Make it count
SGA is what our vote tells it to be

Every year, many students complain that the House of Student Representatives is not doing a good job of communicating with and addressing the problems of the student body. And every year, many students call into question the Student Government fee we are forced to pay although many of us have never participated in student government.

Well, for all those who’ve complained about being shut out of House, today’s your chance to make your voice heard.

The House passed Bill 2000-13 Oct. 10 to restructure SGA with a two-thirds majority vote, but the final decision is up to you.

The bill proposes to eliminate the secretary position in House and change the vice presidential positions in both the House and Programming Council to executive directors.

Although the bill passed in the House, it must be approved by two-thirds of eligible voting students to go into effect.

That means you.

A new online voting system has been set up on FrogNet to tally the votes for the referendum.

The online polls are open from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. today and you only need you TCU ID number and FrogNet pin to cast your vote. You can access the voting Web site through (www.vote.tcu.edu) as well as get all the information you need to make an informed decision.

There is no excuse not to vote.

With the implementation of the online voting system, the process is as quick as a click of the mouse. And for those who don’t have computers at home, there are various computer labs where you can gain access to the Internet throughout the day to cast you vote. If you have trouble voting, you can seek assistance at the Student Center Information Desk from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Remember, you can’t complain about how you’re governed if you don’t participate. So sign on and speak your mind.

Get involved, do your duty and rock the House.

President Clinton signed legislation Monday requiring all states to lower the national standard for drunken driving to 0.08 percent blood alcohol by 2004 or lose millions of dollars for highway construction.

Clinton said the measure is “the biggest step to toughen drunk-driving laws and reduce alcohol-related crashes since a national minimum drinking age was established a generation ago.” He said the bill will save 500 lives a year.

Supporters of the legislation, including Millie Webb, national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, hailed Clinton for signing the bill which ended a three-year battle in Congress.

On the other hand, the bill drew much opposition from The American Beverage Institute, an association of restaurant operators, which called the new law “an attack on social drinkers.”

The institute contends that a 120-pound woman who drinks two six-ounce glasses of wine over a two-hour period could face arrest and jail time or loss of her driver’s license. MADD contends that a 170-pound man would have to have four drinks on an empty stomach and that a 137-pound woman would have to have three drinks in an hour to reach 0.08.

The truth is, the numbers aren’t that important because they can vary greatly from one person to the next, despite what a chart may or may not say about an individual’s level of intoxication. The point is, if you think there is any chance that you would fail a breathalyzer or field sobriety test, you shouldn’t be driving.

The institute called the bill “an attack on social drinkers.” Well, they’re damn right. It is an attack on social drinkers. They’re the ones who cause drunk driving accidents. They’re the ones who kill innocent people.

hey’re the ones who kill themselves.

It’s not the lonely alcoholic who causes the majority of these tragedies, although they do cause some.

nstead it is those people who have a few drinks and then drive home believing that they are not impaired.

So, I say, congratulations Washington! You are finally on the right track. And even a bigger congratulations to Texas, the District of Columbia and the 18 other states who already have 0.08 as their legal limits.

Saving 500 lives a year is a big deal. Maybe it will be one of your friends that will be saved.

Still, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that three out of every 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash.

That’s too many.

In 1999, the NHTSA reported 16,020 deaths due to alcohol-related accidents, so 500 fades pretty quickly next to such enormous number.

So, why is this still happening if the government keeps making progress? Why is it that more Americans have died in alcohol-related traffic crashes than in all the wars in the United States since our country was founded?

The answer is more apparent than it seems. We are not tough enough on first-time drunk driving offenders.
They need to spend time in jail, lose their licenses, receive heavy fines, do community service. Whatever it takes to get the point across, must be done. Maybe drunk drivers should be forced to register every time they move into a new community just as convicted sex offenders are now forced to do.

After all, they are a threat to everyone’s safety. It’s time that America wakes up and punishes drunk drivers. Too often, they receive a slap on the wrist and although they may not do it again, others may, and that is a danger none of us should have to face.

James Zwilling is a sophomore news-editorial journalism major from Phoenix. He can be reached at (james_zwilling@usa.net)..

In Tuesday’s Skiff, a columnist chastised those who would vote for Ralph Nader purely out of “protest.” I guess that when we’re dissatisfied with things we should just continue to accept the status quo and vote the party line, hoping that our message is transmitted to Washington via telepathy.

You all know how I feel about Nader, so I’ll quit harping, but on the subject of voting and protest, there is another imminent opportunity facing TCU students that hits even closer to home.

You see, in this federal election season, much noise has been generated about proposed tax cuts. Yet these proposals will have little direct effect on us — they’re targeted to get our parents out to the polls. But the fact is, we as students have been unfairly taxed year after year, and that tax comes in the form of a little line on your student account statement that reads Student Government fee.

We all pay $20 a semester to support the wonderful aspiring leaders in the Student Government Association. The SGA, split up into the House of Student Representatives and the Programming Council, doles out that money to various on-campus special interest groups to help them finance whatever programs they have decided to be especially interested in.

