Kyoto offset funding addressed

by Julian Dautremont-Smith & Erin Haick

The Kyoto Protocol will return for another student vote, continuing the question of when or if Lewis & Clark will purchase offsets to become compliant with the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. ASLC recently announced that it will hold two polls in the week before Thanksgiving to gauge student opinion on using student fees for this purpose.

A majority in favor of Poll 1 would allow GAB, the General Allocations Board, to reopen the issue of funding Kyoto compliance for this academic year.

Kyoto supporters will also apply to CBC, the Chartering and Budgeting Committee, in the spring to fund compliance for the 2003-2004 academic year. CBC will consider the results of Poll 2 when it meets in spring to determine how to distribute student fees.

Last February, after several educational meetings organized by Julian Dautremont-Smith, students voted on a possible $10 increase in student fees, which would be earmarked for Kyoto Compliance. The initiative passed with 83% support and a 40% voter turnout. The decision made national news, with Congressman Earl Blumenauer speaking in praise of LC on the floor of the House of Representatives.

The vote has also been mentioned in newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and the Oregonian.

However, in their February meeting, the Board of Trustees voted not to allow the proposed fee increase. The Board voiced concern over the automatic "earmarking" of fees for a specific expenditure each year. Instead, the offset purchasing should go through the regular budgeting process every year, like all other student fee expenditures. The Board said that, if proposed this year, they would support a $10 increase in annual student fees, if that increase was not linked to any specific expenditure.

In an effort to make LC Kyoto compliant for the 2002-03 school year, Kyoto supporters asked last year’s CBC to allocate $17,000 for Kyoto compliance. This money would come from the normal budgeting process that all chartered and funded groups normally go through.

The Kyoto Protocol was funded $17,000 through this process, the total amount needed to purchase offsets and make LC compliant. CBC explained that they allocated reasonable amounts of money to other groups based on merit and past activities, and then, seeing as they has sufficient funds remaining, provided full funding for Kyoto compliance.

Several student group leaders, however, felt that CBC had intentionally cut their budgets in order to fund Kyoto. They called upon ASLC to remove the $17,000 from Kyoto and some requested a complete revamping of the budgeting process.

ASLC held a forum to discuss the issue with students but eventually voted against this action. ASLC pointed out that Kyoto had been budgeted last, only after all other groups had been given what was felt to be a fair and reasonable budget and also that the student groups who were upset would not have received additional funds even if Kyoto had not applied for funding.

ASLC further said that Kyoto had been funded without reducing other group’s budgets because, due to mismanagement, the Yearbook did not apply for its customary funding, and club sports like hockey did not apply for any money.

Additionally, ASLC noted that the budgeting process was done in compliance with CBC’s rules of procedure and that CBC had read and heard testimony from each group and thus knew best how to fairly distribute the funds.

Some student leaders remained unconvinced and still felt that with no fee increase, Kyoto should not receive funding. A petition was filed to hold another student vote on whether to move the money from Kyoto to GAB, with the understanding that groups who felt they had been underfunded might apply for money in this academic year.

After the petition was filed, however, proponents of Kyoto voluntarily gave the money to GAB, choosing instead to raise money themselves. Kyoto supporters also expressed the intention to apply to GAB for funding, as any other group might.

Supporters said they would wait a few weeks to give groups who felt underfunded time to apply.

Kyoto supporters raised approximately $5,000 last year, and on October 7th of this year, testified before GAB to ask for the remaining $11,700 required for Kyoto-compliance. GAB was concerned about current student opinion on the issue and so voted to table the issue until another student election could occur.

Ethnic diversity at LC examined

by Lizzy Acker

On September 19, 2002, The Diversity Task Force of Lewis & Clark College completed a "Diversity Report" describing the current ethnic make-up of the LC faculty and the student body and suggesting ways to combat some of the problems which they discovered.

