity of those who accused us, sometimes simultaneously, of being conservatives, liberals and teacher-haters.

But more importantly, we became a real newspaper. To be read for what was inside, not just for the comedy of our mistakes.

It’s all for you, the readers. Don’t get me wrong. We’re fiercely proud of what we do. But in the end, our job is to entertain you, to inform you, and to fight for you.

And we’ve only just begun.

#1.883416:3143133367.jpg:Fugleberg, Jeremy(buckstop).jpg:Jeremy Fugleberg, Final Comments:

There’s no doubt that global warming exists, even though the science is still a bit fuzzy about its cause or what it will do to our world. But doubts still remain about how global warming will affect our future, and what we should all do about it in the meantime.

Some say it doesn’t exist, or it’s not really that bad, or that the Earth will take care of itself. On the other side, some would say that global warming (note: sensational words ahead) is a horrible impending catastrophe that will destroy our world and if we don’t put together a massive effort now, the Earth will turn into a lifeless orb.

Our public discussion on this topic shouldn’t be political, but sadly, it is. Al Gore is a prophet of doom, and George Bush finally decided that maybe, just maybe, global warming might be a little bit of an issue. Not that he knows what to do about it, besides get busy cooking switch grass.

With all due respect to Al “I won an Oscar!” Gore, fear should not drive our global warming antidote policies. We should want to use more efficient lightbulbs because it makes good business sense, because it’s the right thing to do. We should want to drive hybrid cars because it’s foolish to waste money. It just makes sense.

Our greed and consumption is what is driving our reluctance to change. We’re comfortable.

That being said, the pendulum has clearly swung the other way. It hasn’t been that long since everyone wanted an SUV. No longer. Hybrids aren’t boring vehicles for hemp-wearing tree-huggers anymore. Slowly but surely, American businesses are learning that green practices make good business sense.

And that’s where the solution is. It’s not forcing change and fear down the throats of those who won’t be convinced by anything else.

What we should do as a country is encourage knowledge, not fear. Get to know that which threatens us. Popularize a way of life not based on consumption. Give incentives to citizens and businesses who don’t make changes only because change is expensive. A helping hand, not a fearful push, is what’s needed.

#1.883416:3143133367.jpg:Fugleberg, Jeremy(buckstop).jpg:Jeremy Fugleberg, Final Comments:

The Academic Senate voiced an overwhelming “no” against proposed amendments to its own constitution April 24.

The move comes less than a week before an all-faculty vote April 30 to decide if the changes, independently brought forward by some faculty members, will be adopted.

The three amendments would change the how the body is elected, alter the senate leadership’s structure, and give seats only to faculty members.

The roll call vote was taken after some senators expressed concern that some in the university community were confused over the senate’s position on the proposed changes.

Supporters of the amendments say the changes are meant to transform the Academic Senate into a faculty senate, providing faculty members with a forum and a unified voice.

“This is a first step towards being less of a rubber stamp and more of an organization that is driven by faculty issues,” said Laura Wight, a senator and library science professor. Wight said she is still uncertain about how she’ll vote on the amendments, but thinks the Academic Senate could be better-run.

She said a primary concern of supporters is the desire to speak freely without administrators or department heads sitting at the table as voting members.

“The problem becomes, if that was your dean who was the administrator, how comfortable would you feel voicing your opinion in front of that group,” she said.

Joel Hefling, president of the senate and a communications studies and theatre professor, said some professors won’t stop seeing boogeymen that don’t exist.

“If they really believe that someone is watching their every move, then someone is going to keep watching their every move,” he said. “Paranoia knows no bounds.”

Mike Reger, executive vice president, said it doesn’t make sense to him that professors would fear for their jobs, especially with the safeguards of the university system.

“I find it hard to believe that someone would be afraid to lose their job because of something that they said in Academic Senate,” he said.

Students don’t want to lose their spots on the Academic Senate, said Students’ Association President Alex Brown, who serves as an academic senator. But students also have no problem with faculty who want a louder voice on campus.

“We fully recognize the importance that faculty are being heard and their concerns are being listened to,” he said. “Personally, I just don’t feel that this is the way to go about it.”

Brown, along with other senators, has voiced support for a faculty senate that would co-exist with the Academic Senate already in place. But Wight doubts that would work.

“The problem then becomes, is it officially recognized by the university? What is its role?” she said.

An explanation of the amendments was e-mailed to some faculty before the senate saw the amendments. The explanation was endorsed by the SDSU chapter of the American Association of University Professors. The group’s primary goals include promoting academic freedom and giving faculty more voice in university decision.

“They’re not talking about us taking over the university, but they see that we should have a major role in determining the standards of this university and deciding who can graduate from the university,” said political science professor Del Lonowski, member of the group and signer of the petition that brought the changes forward.

