Mirror - Vol. 01, No. 12 - February 24, 1978

              THE
FAIRFIELD Volume 1 No. 12 February 24,1978
FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY, FAIRFIELD, CONN. 06430 MIRRORIncorporated 1977
Nonprofit Organization
VS. POSTAGE
PAID
Permit No. 34
Fairfield.Conn.
O'Brien Wins Presidency
Collins Falls 150 Votes Short In Second Bid
rCampaign Spending Growing^
By Tony Tarnell
"I think if you took a poll of why
people voted the way they did, you
would find that 80% of the primary
votes came from posters and public
relations, and 20% from the actual
ideas of the candidates," stated
sophomore Greg Blair in a recent
interview concerning campaign ex-penditures
needed to run for F.U.S.A.
president. With the results of the
primary one week since published,
the issue of campaign expenditures
becomes more and more of an
aboveground issue.
- In last year's F.U.S.A. election,
Kevin Collins spent $400.00 in total
expenditures on his bid for the
Presidency. This year Collins managed
to whittle his spending to a scant
$75.00 which he detailed mostly to
printing costs. His costs placed him
third among the original five can-didates.
However, his total ex-penditures
do not include the $802.00
he could have been accounted for if
he had not covered his expenses on his
1-26-78 Oakroom. Collins was under
contract which stated that all receipts
came due after the Oakroom itself.
When asked where the money would
have come from if he had not covered
his expenses, Collins replied that "I
had transferred $200.00 from my
personal bank account to my checking
account in case I had realized a loss
on the Oakroom." However such was
not the case. Collins made $19.00 on
the whole affair, thus keeping his
expenses at the $75.00 level.
Vinny O'Brien's total expenditure
for his campaign was $80.00, again
entirely printing expenses. His ex-penditures
placed him second among
the rest of the candidates. When asked
if he thought a limit should be placed
on expenditures, O'Brien replied that
"there is^really no way you can limit
the spending." He continued that "a
candidate will spend however much
he needs to get his ideas and name
around."
When asked if he would place an
absolute ceiling on the amount of
money to be spent, he stated that
"there is no need to spend more than
$150.00." When asked if he thought
that if a restraint is not placed on
campaign expenditures, it could deter
a potential candidate from running,
OBrien said that "it would definitely
limit the race to those who could
cough up the big dollars." He con-tinued
that "it is not too cool to spend
so much money. However, as it is now,
you can't really limit the spending."
When asked if he had to place a
peak for expenditures, Collins also saw
$150.00 as a realistic figure. He sees
the definite need for a ceiling.
However, he also pointed out that it
would be hard to impose a standard
for all candidates to stick to. When
asked if he thought it necessary for all
candidates to submit receipts of all
expenses, Collins said that "it would
promote more careful spending, and
perhaps even deter high campaign
expenditures."
In a recent interview with Greg
Blair, he stated that his total costs
were $45.00, mostly from printing his
platform. When asked if a limit should
be placed on spending, Blair said "it is
essential. An absolute limit of $100.00
should be placed on campaigning."
However, he also said "the ceiling
amount should be set on a year to year
basis. Blair feels that "the candidates
should get together to set a fair peak
dollar target." Blair pointed out that
"just from this campaign I saw that if
you want to get elected,you need a lot
of exposure." He continued that "the
election has become more of a public
relations contest," and that "the
candidate with the best P.R. will get
his face seen and his ideas heard."
Jim "Hef" Hoefner, stated that his
campaign ran for $155.90. )im, who
worked over the past Christmas
vacation to raise the money feels that
"a limit should most definitely be
placed on campaign spending." He
continued that a "set of rules should
be established by which the can-didates
would have to abide by."
Hoefner's expenditures were broken
down in this manner; $86.80 for his
Center Restaurant party ($40 shuttle
bus, $46.80 bar bill for the band),
$36.10 for his first letter, and $30.00
for the flyers about the party, and for
red construction paper needed to
cont. on page 5
News Flash
S.E.C. announced yesterday
that DICKEY BETTS will per-form
in the gym on Saturday
March 11 at 8:30 with special
guest star LOUDEN WAIN-WRIGHT
III.