The report shows that 77% of the faculty and 63% of students identify themselves as white, while 14% and 19% respectively identify themselves as ethnicity "unknown." This is contrasted by the numbers of individuals identifying themselves as members of other racial groups; 1% of the faculty and students consider themselves black, 0% of faculty and 1% of students consider themselves Native American, 2% of faculty and 3% of students consider themselves Hispanic and 5% of faculty and 7% of students consider themselves Asian or Pacific Islander.

According to the report these statistics suggest, "that the College needs to focus attention and resources on recruiting faculty and students from populations under-represented at Lewis & Clark and in academia at large- specifically, African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinos."

The report sketches out new procedures that would help to attain this goal. In regards to faculty, the Task Force outlines measures to more actively recruit minority employees with faculty exchanges to "historically black and Native American colleges" and to follow standardized minority recruiting guidelines.

The report then addresses the problem of student diversity. The solutions offered deal with expanding financial aid for minority students by offering scholarships which pay full tuition, fees, and room and board. Such scholarships are not offered in any capacity currently because LC policy does not allow for scholarships over tuition and fees.

The other answers presented are outreach programs in local high schools, exchanges with black and Native American colleges and improving "the campus climate for minority students," specifically by creating forums to discuss diversity issues and strengthening, "our observance of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday."

While the "Diversity Report" acknowledges the existence of different types of diversity, it does little address economic diversity, gender diversity or religious diversity. For example, the average reported income of LC families is $79,904 which is $28,497 above the national average. This average does not include the 40% of LC families who do not report their income to the financial aid office.

Another conspicuous deficiency is the male to female ratio of 2:3. While this may be mirroring a national trend in higher education, it still reflects lopsidedness. Another item omitted by report is religious statistics. These statistics are not readily obtainable any where at LC.

The LC "Diversity Report" concludes optimistically, saying, "we believe that many of our proposals can be implemented in short order." The Task Force is hopeful that their findings will encourage discussion and effect change at LC, but they are also aware of the challenge they face.

Vandalism in Arts Building

by Sierra Jenkins

Art students and faculty have been shaken by vandalism that occurred in the Fields Art Building on the night of October 29th.

In the early morning, someone stabbed ten paintings with scissors that were on display in the hallway on the third floor, and broke a senior project in half.

"I think this has been a kind of wake-up call for everybody," said Phyllis Yes, head of the art department.

In the past, there have been small incidents. One year there was graffiti on a faculty member’s door. Another year, a painting was stolen, only to be recovered after many students recognized it on the wall at a party held by the thief.

Although vandalism has occurred in the past, it was "nothing quite so violent," said Yes.

The paintings that were stabbed were time-consuming, involved pattern exercises, not rough, quick sketches.

"Faculty want to show students’ work for people to enjoy, but now we hesitate," said Yes.

As a result of the vandalism, students can no longer remain in Fields after midnight. Formerly, students could stay as long after the 11:00pm closing as they chose, and many stayed until 2 or 3am. The building has never been very secure, and the department has explored using card swipers in the past.

Senior lecturer Ted Vogel found that the swipers would cost $85,000 a year, which the department cannot afford.

Administrative secretary Nancy Herrman looked into availability of facilities to make sure that it is possible for students to spend as much time as they need. She found that between 6am and 12pm, the Ceramics, Painting, Drawing and Graphic Design studios are open, although classes are not in session in these studios about 90 hours a week. The Photo studio is open 79 hours a week this semester and will be open 84 hours next semester. Sculpture is open over 105 hours a week.

Herrman also looked at hours of art facilities at other schools. Reed’s facilities are open all night, but are closed on the weekend. Portland State’s close at 2am. Oregon College of Art & Craft closes its facilities at 11:30pm and Pacific Northwest College of Art facilities close at 10pm, although they have an involved buddy system which allows people to stay until 2am.

The faculty is discussing how to make the building more secure at their meeting Tuesday, Nov. 19. Phyllis Yes will bring for discussion emails from students that she has received.