Hefling and the four other members of the Academic Senate Executive Committee fired back a point-by-point dismissal of the amendment explanation.

Wight said she didn’t like that the executive committee’s e-mail was sent to all faculty members, and she didn’t like its tone.

“My perspective is that they’re taking this personally, and that’s not how it’s intended at all,” she said. “The main drive behind it is to take that first step towards a faculty senate. It’s not personal, it’s not intended to attack anyone specifically,” she said.

Hefling said the explanation had inaccuracies, attacked the executive committee and was often just plain wrong.

“We do have a problem with them going about making those accusations, inaccurately, indirectly and in such a way that we didn’t know what was going on,” he said.

Wight said that the amendments were a group effort and not the work of any one person.

“There’s not one author for the amendments. A lot of people had input into the wording,” she said. “It’s hard for me, because I don’t always agree with (fellow senator and political science professor) Gary Aguiar. But people have been trying to pin him as author of the amendment, and that’s just not the case.”

Hefling said if some faculty members want a forum that won’t expose them to criticism of spoken opinions, the proposed amendments aren’t the way forward.

“It’s unfortunate that those who would want a different venue would think that this will give them that, and that’s not the case,” he said.

An informational meeting about the amendments was held April 25. The all-faculty vote is set for April 30 from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the Volstorff Ballroom West in The Union.

#1.883386:1276033242.jpg:Brown,Alex.jpg:Alex Brown, Students’ Association President:

I heard somebody shot a bunch of people at Virginia Tech, and what I immediately felt wasn’t sadness for the victims. Instead, I began expecting gun control to become a full-blown campaign issue. One rogue gunman, probably wielding legal handguns, killed a bunch of people. It was a shameful waste of human potential, a tragic destruction of students whose only crime was showing up for a German class.

While the media circus continues, the discussion will invariably swing to who should be blamed. The finger will point to the university administration, maybe the police. It will then turn to the killer’s writings, his musical or movie choices. And then it will turn to his guns.

Boom.

The NRA and its ilk will scream that the person is responsible – not the weapons or their availability. The other side will demand protection from crazies and their guns. Neither side understands each other.

Gun-lovers need to understand the difference between a hunter and a hit man. And gun-haters need to realize that in much of this country, hunting is a tradition – a way of life, even – and a realistic conservation tool.

This is my problem with federal gun laws. In some ways, it makes sense to have requirements for standards and gun dealers. At the same time, I understand that some interstate regions need comprehensive solutions to gun violence.

Let’s keep federal hands off anything but basic gun-control legislation, usually done as a feel-good, “hate-the-big-assault-weapon” piece of legislation. Other than that, leave it to the states.

#1.883416:3143133367.jpg:Fugleberg, Jeremy(buckstop).jpg:Jeremy Fugleberg, Final Comments:

Students and administrators may lose their seats on the Academic Senate if proposed amendments to the group’s constitution are approved by the faculty.

An all-faculty meeting is scheduled to vote on the proposed changes, which were penned by an anonymous writer.

The proposed amendments were submitted earlier this semester with a petition that required the Academic Senate call for the vote, set for April 30 from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the Volstorff Ballroom West in The Union.

“The framer of these amendments has not publicly referred to him or herself,” said Joel Hefling, chairman of the senate and a communications studies and theatre professor.

The amendments also make changes to the senate voting process and alter the makeup of the executive committee that leads the group.

“There are some articles in the amendments that seem to intend to fix things that are not broken,” said Hefling. “There are likely some proposals in the amendments that are going to be unworkable.”

Gary Aguiar, a political science professor and an academic senator, has explained and spoken in support of the amendments at senate meetings, but could not be reached for comment.

The senate’s executive committee is comprised of Hefling and four other faculty members. The amendments and an anonymous explanation circulated to some faculty members drove the committee to fire back with an April 13 e-mail to the entire faculty.

In the e-mail, obtained by The Collegian, the committee agrees that some of the suggestions might be worthwhile. But it strongly objects to parts of the amendment explanation that railed against the “conflict and turmoil” caused by the committee’s “exclusion of minority voices.” The committee also strongly objects to kicking students or administrators out of the senate.

“We are adamantly opposed to this amendment. We think that that would be a bad mistake,” said Hefling. “The Academic Senate, and faculty at large and the (Students’ Association) have all benefited from having those members on the senate. It has opened lines of communications that are very valuable.”

Asked about the motivations behind the amendments, Hefling said he would assume it’s from faculty members who don’t trust the executive committee or the administration.

“They feel that that administration does not always act in the best interest of the faculty. And it appears that some of that dissatisfaction is behind these amendments,” he said.