The Student Legislature has sanc-tioned
a committee to investigate the
ticket procedure of the Athletic
Department. Ned Burt, chairman of
the committee, had urged the
legislature to look into the ticket
situation. "The ticket procedure at
both the Holy Cross and lona
basketball games, and the numerous
questions the students have con-cerning
the entire ticket procedure,
warrant an investigation of the
situation," said Burt.
The committee has held their first
meeting and has scheduled meetings
with Mr. Schimpf, Mrs. Samway and
Mr. Cook for next week. "We hope to
resolve the matter in the best possible
way," said Burt.
by Marianne 0*Connell
Vinnie OBrien has been elected
FUSA president for 1978-79 beating
Kevin Collins, in yesterday's run-off
election. 1447 ballots were cast, in one
of the largest voter turnouts the
University has seen in many years.
OBrien won by a large margin of
218 votes, finishing with 765 votes to
Collins 547. Jim Hoefner, the can-didate
who finished third in last
week's primary election received 108
write-in votes, a considerable number
which may have been a protest against
the "2-vote" procedure used in the
primary election.
O'Brien won in all the dormitories
with the exception of Campion and
Loyola. As expected, Collins took the
commuter vote by a large margin but
OBrien also finished with a sur-prisingly
large number of 52 com-muter
votes.
Vinnie O'Brien commenting on his
victory stated, "Naturally I'm very
pleased with the results. The fact that
1447 people voted is the most im-portant
thing. I'm going to start
working as soon as possible —
working together."
Kevin Collins a junior who has lost
his bid for presidency for the second
consecutive year still has no regrets
about having run. Although disap-pointed,
Kevin remains optomistic,
stating "I don't think we lost. Vinnie
OBrien won. I think he'll do an ex-cellent
job. But this loss doesn't
matter -1 still intend to remain active
at Fairfield." The potential effect of
the Collins - O'Brien Debate held last
Wednesday night could not be
determined due to the poor student
turnout. Only 15 people attended.
Despite this small attendance, at-tributed
to a lack of advertising,
Election Chairperson Barbara
DOnofrio felt the 1447 ballots cast
were an excellent representation of
the student interest and commented
that the voter turnout was higher than
expected.
O'Brien as of this date has not
selected his cabinet for next year. He
ended by stressing that he will always
be available to all students and now
that the election is over intends to
devote more time to his future duties.
One student commenting on the
election results stated "the important
think now that the election is behind
him, is that Vinnie starts to get things
moving. We really need an active
president. One who will stand up and
make sure the student voice is heard."
Election Results
Julie Hall
Campion
OBrien 33
Collins ;» Collins 5
O'Brien 53
Gonzaga Northwest
OBrien 69 OBrien 128
Collins 40 Collins 53
Far East Southeast
OBrien 45 OBrien 50
Collins 43 Collins 40
Off-Campus Commuter
OBrien 185 Collins 126
Collins 52 OBrien 52
Regis Loyola
OBrien % Collins 62
Collins 48 OBrien 54
Final Total
OEIrien 765
Collins 547
Write-in
Hoefner lnR
Other 27
Total 1447
Who & Where is the University Council?
By Bill Weisner
In 1969, the University Council
would deliberate before packed
Oakroom crowds, dealing with such
issues as the student takeover of
Canisius Hall and the week-long
student strike for the ouster of former
President Maclnnes. Today, the
Council meets infrequently, has
difficulty attracting members, and
generally, is not sure of its direction
and purpose.
The Council was formed in 1969,
during a period of stress, to deal with
problems involving any of the three
sectors within the University: the
student body, faculty, and Ad-ministration.
The Council was very
active and served as a vital channel for
communication. Since 1972, however,
the Council has become less and less
active until presently it is stagnant and
inert.
According to Dr. Barone, a founder
of the Council, "During the stress
period ('69-70) when problems of
inefficient communication between
the departments did exist, it provided
a forum for discussion. Now that
communications along the established
channels are good, the Council seems
unnecessary."
