University of Virginia Library

Nominees Divide Over
Proposed Constitution

With the outcome of the Student
Council Constitution to be decided
simultaneously with the political fate of
the candidates, each candidate has taken
a position on the plan with which they
hope to be associated in the future.

Kevin Mannix, College candidate on
the VPP slate, said: "The present system,
under which officers are elected to a
one-semester term at the end of each
semester by a lame-duck Student Council,
is blatantly undemocratic and
inefficient...Amendment and
ratification provisions are more
realistic...and the new Constitution has
been restructured to meet the needs of a
growing University."

Thomas W. Brown, a Jefferson Party
candidate, expressed the sentiments of
the other three candidates.

"...It enumerates the powers of the
Council, provides for an easy means
through which student opinion can be
ascertained, this being the referendum,
and grants greater student voice in
Council through the popular election of
the President and Vice President.

Reapportionment

Michael Capobianco, of the
Liquifactionist Party, cited the provisions
of reapportionment, student-proposed
referendums, and popular election of the
President and Vice President, and then
added: "It should be stressed, however,
that all these advantages do not stem
from the fact that the proposed
constitution is that intrinsically
wonderful - it is just that the one in
effect is so poor."

He also stated his reservations on the
referendum provision, saying that the
clause for holding referendums "by or at
the time of the next Council elections"
should be changed to "within two weeks"
to avoid delay.

Bruce Tyler of the Young Americans
for Freedom said that he found the new
constitution to be "objectionable." He
added, "It places too much power in the
hands of the Student Council over
individuals and organizations, power
which might easily be used in a
discriminatory manner, power which has
no justification. Impeachment criteria are
too vague. There is little justification for
closed meetings."

Concerning the popular elections
section of the proposed Constitution, he
said: "I support popular elections in the
spirit of the one man/one vote principle,
and in the hope that it will make Council
a little more representative."

Eric Royce, an Independent for
Libertarian Action, states: "I am basically
in favor of the proposed Constitution,
though I object to some of the
phraseology used and to the reference to
promoting 'improved community
conditions.' "

"Council should be restricted to
matters directly involving the university
and students," he said, "and it should
keep out of local political and national
policy arguments, as it cannot reasonably
presume to speak for students on such
issues without referendums. The
increased apportionment for the College
is a highly desirable feature."

'Ultimately Futile'

From the Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences, Thomas Biggar and Judy
Wellman came out in favor of the
Constitution and its provisions. Miss
Wellman feels that a popularly-elected
President and Vice President "will allow
students to know their representatives
and discuss University-wide issues."

Pedro Saavedra, also from the
Graduate School, is opposed to the new
Constitution. "The constitution," he said,
"fails to provide much needed minority
representation; a political majority in the
College, for example, could elect all
College representatives, and the minority
party would go totally unrepresented."

He favors popular election, citing
again the need to guard against "control
by a minority of the students."

Clyde Ellis and Camby Robinson of
the College and Bill Keen of the
Engineering School, Yippie candidates for
Student Council, expressed their
endorsement of the constitution and
popular election, adding that "Until real
power over all University activities is
achieved by the Council, such efforts
must be viewed as ultimately futile."

Harry Steeper, Liquifactionist Party
candidate and Bill Fox, an independent,
both from the Engineering School,
supported the constitution and its
provisions, whereas Joe Laughton, also of
the Engineering School, favors all aspects
of the constitution except popular
election, because "the student in general
will not be familiar with...the
demonstrated motivation and
abilities...of individuals, particularly in
relation to Council work..."

University Senate

On the subject of the proposed
University Senate, all candidates of the
Virginia Progressive Party expressed
approval. Ken Lewis said, "It can lead to
new cooperation between students,
faculty and administration, and hopefully
end the polarization between these
groups which is taking place on so many
college campuses."

The Jefferson Party candidates either
came out against the proposal or
reluctantly supported it. Quinn Spitzer
and Bill Hurd oppose it, calling it
"prohibitive to effective discussion of the
issues."

Thomas Brown and Henry Bowden
favor it with reservations, voicing
suspicions that it would "merely serve as
a stage for debate."

The Liquifactionist Party candidates
support the Senate "if it took a definite
role in certain programs," while Bruce
Tyler of the Young Americans for
Freedom says the concept is acceptable,
though "the scope of its authority needs
to be circumscribed lest we simply
substitute coercion by the Senate for
coercion by the Administration."

Eric Royce, Clyde Ellis, and Camby
Robinson in the College favor the Senate
concept, as do Bill Fox and Harry Steeper
of the Engineering School, while Joe
Laughton, also of Engineering, agrees with
the idea but opposes "the possible
abandonment of the present Student
Council in favor of a 'Student Caucus.' "

In the Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences, Judy Wellman, Pedro Saavedra,
and Thomas Biggar support the proposal.