The Students’ Association voted to survey students about a campus wide smoking ban, rather than put the issue to a student vote.

Getting the needed two-thirds majority exactly, SA voted to rescind the Nov. 29 resolution in order to specify that the poll’s results will not be a deciding factor.

“The new resolution isn’t going to change policy in any way,” said Sen. Shad Christman, who co-sponsored the resolution. “It’s just intended to gauge student opinion.”

While introducing the new resolution at the Jan. 31 meeting, Christman called the original, rescinded resolution “controversial,” “biased,” “a firestorm” and “not what the students wanted.”

The rescinded resolution, which was passed Nov. 29, said SA would “sponsor a campus-wide student/ employee vote to approve a smoke-free campus.” On Jan. 31, Senators Christman and Kate Wegehaupt sponsored Resolution 10-20-R, which changed the title from “Smoke-free campus vote” to “Smoking policy student survey,” and it underwent multiple clarifications and amendments.

“We spent about 45 minutes slicing and dicing the new resolution,” Sen. Mark York said.

SA chose to put the survey on the presidential election ballots on March 21, which was a decision proposed by York.

(Former Sen.) Hassan Ali, who was one of the sponsors of the first resolution, saw the smoking and tobacco issue as something that could potentially get students interested in SA and interested in who to elect as leaders.

“[Ali] thought it would be a really neat way to get people out to the polls at elections by putting the smoking issue on the ballot,” York said.

Christman and SA President Brett Monson said the increase in voter turnout was not the main purpose.

“That may have been part of it,” Monson said. “I couldn’t say that would be the sole reason.”

Whether or not an increase in voter numbers was an original goal, Monson and Christman said an increase in turnout would be a positive effect, considering last year close to 2,000 students voted.

“That would be a nice bonus,” Monson said. “[But] ideally, we could have voter turnout regardless of the smoking thing.”

Some senators said they did not think having the survey on the ballot was appropriate.

“It’s one of those things that they might not see what else [a candidate] is campaigning on,” Sen. Marissa Granstra said. “So there could be a different issue that they kind of [overlooked].”

SA also discussed what the survey would say.

Students will be asked two questions: “Where do you currently live?” and, “Which of the following would you like to see implemented at SDSU?” Both of these will be multiple-choice questions.

Senators said this will give students more options when considering the issue.

The first resolution] only gave them one option: do you want to ban smoking, or do you not?” Christman said.

York agreed.

“The new one says exactly what it is we are going to do,” York said. “It gives more options, rather than just saying “do you want smoke-free, yes or no.’”

Currently, there are no official plans of what is going to be done with the information gathered from the results.

“It’s going to have a disclaimer that says these questions are for informational purposes only,” York said.

If the results of the survey show a large majority of students feel strongly about the issue on one side or the other, Christman said SA will likely act accordingly to those results.

“Our No. 1 goal is to enact the will of the students,” Christman said. “We want to do what the students want.”

Christman said there is a clause in the resolution to “look at the results and act appropriately.”"It would be my goal that things should get done,” Christman said.

President David Chicoine said the information gathered will be helpful for when decisions are made in the future.

“The results will give us an indication of the preferences of the current students,” Chicoine said. “It’s good to get the input, and that will help us understand what we are to do.”

SDSU is not the only institute looking at banning smoking and tobacco use.

“Really the public institutions are about the only ones that do not have completely smoke-free policies,” said Paul Turman, BOR associate vice president for academic a_ airs. “All technical schools and all private schools in South Dakota [have smoke-free policies].”

A Postsecondary Tobacco-Free Taskforce was created “to explore institutional willingness to embrace tobacco-free policies,” according to the Committee on Academic and Student A_ airs’ report from the December BOR meeting.

“I think the goal is to help provide information for campuses if they are considering this,” said Turman, who directs the taskforce.

Lukasz Dubaj is the executive director of the Student Federation, which is the student governing body for all six regental institutions, and he is a member of the tobacco-free taskforce.

“Basically what we’re doing is taking a look at the smoking and tobacco usage at each university,” Dubaj said.

The taskforce was created in August 2010 and first met on Oct. 22, and was funded by a grant from the South Dakota Department of Health. Dubaj said that the taskforce simply exists to inform.

