Tumbleweed (Helena, Mont.) 1975-1977, September 16, 1975, Image 6

What is this?
Optical character recognition (OCR) is an automated process that converts a digital image containing numbers and letters into computer-readable numbers and letters. The search engine used on this web site searches OCR-generated text for the word or phrase you are looking for. Please note that OCR is not 100 percent accurate. If the original image is blurry, has extraneous marks, or contains ornate font styles or very small text, the OCR process will produce nonsense characters, extraneous spaces, and other errors, such as those you may see on this page. In addition, the OCR process cannot interpret images and may ignore them or render them as strings of nonsense characters. Despite these drawbacks, OCR remains a powerful tool for making newspaper pages accessible by searching.
×

THE TUMBLEWEED Tuesday, Sept. 16, 1975 Page 6 F r o m t h e N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT: PITTING STATE AGAINST STATE Stephen Abies There are bumper-stickers in the oil-producing states, we are told, which carry the slogan, “Let the bastards freeze in the dark.” We gather that the message is directed at environmentalists and politicians who oppose such things as deep-water ports for oil tankers or offshore oil drilling or refinery con­ struction in their parts of the country, preferring that the side-effects of energy production be dealt with somewhere else. Minnesotans, who don’t have any oil of their own but have seen big chunks of their land­ scape laid waste to produce iron ore for the rest of the country, could well reply, “Let THOSE bastards build their skyscrapers with plastic.” While it is by no means widespread, there certainly is concern about the rate at which Minnesota’s iron resources are being depleted. There are also a few folks who would like to slow down copper-nickel development in this state, to schedule it so that it will be on the upswing as taconite production tails off. So while it may be making too much of a few straws, there seems to be a new kind of parochialism emerging, a growing sense of awareness of what it costs a state, in return for what it gets, to supply the rest of the nation with needed resources. There is, at the moment, no specific proposal 1 know of to divert water from this region to the Southwest or anyplace else for energy purposes or any other. But in Montana and Wyoming, where there are substantial coal reserves, there is some talk that it might be better for those states to ship their coal to areas which have abundant water for gasification rather than to inflict both strip-mining and gasification plants on the states which have the coal. How critical these newly sharpened regional conflicts will become is by no means clear. But they exist. At the recent National Governors Conference, Gov. Edwin Edwards of Louisiana tried to convince other governors that offshore oil drilling was not a fate worse than death for the environment. He offered helicopter tours of offshore rigs to all in­ terested governors, but only Rhode Island's Philip Noel took the trip and was not con­ verted. Nor is it clear how such questions will be resolved. It seems likely Congress will play a role. In the Four Corners area, for example. Congress has already ruled that no water can be appropriated from the San Juan River, a tributary of the Colorado, without congressional approval. It was also Congress which flatly declared by law, in what it presumed was the national in­ terest, that the Alaskan pipeline should be built without further environmental challenges. Some day it could do the same about coal, or water, or iron or copper-nickel. Forest Service Director John McGuire has said, relative to Minnesota's copper-nickel deposits, that “we’re dependent on foreign sources and there’s no doubt the day will come when we will have to utilize some of these resources.” New Mexico Gov. Jerry Apodaca sums up this way: “The federal government shouldn’t tell any state that it must deplete its resources, dégrade its environment, displace its Beyond spoil piles from strip mining 20 years ago, a 350 Megawatt power plant is under construction near Colstrip, Montana. people and sell its remaining energy for a fraction of its value while allowing other states to block development of resources within their borders and off their coasts.” 1 W h a t i s t h e By Bob McCarthy C o l l e g e C o u n c i l ? “Under the Carroll Board of Trustees, the College Council Is the center of policy making at Carroll College, with Its major roles being the deter­ mination of Institutional goals, allocation of its resources, and development and coordination of institutional, educational and social policy.” This description of the College Council is taken from the Faculty Manual. Also given there is the membership formula- five stu­ dents, five faculty, five adminis­ trators. This manual also sup­ plies a concise definition of the responsibilities of the College Council, but it tells little about the actual operation of the Coun­ cil. Since its inception in 1972, the Council has been plagued by an identity crisis. Unable to agree upon its own purpose and authority, it has beer, largely restricted to its actions to “housekeeping” type