The senate constitution requires that all-faculty meetings occur between Oct. 1 and May 1, so the executive committee scrambledto put together a time and facility that will let faculty members vote on the proposed changes.

An informational meeting is set for Wednesday, April 25, at 3:30 pm in the Lewis and Clark room of The Union. At the meeting, both supporters and detractors of the amendments will get a chance to speak. Also, a question-and-answer time is scheduled.

Hefling said he is guessing those against the amendments will include academic senators and members of the executive committee.

So who will speak in favor of the amendments? Hefling isn’t sure.

“One of the struggles the executive committee is having right now is that the framers of the proposed amendments have not claimed authorship,” he said. “It helps to know who you’re talking to.”

#1.883515:1228948472.jpg:academicsenate.jn.jpg:Acadmic Senate Chair Joel Hefling motions for a senator to speak during an Academic Senate meeting April 10.:

Presidents have the right to fire their U.S. attorneys. Nobody’s contesting that.

Clinton fired all of his attorneys too, it’s true. But while that may seem like a simple change of the guard, think back a bit.

Turns out Clinton also wanted to can a few of his attorneys for not marching to the party tune. It was just easier to make it look like a full-bore changeover than a partisan assassination.

Now the good folks in Bush Administration did the same thing – except they were dumb enough to think nobody would be bothered by noise of the firing squad. Oops.

And if you notice, it’s not just the Dems or “their” media upset at this whole situation. You’ve got top-of-the-party Republicans scared silly they’ll go to bat for a Bush White House snow-job only to get dragged into a scandal they would rather avoid.

The bigger problem here is heavy-handed moves by the executive – Republican or Democrat. I suppose you could say Clinton was just better at being bad.

And don’t give me this nonsense about underperformance. Doing your job without regard for political ramifications is acting with integrity, not underperforming.

The bottom line: Just because a president has the right to fire a US attorney doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

Bush and Gonzalez did wrong. They should hold themselves accountable.

#1.883416:3143133367.jpg:Fugleberg, Jeremy(buckstop).jpg:Jeremy Fugleberg, Final Comments:

If campus parking has hit you in the wallet, Brenda Schweitzer feels your pain.

“I have a son I’ve helped with $400 in parking fees. I understand,” she said.

Schweitzer, the director of the Brookings Area Transit Authority, is a member of a task force looking at the future of transportation on campus and around Brookings.

The next step for the group is an online survey and public forums – one just for students on March 28, and another for anyone interested on March 29. The survey is on MyStateOnline through the end of March.

“It’s an exciting, new possibility for students to explore,” said Ryan Brunner, executive director of the South Dakota Student Federation and a student member of the task force. He said the study will be an important initial tool to take a look at new transportation options – to possibly be phased in over time.

“If we want to start a transit program or park-and-ride, we can choose that,” he said.

Dave Ripplinger, a researcher at the Small Urban Rural Transit Center, is in charge of the $10,000 overall study, paid for by local groups and the state with SURTC covering additional costs.

“Brookings is a great case study, because you guys have a nice downtown, a large campus and a residential campus,” he said.

SURTC is based at North Dakota State University in Fargo, ND. Ripplinger says NDSU has a bus system that circulates across campus. In addition, several city bus routes pass through the university grounds.

Ripplinger said the bus system is a boon for students, and is especially crowded in the winter.

“It’s so nice walking outside of your apartment, getting on the bus, getting off the bus, within walking distance of where you live,” he said.

Tim Reed, a member of the Brooking City Council, said everything is on the table when it comes to funding help from the city. The city plans to do its own transit study, to be completed in July, shortly after the SURTC study is finished in June.

Brookings already pitches in $80,000 toward BATA and the in-town taxi service each year. But Reed said the city wants to get a better handle on how it can provide for all those who want or need to ride public transportation.

“With the growth in students, they’ve been pushed further and further away from campus, so I think it’s important,” he said. “Brookings isn’t the most congested city in the world, but it doesn’t hurt to take cars off the road.”

Possible options include fixed-route cross-town busses meant to shuttle in those who would otherwise drive across town. Another option is an on-campus circulator system, with busses that would circle campus, stopping at parking lots – call it a park-and-ride option.

“Another thought is a circuit vehicle from the “Blues” (apartment buildings),” said Schweitzer.

Brunner said a “Blues” bus might be a good first start. He said often those who live in those apartment walk or ride bicycles to campus, but drive when it’s cold. That quickly fills up campus parking.

“All those people would probably be willing to ride a bus,” he said.

The work isn’t done when the study is finished. There will be a need to be a look at what the resources are and if more are needed, said Reed. Even after that, it might be some time before a comprehensive plan is put into action. But Schweitzer said there’s been great cooperation between all the groups involved so far.

