University of Massachusetts Amherst - Index Yearbook (Amherst, MA)

Page 22 text:

S.G.A. Elections In late February of 1978 all students wishing to become a candidate for S.G.A. co-president or trustee had to submit nomination signatures to the Student Senate. An unprecedented number of people fulfilled the re- quired mandate of gathering 250 names in order to have their names put on the ballot. Problems arose when a new govern- mental affairs committee was faced with operating a presidential election with obsolete guidelines and vague in- terpretations of these guidelines from various friends involved in the process te.g. the Student Attorney Generali. There were no provisions within the Student Government Constitution for run-off elections, yet more than ten candidates were vigorously pursuing the positions. This meant that if no can- didacy was able to receive a majority 433.30701 of all the votes cast, some other method would have to be initiated to elect the President. This vehicle hap- pened to be an electoral college, a sys- tem scraped some years ago due to its lack of true democratic characteristics. Another quirk in the '78 elections was the none of the above option that was allowed on the ballot in the popular election but not in the elector- al convention. Governance: wmiteotsioirnsooo In conjuction with the push for The Year of the Union , the Distinguished Visitors Program brought Tom Hayden ileftl and Dick Gregory fright! to speak at the Student Unionization Conference. Both these speakers urged students to take a more active role in their educational institution. Unionization It was supposed to be the year when students at UMass would finally chal- lenge the administration and win the right to collectively bargain the terms of our education and living conditions. The Undergraduate Student Senate declared it The Year of the Union , attempting in September to spark a campus-wide movement by sponsoring a well-attended two-day conference to introduce students to the concept of a union and sign up recruits in the fight for student rights. Dick Gregory, one of the keynote speakers, expressed the sentiment of the audience when he told a cheering crowd you got to let those educators know they exist to satisfy your needs, not the other way around. Then, in the following months, the spark seemed to die as the publicity and coverage waned, the Student Sen- ate fought internal battles, the student advocacy agencies failed to coordinate their efforts, and the recruits failed to show up in large numbers to launch a 4 EJ full scale attack. Many observors would agree with one student senator who lamented, the Union has fizzled. What these observers failed to see, however, was that the push for a stu- dent union did not begin nor end in the fall of 1977. Expecting an explosion that would immediately find students in control of their university, they failed to detect the small steady flame of activity that continued to burn. A group of one hundred or so students continued to research, petition, can- vass, and participate in endless meet- ings, knowing - or at least hoping - that progress was being made. This progress included the publish- ing of the Course and Teacher Evalua- tion Guide, and winning concessions from academic departments such as the Economics Department, which was pressured into funding a student-run tutoring program. But the biggest victory was the right to a negotiated lease for students living in University housing. ln this case, those who had been formulating and promoting a lease for months finally got the popular support necessary to effectively challenge authority. The support came when Southwest Residential Master-Director jim Mat- lack made the mistake of mastermind- ing a plan to limit residence in Pierpont dormitory to freshpeople and sopho- mores, presumably to curb drug traf- ficking there. This, coupled with the release of an audit proving that the dorms didn't meet health and safety code standards, resulted in the over-night occupation of Chancellor Bromery's officein Whit- more by 1.50 students. In the course of its forced scuttling of the Matlack plan, the administration' also agreed to reim- burse students living in substandard housing and to negotiate a lease. Negotiating is, of course, what un- ions do, so, looking back, the more as- tute observers will realize that while The Year of the Union may not have been a big bang, it certainly wasn't a dud. just ask the Chancellor. - jim Gagne

Page 21 text:

l 1 WST EQ? FWIUAUOAI fm H WQDEFHS 71450 IQUKSE wmmmy HPTEQ 7HHT SYLZDENTS M5135 fffiwe an -IELAJUQ COfEf1M 5 'ITEES N 0W THEY WWE Rm 11812 CMU St' CENT' UMDN uk PM -1- 601 J6 To VLM t ,' ,135 ,, .VA ,,., f 5, Q Q47

Page 23 text:

The GordonfTyson ticket fell short of the necessary majority, hence an electoral convention became a reality. Another controversy arose when the second place vote receiver, none of the above , was not allowed a place in the electoral convention. Inconsisten- cies were prevalent, and an ad hoc committee was formed to iron out as many difficulties as possible. The electoral convention consisted of factions from each of the six area governments with a total of fifty votes, and the Student Senate with a total of fifty votes. ln order to win the election in the convention, a candidate re- quired fifty-one votes fa majorityl. The convention eventually went to seven ballots over a period of six weeks, often without a quorum. Eventually the de- clared winners were Bob Dion and Don Bishop on the seventh ballot. Bob Dion was an election offical who participated in developing and officiating election rules, then resigned to run for presi- dentftrustee with Don Bishop, who had come in fourth in the popular elec- tion. The election is still in contention, with the Student Senate abolishing the electoral college and voting for the res- ignation of Dion and Bishop in the fall of 1978. But until that time, Dion and Bishop will act as S.G.A. co-presidents. - Herb Tyson OQOEWaltttaiciomssooowmiomssoso C.A.T.E. Last fall the Academic Affairs Com- mittee ofthe Student Senate published On the Other Hand , A Course and Teacher Evaluation Guide. The guide was put together from information provided by willing teachers, data from a teacher assessment questionnaire published in the Collegian, information derived from computer forms passed out at the end of each semester and, in several cases, the opinions of one stu- dent. Many students felt that the guide was well prepared and found it very useful. Others felt that the idea was basically a good one, but the guide itself could stand improvement. Teachers were quite varied in their opinions of the publication. Some felt it was well done and welcomed student evaluations, while others felt it was poorly researched and created an adversary relationship between teachers and students. The teachers who were displeased with the guide pointed out that some evaluations were made by one student, and resented the publication of their salary and tenure status. Several students felt that they have been evaluated by one teacher since time eternal, and that it was about time students got their chance. One student said, The guide tells it like it is. Teach- ers should be able to take some criti- cism. They certainly dish out their share. Former Provost Paul Puryear criti- cized the booklet in the Springfield Union. Puryear said he felt the booklet was incomplete and contained some unevenness in the format. Several teachers felt that the guide was used by students as a means to get back at teachers f.or past differences. These teachers felt that they could rec- ognize the personal style of the authors of some of the evaluations, and that these authors used the guide as a means of revenge. Also, many complaints were made about the graphics used in the guide. Some went so far as to say that the drawings were crude, racist, deroga- tory, and disgusting. Student Govern- ment Association co-President lon Hite apologized publicly in the Collegian to anyone who was offended by the graphics. joseph Connolly, the student in charge of the guide, apologized also and explained that the drawings were intended to satirize stereotypes, and not intended as stereotypes them- selves. So it has been established by stu- dents, faculty, and administrators alike that the first issue of On the Other Hand has many shortcomings, the most obvious of which is its incom- pleteness. Can the student publishers be blamed for this? The Student Senate sued the school for access to teacher evaluations under the Massachusetts freedom of informa- tion law. The information was not re- leased. Without the raw data it seemed impossible for anyone to put together a truly complete guide, but the students felt the idea was sound so they did the best they could with the information they had. Certainly they should not be criticized for incompleteness by the very administrators who withheld the information in the first place. As we have seen, the opinions on the guide are as varied as the students, fac- ulty, and administration themselves. One idea that seemed to hold up is that a course and teacher evaluation guide, written and published by the students and for the students is a good idea. lt reflects a progressive student attitude toward student-teacher relationships. The fact that many people were dis- pleased with the various aspects of the first issue of On the Other Hand be- comes almost irrelevant when viewed with respect to the potential of the guide. - leff R. Lambert