This sentiment was echoed by
another administration representative,
Mr Hickson. "People need a better
understanding of the Council in the
first place. The Council is only really
designed for when there is no com-munication
through the proper
channels. Now everybody talks within
the proper channels so the Council is
inactive."
Gerry Gunning (a student
representative) has a different ex-planation
for the Council's idleness.
"The faculty through their lack of
interest, and the Administration,
through their lack of concern for
other's opinions, have hampered the
usefulness of the Council. The faculty
took weeks to fill their four positions
when they changed representatives
early this year. The Administration
consistently brings issues to discussion
after they have come to a decision and
acted on it. They use the Council as a
forum for announcements rather than
sitting down and discussing. In effect,
therefore, the Council is only asked to
comment on decisions after they have
been made."
One of the problems the Council
faces is that the members themselves
disagree as to what general purpose of
the Council is. Fr. Henry Murphy
(Dean of Freshmen) said, "Disen-chantment
arises when others per-ceive
of the Council as a super
organization that should handle all
problems. The Council cannot pre-empt
other channels; only when they
prove ineffective should it be con-sulted.
It should not be used as a court
of first resort.
Ned Barnett, student representative,
disagrees. "The Administration thinks
that because the Council originated in
a crisis it should be maintained only to
deal with crises. Since it is the only
tripartite council with equal votes for
all three sectors on this campus, its
potential is obvious. But the Ad-
Administration
Representatives:
Mr. William Schimpf
Dean of Student Services
Dr. John Barone
Provost
Mr. John Hickson
Vice President Business
and Finance
Fr. Henry Murphy
Dean of Freshmen
Faculty:
Dr. Bolesh Skutnik Bannow 314
Dr. Martin Stader Xavier 123
Mr. Paul Davis Canisius 40
Dr. Patricia Jenkins Campion 112B
Student:
Ned Barnett 78
Gerry Gunning 78
Bob Ollwerther 78
Ken Purcell 78
ministration's view prevents it from
obtaining any legislative capacities."
Gerry Gunning added, "The
University Council is an essential tool
for communication between the three
sectors. It should have input on the
decision-making process on any issue
that will affect one of the sectors,
rather than just serving as a forum for
announcements."
Dr. Bolesh Skutnik said, "Two things
can be approached by the Council: 1)
problems involving any and all of the
three sectors, and 2) lack of com-munication
along proper channels.
However, people must realize that
there are not that many problems in a
given year."
The Council's constitution states
that "the specific purposes are to
facilitate the successful operation of
the University through the exchange
of considerations of all three segments
of the University ... and to discuss any
(other) topic which might be of in-terest
to any and all of the contracting
members and their constituents."
Therefore, there should be no dearth
of issues to discuss especially this year
with such issues as the new
Recreational Complex, Tennis Courts,
increasing tuition, and the Financial
Studies Center (Also planned is the
construction of a new class-room/
office building next to
Canisius Hall.) With all of this taking
place, how can members claim that
there are not enough issues to discuss?
Fr. Murphy feels that the Council
should meet minimally a few times a
year to keep it going and to assess the
feelings and climate of the school The
constitution states that it must meet at
least once a month. Ned Barnett said,
"The Administration doesn't initiate
any action to get the Council any
more power or effectiveness. The
student representatives get worn down
by the tedium of having to initiate all
meetings and by the ineffectiveness of
the Council. Members must respect
the Council; this is crucial to
strengthening it."
All members agree that it is a very
important means of communication,
but the lethargic condition of the
Council attests to the fact that there is
no input from at least one of the
sectors. Perhaps, as Mr. Hickson said,
we have "phased out of an era" where
communications had broken down,
and entered one in which com-munications
are good enough along
the established channels as to render
the council unnecessary. On the other
hand, maybe the uninterest of the
faculty, the vesting of all decision-making
power in the Administration,
and the powerlessness of the students
have caused the Council to slide into
dormancy.