“Everybody understands and is ready to get on board with addressing transportation needs,” she said. “I think they’re ready. They’ve got open minds.”

The transit survey is available online at MyStateOnline through the end of March. The forum for students is set for March 28. The forum for faculty, staff and anyone else interested is set for March 29. Both forums will take place in the Lewis and Clark room of The Union at 7 p.m.

#1.883637:3687456932.jpg:batabus.bd.jpg:Brookings Area Transit Authority busses such as this may soon be making the rounds on campus.:Brandon DeVries

It was a busy final meeting for the Students’ Association Senate on March 19. The final ticks of the clock meant a final vote on a draft of the body’s bylaws, which passed unanimously.

“The last time the bylaws changed was four years ago,” said outgoing President Alex Halbach in an interview Feb. 27. “I think this is a reflection of what changes proved necessary over the last couple of years, and now we’re just getting them down on paper.”

The many bylaw revisions were months in the making, with many senators spending hours looking at various changes and drafts. Even after the senate began to review the changes, it took several of their weekly meetings to work through the range of changes considered.

Minutes later, incoming president Alex Brown, incoming vice president Chris Schaefer and the new senators were sworn in and immediately got down to business.

“We are expecting a busy year,” said Brown. “I have high hopes for this senate. We want to see a lot of progress not only on our half, but on your half as well.”

The senate approved Brown and Schaefer’s all-male picks for an executive board and chose which senators would represent each college on the board of directors.

Senate Bylaw Changes

The Senate:

? Raised the minimum grade point average for a senate president candidate from 2.0 to 2.5

? Decided not to review the bylaws of organizations as a body, but refer them to the organization subcommittee

? Gave the board of directors the right to appoint replacement senators, who must be approved by the Senate by a two-thirds vote

? Allowed the president or vice-president to serve as an ex-officio member of the Union Activity Finance and Budget Committee (UAFBC)

? Allowed UPC leadership to serve out their terms, even if chosen as SA president, vice president or as a member of the executive board

? Required that media managers — The Collegian editor-in-chief, The Collegian managing editor and KSDJ manager – resign their positions if they choose to run for senate president, vice president or a spot on the executive board

? No senator can jointly serve as a media manager

? Declared that finance committee meetings be open to the public

? Integrated current finance committee practices into the bylaws

In other business:? Student Affairs Vice President Marysz Rames was awarded the Jackrabbit of the Year for her service to students. “Thanks for keeping me grounded,” she said.

? For the annual pub crawl on March 24, a Safe Ride bus will run both routes between 4 p.m. to 10 p.m., and the normal two-bus service will take over at that time.

? There’s still time to apply to be an at-large senator, representing the entire student body. Applications will close on March 23 at 5 p.m.

#1.883639:1432047337.jpg:gavelpassing.bd.jpg:Outgoing SA President Alex Halbach hands the gavel to incoming president Alex Brown while incoming vice president Chris Schaefer looks on. The new senate was sworn in at the March 19 meeting.:Brandon DeVries

Spring Break arrived early for SDSU students, thanks to a blizzard a state official says could be the worst to hit the state in 10 years.

Effective 11 a.m. Thursday, all classes for Thursday and Friday were canceled, said SDSU officials in an email announcement. Dining services, residence halls and campus offices will remain open, according to the announcement. The basketball game at 7 p.m. tonight in Frost Arena is still on, as well.

Many businesses, most school districts and nearly all the public universities in Eastern South Dakota have already closed due to the weather.

The cancellation decision comes after the school was closed late Wednesday, but re-opened for classes again this morning, despite continued blizzard conditions.

On Wednesday, university officials closed the school at 5 p.m. Email and online announcements told students to find out after 5 a.m. Thursday morning if classes would be held. While online announcements listed the school as open, officials reversed that decision and canceled classes for the remainder of the week.

State Public Safety Director Tom Dravland said the blizzard could be the most significant winter storm to hit the state in 10 years. But he said the state’s schools can make their own decisions on how to handle the situation.

The National Weather Service posted a blizzard warning for the far eastern portion of South Dakota Thursday and over more of the east and especially the northeast for Thursday night and Friday.

The state’s Emergency Operations Center in Pierre opened Thursday morning to help direct state efforts. On Wednesday, Gov. Mike Rounds met with officials to plan the state’s response to the gathering snowstorm.

Dravland said he’s concerned about the number of people who could be on the highways for youth activities this weekend.

Already, the state high school debate tournament has been postponed from Friday and Saturday to Monday and Tuesday in Yankton.

Numerous schools in the eastern part of the state called off classes early Thursday before the storm hit.

Dravland said people trying to travel toward eastern South Dakota should reconsider their plans and those in the east should simply stay home.

Most of the storm should be gone by Saturday, he said.

Wire services contributed to this report.