“Of course [the Department of Health] has a goal, but we are trying to remain as neutral as possible,” Dubaj said.

Turman stressed that this taskforce does not have decision-making power.

“Ultimately, there’s no binding component to it,” Turman said. “It’s more of an informal, informational type of committee.”

Currently, no plans are in the works for any sort of regental policy.

“As it stands right now, we’re sticking with what we feel our own university’s needs are,” Monson said. “In the future that may come up; it’s just hard to say.” The issue of implementing a smoking ban, according to York, is not new.

“It’s something that’s been talked about for years,” York said. “It’s sort of been a trend culturally. It’s something that’s able to be brought up because of the way things are going.”

Christman said SDSU’s SA began discussing the topic because other state institutions were moving that way. “It was something that senators had heard a lot about, so we thought that this was an issue students were [concerned about],” Christman said. Chicoine said that he looks forward to seeing the outcome of the survey and the decisions that follow. “There’s a lot of dynamics with the issue of tobacco and whose rights need to be considered, whether it’s the individual rights or the collective rights,” Chicoine said.

The Students’ Association passed a resolution on Nov. 29 proposing a campus-wide vote on whether or not SDSU’s campus should be entirely smoke-free.

The resolution passed 15-12. Although, a campus-wide vote will be taken, the decision on any real policy ultimately rests with SDSU administration.

Sen. Hassan Ali is a sponsor of the resolution. He said the Students’ Association wanted to leave the decision up to students and faculty because voting is the democratic thing to do.

“Our job is to be the students’ voice,” Ali said. “If the majority wants campus to be smoke-free, it’s our job to give them what they want.”

Ali said critics of the resolution might think that bringing the smoking ban to a campus vote is an easy way out for the Students’ Association. He said they like to bring only the big issues to a school-wide vote.

“This seems like a popular resolution that is going on around the country,” Ali said. “We (the Students’ Association) don’t put everything up to vote.”

Catherine Grandorff, senator for the College of Graduate Studies, does not think the vote will give smokers a fair chance.

“I think it’s a disservice to our smokers on campus by putting their rights up to a vote,” Grandorff said. “It’s an overreach of student government.”

Ali said that the majority of students at SDSU do not smoke. This is an indication of how the vote will turn out.

“[SA] knew it was going to pass if it was left to the students to votes on,” said Ali.

Devanshu Narang, vice president of the International Relations Council, was part of a concerned student panel that spoke out against the proposed campus-wide smoking ban.

“The main complaints are that smokers huddle towards the entrances,” Narang said. “If the rules are enforced correctly, I don’t think there is a need to completely ban smoking.”

Ali said this is a hot topic, and that putting it to a vote will cause a stir amongst students.

“It’s a great opportunity for students to express their opinions or concerns on whether SDSU should be smoke-free,” Ali said. “I think it will create an opportunity for the minority (smokers) to voice their concerns.”

Sen. Logan DeBoer, one the resolution’s sponsors, said he sees second-hand smoke as a health issue.

“I would still be in favor of the campus smoking ban even if the 20-foot rule was properly enforced,” DeBoer said.

“The whole end goal is to get students to quit smoking,” Senator Ali said. “Right now it’s convenient to smoke. If that was taken away people are more likely to quit which will benefit their health in the long run.”

Another issue SA members brought to attention is the issue of litter caused from cigarette butts.

Although SA Sen. Jared Darling saw benefits to having a smoking-ban on campus, he still voted “no” on the resolution.

“Being smoke-free could be a potential draw for students looking at SDSU versus similar schools that already have smoke-free policies.”

Many neighboring colleges to SDSU have already implemented smoke-free policies, including The University of North Dakota, North Dakota State University, the University of Minnesota at Crookston and Duluth, and all public and private universities in Iowa.

SA Vice President Erin Kennedy said SA got the idea when they met with different universities at a Board of Regents meeting in October.

One of those schools was Black Hills State University in Spearfish. They began a smoke-free campus policy at the start of the 2010 school year.

Smokers at BHSU can no longer light-up on their commute between classes. The policy pushes smokers to parking lots on the outskirts of campus, making the entire interior of the campus smoke-free.

Ali said SDSU would follow a similar policy if the smoking ban passes.

“This is a public institution, ultimately you can still smoke, you just won’t be able to smoke on campus.”