chores and to management by crisis.So ser­ ious is the lack of identity that a move, albeit unsuccessful, was made to dissolve the Council during the ‘74-‘75 school year. The following brief recount of the history of the Council is in­ tended to provide a basis for a better appreciation of its current status. Although there may be conflicting accounts of that his­ tory, the one reported here is the concensus of several students and teachers who have been involved with the College Council in the past. Until fairly recently, decision­ making structures at Carroll have been built upon a philio- sophy of centralized authority. Inherent in these structures was a tendency to place institutional goals ahead of concern for the in­ dividual student or teacher. Stu­ dents, the reasoning went, are only at Carroll for four years, while the institution must continui to educate new students year after year. Although this attitude is les widely held today, most members of the community would readily acknowledge its presence on the campus. This philosophy was increasing­ ly within the community by people such as the Dea n of Students Father Gene Peoples. Until 1972 the Community Senate, which in­ cluded representatives of stu­ dents, faculty, and the adminis­ tration, was the body chiefly res­ ponsible for making policy re­ commendations to the President of the College concerning student life. This body usually served as the forum for the expression of the growing conflict of attitudes. The conflict was apparent in a 1970 Community Senate recom­ mendation to institute visitation in the dormitories. At the time no visitation was allowed in any of the dorms, a rule represen­ tatives of the traditional philo­ sophy at Carroll.Arguments over the measure were quite intense, with the final vote going in favor of the motion. The Senate’s re­ commendations was approved by the Trustees, who, while dis­ claiming any approval of the ac­ tual decision, set a precedent by encouraging decision-making at the lowest competent level. In other words, they felt the Senate was a competent body, was aware of the actual situation, and had made a firm decision which, re­ gardless of the Trustees own feelings, should be allowed to stand as final. Following more student and fac­ ulty agitation, for change, in­ cluding an incident involving an administrative decision to fire several Carroll teachers in the Spring of 1972, the Trustees agreed to a re-construction of the decision-making process. A planning committee proposed a model for substantial community input into decisions, the Trust­ ees approved the design, and the College Council was bom. Satisfaction with the College Council was short-lived. The community quickly discovered that a change in structure meant little without a change in atti­ tudes. Although the new struc­ ture allowed for a new process of decision-making, the same old attitudes prevailed within that structure, preventing it from woring effectively. For the next couple of years the body was somewhat paralyzed. Virtually nothing was accomplished by the Council during the ‘72-‘73 school year, and the lone substantial act of the Council the following year was an extension of visitation hours. Despite what seemed to be a general drift away from the old attitudes in the ‘74-‘75 school year, and the installation of anew president, again little was ac­ complished. The problem, as ex­ pressed to me by several Council members, remains one of differ­ ing perceptions of the role of the Council. Somehow there seems to be a great deal of optimism among some students, faculty, and ad­ ministrators regarding the pros­ pects for an effective Council in the coming year. Others are resigned to a “watchdog” role for the Council, at least until more attitudes change. Undoub­ tedly there are some who still view the Council with apathy, or even disdain. People in this cate­ gory may long for the days when decisions were more easily made, and thus see no need for the Council, Only time will tell what develop­ ments will take place with regard to the Council, but whatever they may be there does appear to be a few structural hindrances to a more effective Council. The pre­ sidential veto, though unlikely to be as real a factor as in the past, nevertheless presents a potential threat to the Council’s authority. The two-thirds vote required for approval of any Council motion will also continue to limit its effectiveness. It is conceivable that these structural impediments to an effective Council will be challenged this year by those who believe in vest­ ing real authority in the College Council. Your College Council repre­ sentatives for the 1975-76 school year are as follows- STUDENTS- Mark Tokarczyk, Bernie McCarthy, Terri Gruber, Roger Newman, and Bob McCar­ thy. FACULTY- JohnDowns, F r. Lee Hightower, Frank Kromkowski, A1 Pope, and Fr. Jeremiah Sulli­ van. ADMINISTRATION- Fr. Bob Butko, Leo Walchuk, Dean Ro­ berts, Russ Ritter, and F r. Tho­ mas O'Donnell. The president of Carroll, Dr. Kerins, serves as chairman i t f ,# i f t ?« ? t

Tumbleweed (Helena, Mont.), 16 Sept. 1975, located at <http://montananewspapers.org/lccn/Tumbleweed/1975-09-16/ed-1/seq-6/>, image provided by MONTANA NEWSPAPERS, Montana Historical Society, Helena, Montana.