Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

Student tickets: Two for one ID By LEIGH LEVENTIS Students paying mandatory athletic fees for football tickets should be allowed to get two people into football games with just one ID card. Each semester a student pays $12 in athletic fees that goes directly to the athletic department, totaling about $330,000 a year. Another $10 per semester per student goes to pay off the stadium bond debt and $2.50 per semester is paid for the coliseum debt. 'This totals another $375,000 a year, making a total of approximately $705,000 a year the athletic department collects from mandatory student fees. The benefits students are receiving do not come near the total amount of money they are being required to pay. For example, approximately 6,000 tickets are picked up per game for football and 4,000 per game for basketball. (Both of these figures are larger than the true average pickup for last year). At full price for each ticket, this total comes to $460,000 for the year. The athletic department may argue, however, that football and basketball are not the only sports supported by the money received from students and that the athletic department is part of the university community. If this is true, why not do something for students, like allowing them to do as they please with tickets they have already paid for. The USC Student Senate should be commended in its effort to propose legislation enabling a student and his or her guest to enter the game one one ID card. (That ID card must match one of the two people getting in). This does not mean that a student can pick up two tickets with only one ID card. It simply means that with two tickets and one ID card, a student and his guest may gain entrance to the event. An experimental program of this nature was implemented last year during the last five games of the basketball season. This occurred after legislation was endorsed by last year's student senate and through meetings with athletic department officials such as Harold "Bo" Hagan, director of athletics. Why didn't the athletic department allow this temporary proposal to become permanent? Why did the athletic depart ment allow even a temporary proposal to be implemented if they had no intentions of letting it become permanent. Before answering these two questions, a brief history of this proposal is necessary. This proposal was endorsed last year by USC President Dr. William H. Patterson and T. Eston Mar chant, chairman of the Board of Trustees. With their backing, the athletic department was bound to yield on this issue. The athletic department knew, however, that the USC Marquette pickup for tickets was among these last five games and figured a full student turnout for pickup would result in students being turned away and be the demise of the proposal. They figured students not getting tickets for this game would be enraged with people who got tickets for non-students with another student ID. This did not materialize because all of the student tickets were not picked up. The athletic department found two other excuses not to use the one ID card system. They said they had contractual obligations with certain ACC schools for validation money (full price received for student tickets converted to general ad mission prices) and date book purchases would no longer be needed. The athletic department said it could not afford this loss in revenue. With our recent football success, tickets are being sold like never before. This creates the solution for these two excuses. With much more money in gate receipts, the anticipated revenue has been surpassed. Therefore, the school with whom we compete will receive a greater amount of money than an ticipated. Just because the contract stipulates date book money doesn't necessarily mean there has to be any such money. The possibility for this money will still exist. The two excuses cited by the athletic department and their hopes that the temporary system would be rejected have been repudiated and there is no reason why the one ID card proposal should not be implemented immediately. Is the athletic department truly a part of the university or is it solely an independent business entity? If it exists for the University, why doesn't it do something for those who support it the most, the students? GAMECOCK BILL PRATT, Editor BILL OUTLAW, BILL GRANT, Editorial Page Editor Manaing Edit. Letters to 'Faulty' article TO THE EDITOR: I heard that the rumors that Dr. Peter Carruccio heard are true. Indeed, South Tower, built directly on the Geidelberg-Smith Fault, is falling and the University has been quietly vacating the building. Rumor has it that the University is making the students choosing to remain in the condemned building sign a statement that abse ves the Board of Trustees of their responsibility and liability arising from accidents and deaths due to the building failure. One of my students told me that the displaced students, now temporarily camped on Gibbs Green, are filing suit against Harold Brunton for his failure to provide them with hot water. In turn, Mr. Brunton is suing Dr. Peter Carruccio for releasing the rumors, who in turn is suing Richard Hofman, the Gamecock staff writer, who is responsible for this whole mess, for releasing the story. Thank God for hearsay - it permits, in some cases, the blatant abuse ,of the "Freedom of the Press.' FRANK CAR UCCIO (Ed. note - The author is Associate Professor of Geology at USC) Senate story misleading TO TIlE EDITOR: The article "Impeachment Study Postponed" greatly disappointed me. Mr. Mansfield approached me after the Sept. 24 meeting of the Student Senate on the subject of a Powers and Responsibilities CQmmittee meeting which had been scheduled to discuss whether or not there existed a basis in fact for the charges against Trey Lott tha were attributed to Steve Hill by the Gamecock. At no time was the possibility of impeachment mentioned. Im peachment is a very serious procedure which affects more than one's right to serve in SGA. It becomes a part of the imneached 77 77 /7 the Editoi students permanent record, a black mark the impeached student must carry with him for life as he she seeks to further their education or gain employment. The Powers and Responsibilities Committee is going to meet with both Hill and Lott in an attempt to get to the root of the problem. Hopefully, it will turn out to be just a case of misunderstanding and-or lack of communication in the SGA office.AShould the Committee find any evidence of wrongdoing, misconduct, or other improper action, this evidence will be presented to the Senate with the recommendation that the Senate Judiciary Committee conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The senate will then have the ability to absolve the accused of all blame, drop the issue, reprimand the wrong-doer, cen sure the wrong-doer, or as a last, and I emphasize the word last, resort, conduct an impeachment trial. At any rate, I feel the Gamecock should be sure that they report an accurate account of answers given to questions asked by their reporters. The Powers and Responsibilities is not discussing, nor will they discuss the possibility of impeaching a student govern ment official, absent clear and convincing evidence that im peachment is the only viable alternative. Perhaps the students of USC would have more faith in both the Gamecock and the Student Government Association if they tried to work together more and quit the digging for the worst in both organizations. I personally feel that both organizations could do much better jobs than they are, but when emphasis is placed on fighting each other rather than concerning ourselves with ac curately informing the students of the way things are and trying to meet their needs, we are precluding either of us from being effective. BRUCE D). CARTER (Ed. note - The author is Chairman of the Senate Powers and Responsibilities Commite / / 'RS/ Columbia Hall'is * /0 opinionl Poll tO THE EDITOR: The recent whining by Columbia Hall's dorm government has brought out a number of misconceptions concerning housmng. First of all, the term dorm government describes those representatives elected by students who happen to be living in a certain dorm during a certain semester. It does not mean that a dorm government's officers own, lease, or mn any way control their particular hall. The use of a certain building for a certain purpose is dependant on the opmnions of all resident students. Columbia Hall's first actual dorm opinion poll is suspect, in my opmnion. Was it taken before or after the dorm officers voted against the plan? Were all residents asked? Was it secret ballot, or was some officer keeping track of who saidwht Asfrtepa/en o iea frcanColumbia residensw Onivriy,n pollnt The steent hinin by Clumbia aents drm govngmtonb hs brugt sorry sat ofuaffars of thosiang. hvolttefihi dauhrs,ofhenl thetr shudrml goeegrsmina dcriesnt.s representatives y resectetsbo aClumbin dorm wourin ha certain segregtedosnot mitean hat a choice goernen'sy Wofficrsown, Pese,or instay way Caontltei pouiuar allSt. These f ceranr bulng bettr maintain purp os sdnat on the mnsdrs cecenoso auln detgtuens Coupose thal' wefirst haceta oepnion.east tkne albgiformo after heusm goficers voted sugainst Soth Tower. Putete all residents asked?,a isert bpalt orpasestomget ofice andeout. track of wihsi elect?dfne frm ceaeCoumarsdnand wac should rememb Toer this snk they way'tey aissedtei theseirlsny conent.as