The current smoking policy at SDSU prohibits smoking in all buildings on campus including a 20-foot perimeter from the entrance to any building.

Libby Cari, a senior sociology major, thinks the current policy is just fine.

“Smokers shouldn’t be right by entrances and exits of buildings,” Cari said. “If the guidelines could be modified to please more non-smokers than that’s fine, but taking it (smoking on campus) away completely seems ridiculous.”

Some students claim they are still subjected to second-hand smoke despite the 20-foot rule.

“My dorm is right by the fire escape,” said Kelsey Lindqueist, a sophomore nursing major. “We leave our window cracked because it gets hot in the dorms and we can always smell when people are outside smoking.”

Tim Goldammer, who is an SA senator at-large and an employee at the Lantern Lounge, said trying to enforce a campus-wide smoking ban would pose the same problems that he encounters working as a bartender.

“How do you stop everyone from lighting up?” said Goldammer. “Should I call the police every time I see someone lighting up? I would say no.”

Several students on campus are unhappy with the current smoking regulations.

“You go to walk outside and get a big whiff of smoke in your face,” said Samantha Gillen, a junior psychology major. “I think it’s silly to have to light up on a 10-minute walk.”

A committee of SA members will revise the proposal, decide how to administer the vote and come up with a plan for implementation.

Students can expect to see the initiative of a campus-wide smoking ban on the Student Government ballot next semester.

Even with a hotly contested U.S. House race that was on the national radar, the smoking ban was seemingly the main concern for SDSU student voters on Nov. 2.

The Referred Law 12 broadens the ban on smoking to include establishments like bars, restaurants and liquor stores. It passed with over 64 percent of the vote statewide and nearly 71.99 percent approval in Brookings County, the second highest of all S.D. counties, behind Lincoln County with an even 72 percent.

Students and residents living on or near campus voted at Tompkins Alumni Center, where Barbara Telkamp, superintendent of the Precinct 1 election board, said turnout was more than expected.

“We’ve been very busy,” Telkamp said.

Of the more than 390 voters at the precinct, Telkamp estimated half or more of those were students.

Senior SDSU agriculture major Deidra McCarthy supported the widening of the smoking ban.

“The smoking ban was the main issue for me,” she said.

Becky Garton, a senior graphic design major, showed up to vote for three issues: the smoking ban, medical marijuana and the U.S. House race.

Garton voted on those three issues but abstained from voting on anything else.

“I never vote for something I don’t know enough about,” she said, “but I think it’s important to vote even if I’m not voting on absolutely everything.”

Republicans swept all statewide elections, something SDSU College Republican Chairman Tyler Holmquist was very happy with.

“I think South Dakota has said loud and clear that’s the way we want to go,” Holmquist said.

Vice President of SDSU College Democrats Hassan Ali, was disappointed, and said the mood of the country played a large role, especially in South Dakota’s U.S. House and governor races. In both those races, the Democratic candidates campaigned as moderates yet still lost to their Republican opponents.

An SDSU professor is working on an experiment alongside nationally known scholars to create specialized diets for fish, which may provide many opportunities in the Midwest.

Mike Brown, wildlife and fisheries sciences professor has created “complete diets” for fish using locally produced agriculture products throughout the past four years.

Brown said he starts his experiment by using a recipe containing 100 percent fish meal. He runs tests on a group of fish, mostly Yellow Perch and then records the results. He next takes 20 percent of the fish meal out and replaces it with 20 percent of the distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS), a by-product of ethanol, and runs an experiment using the altered fish meal, and records the results.

This process is repeated until the fish meal is made entirely of the DDGS, and then again he watches the performance and growth of the fish. When a decrease or deficiency results, a synthetic amino acid is added to give the fish a complete diet.

“It is all about tinkering to find the right recipe,” Brown said.

Experiments run for 60 to 120 days and the fisheries lab has the capacity for three different feeding trials at a time for the particular research, Brown said.

Mike Barnes, hatchery biologist at fisheries biologist/D.C. Booth Historic National Fish Hatchery and archives manager in Spearfish, said fish meal is made up of “ground up ocean fish,” especially Herring and Menhaden.