The problem is that I’m not in any of the special interest groups that are getting this cash. Most of you out there aren’t either, and yet we’re all still paying into the system.

And I thought Social Security was a rip-off.

Even worse, the SGA has been guilty of abusing this budget in the past. Though they will almost automatically eliminate catering money from the proposals submitted by those hungry special interests, they often still find room in the books to feed themselves during committee meetings. When Representative James Applebury tried to speak out on this double-standard last year, he was silenced by the “powers that be” in the House refusing to call on him in their meetings.

The SGA is quite clearly the most pointless organization on campus. At its most powerful, it can only make recommendations to the administration, and from a practical perspective it has no impact on policy whatsoever.

Of course, whenever I try voicing this opinion to proponents of or, even worse, members of the House, the conversation usually goes something like this:

Me: “The House is pretty pointless, don’t you think?”
Other Person: “No way, the House is good!”
Me: “Why?”
Other Person: “Umm … well … gee … uh … er … BECAUSE!”
Me: “Oh, I see.”

Which is where the whole voting thing comes in. I understand if the popularity-contest nature of the officer elections manages to sweep you up into the voting spirit every year. I mean, it’s pretty cool how the good-looking-but-still-intelligent girl or the cute-little-guy-with-the-even-cuter-slogan manages to win out every year over the overly smarmy frat boy who’s just a bit too obvious in his resume building quest.

What I’m concerned with is the “referendum” that the House will be requesting our votes on this very afternoon. The House has already approved, by one vote, with four members absent, a bill that would alter the structure of the SGA, to reportedly make the SGA president more of a liaison with the administration and, as Programming Council director of programming and development Melissa Nabors says, “give (PC) more autonomy and equality in SGA.”

The funny thing is that we went through all this last year when the House wasted its time and our money to pass a referendum that SGA president Ben Jenkins, at the time, said makes “the two branches equal and elevate(s) the president to more of a liaison figure.”

So today they want us to pass a referendum designed to do the same thing we passed a referendum on last fall. Hmm ... I’m glad these would-be stewards of the public trust are getting valuable experience with Robert’s Rules of Order. I just don’t see why I should have to pay for it.

Quit wasting my money SGA! I’m so sick of it.

Have you gotten me better parking? No. Have you gotten me better food service at The Main? No. Have you gotten me better visitation hours in the dorms? No, again. Have you spent my money on food for yourselves and on special interest programs? Yes, you certainly have.

I for one think that the power of a vote should be used for nothing but protest, but since voting either way on this referendum is not going to put a stop to the vast experiment in futility that is our student government, the only hope we have is to protest by not voting. Perhaps if none of us decide to care either way about this hideous farce that masquerades as the voice of the student body, then it will just go away.

If I’m fortunate enough to see that day while my tenure at this university continues, I’d like the $160 that I’ve been forced to contribute to this system refunded, please. My address is TCU Box 294475, SGA, and I’m willing to take a check.

Daniel Bramlette is a senior radio-TV-film major from Ogden, Utah. He can be reached at (dcbramlette@yahoo.com).

Last night I watched the sprinklers running between Sherley and Colby halls and had to seriously wonder: how much does TCU spend watering the campus?

After all, there is much ground to be cared for, and it seems that at any given time in a 24 hour period the sprinklers are running somewhere.

Aside from the cost of so much water being wasted on sidewalks that don’t need it and on grass that requires it at a different hour to retain it, I must question the practicality of the way the grounds are watered so constantly — especially when random sprinklers pop up suddenly to water the sidewalk before me and block every possible route to my destination.

The funny, and frustrating, thing is that this scenario is common to everyone on campus, whether you ask students or professors; I have, indeed, seen people of both descriptions arriving dripping wet to class.

I have been told by adults who enjoy gardening that it is wrong to water in the afternoon because all moisture evaporates, and it is wrong to water at night because the water stagnates and causes mildew on grass. Early morning, around 6 a.m., is the time to water properly.

In my mind this makes sense on two levels: first, it is good for the plants, and second, it is good for TCU students because there is no such thing as a 6 a.m. class.

It would be best for all involved if the sprinklers here were simply set to all run at an early morning hour and complete their run before the first classes of the day, thus prohibiting not being able to make it to class — or at least arrive dry and on time — because three sprinklers shooting from different directions decide to bar your path. This way makes much more sense than having random sprinklers on during random hours of the day.

So why has nothing been done about this issue?

Honestly I have no answer for that. I can’t fathom that no one has brought it to the attention of the correct party. I hear people comment on it constantly.

The problem of sprinklers may appear to be a minor difficulty on the surface, but must be settled when it occurs so frequently that it wastes time and money that could be spent more efficiently.

What is being wasted belongs to all of us.

For this reason, I hope to draw the attention of appropriate parties — whoever they may be — in order to gain a favorable response and even a solution to the issue at hand. I ask that those in charge fix this “minor” quandary so that our lives may all be simplified.

Miranda Nesler is a freshman English major from Houston. She can be reached at (m.g.nesler@student.tcu.edu).