Barnes and Brown said there is a limited supply of the fish used in fish meal, which has driven the price up drastically. This price jump requires an alternative source of fish meal.

“Fish meal is $1,600 per ton, that is 80 cents per pound,” Brown said.

Brown and Barnes said fish meal is not limited to only feed fish, but also feeds cattle, swine and poultry.

“We need to find an alternative that is win-win for everyone,” Barnes said.

Brown said he hopes the research will pay off by meeting the demands in the Midwest, eventually exporting to Canada and the seaboards, like New York.

“This could diversify into a new field of agriculture8212;aquaculture8212;in the Midwest,” Brown said.

Brown, Barnes and Aaron Von Eschen, a SDSU fisheries science graduate student, all agreed this research can benefit the Midwest and South Dakota.

“If we can drive down the price of fish meal … there is an opportunity for South Dakota to break into the fish industry,” Brown said.

Barnes said the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks is trying to be a responsible, innovative and efficient agency, by researching alternative fish meal options using locally produced agriculture products.

“[SDSU] hopes to produce better fish, better able to survive after they have been stocked in dams, and to give anglers satisfaction with stock that fights harder,” Barnes said.

Barnes, who is currently working towards his doctorate degree from SDSU, said he is grateful to have the opportunity to work with internationally recognized scholars like Brown.

“I hope to finish out my education at SDSU through the aquaculture research,” he said.

Von Eschen said he has learned how to work with fish, mainly fish nutrition, and how fish respond to different components and diets through this research.

Brown said he hopes to expand the lab in the future to help aid in upcoming research.

“The new lab would be 22,000 square feet and would hold a great deal more than the current lab,” he said.

#1.1669030:2267634789.jpg:Mike-Brown-2-Color-Shelli-White.jpg:Mike Brown has been working on using ethanol co-products in aquaculture fish meal diets for four years. He is currently working with Yellow Perch.:Collegian Photo by Shelli White
#1.1669028:3744986445.jpg:Mike-Brown-1-Color-Shelli-White.jpg::

Parking consultant Joe Bilotta will be on campus Sept. 23 to present a new campus parking plan.

The consultant was brought to campus after the administration felt the need to evaluate parking.

“[Parking] is probably the one area that we get the most criticism about,” Provost Laurie Nichols at a Faculty Senate meeting Sept. 14.

Specific details of the plan will not be released until the Sept. 23 meeting.

“As of now, the plans have only been vetted to Administration and the Parking and Traffic committee,” said Dean Kattelmann, assistant vice president for facilities and services.

Bilotta reviewed the campus in April and will be unveiling a walking campus proposal to the public at 2 p.m. in the Volstorff Ballroom in The Union.

Students are encouraged to attend the presentation.

“It is really quite a remarkable report,” Nichols said. “Some of the things he shares are really quite eye-opening.”

The basic concept of the plan is to shift parking lots to the edges of campus. This will eliminate all direct traffic across university grounds.

“For the walking campus to become a true reality, we need to eliminate most of the parking on the interior of campus so that we can have more sidewalks cut directly through the center of campus,” said Anthony Sutton, parking and traffic committee chair for the Students’ Association.

A walking campus will not begin until another phase of construction starts. Some students are not in favor of the idea.

“It seems unnecessary as long as there are no accidents,” said Abby Carter, a junior broadcast journalism major from Sundance, Wyo. “When you’re cold, it’s nice to drive to class.”

Sutton said an all-walking campus should be something that happens in the future.

“I am in favor of a walking campus, but we need to have all of the construction projects on campus finished before we can truly and safely walk across campus,” Sutton said.

Nichols said she is excited for the plan to be presented.

“It’s more sophisticated and more refined than anything we’ve looked at on campus until now,” Nichols said.

Managing Editor Emma DeJong contributed to this report.

#1.1641165:593051082.jpg:The upcoming parking discussion will cover a long-term future for SDSU?s parking policies.:The upcoming parking discussion will cover a long-term future for SDSU?s parking policies to create an all-walking campus.:Collegian photo by Ryan Robinson
#1.1641168:1694058266.jpg:The upcoming parking discussion will cover a long-term future for SDSU?s parking policies.:The upcoming parking discussion will cover a long-term future for SDSU?s parking policies to create an all-walking campus.:Collegian photo by Ryan Robinson