News Summary: Editorial (Continued from page 104) Have you had any experience? Yes, I was an Ombudsman. Of the tenants of the married student housing complex surveyed by the Ombudsmen, four of the 11 had housing complaints. However, in response to the Ombudsman report, Mr. Baddley reportedly received a petition signed by all but one of the tenants of the housing area. The petition is reported to have said that the tenants were happy with their housing situations and wished to thank Mr. Badley for his help. This issue was aired in the October 1 issue of Signpost {from which the preceding report was taken). The October 8 issue of the campus newspaper reported that a detailed inspection was made of the rentals by the Administrative Safety Committee. The Committee recommended a few minor repairs to the Building and Grounds office. They concluded that in general the college rental units were desirable and for the most part were maintained adequately. October 29, the Ombudsman Committee found itself on the table for examination. Signpost editor, Jeannie Young penned an editorial asking, "Who Investigates the Investigators?" Jeannie said that she agreed that the campus needed such an organization as a student grievance review committee, but she said: "I'll also be the last to agree that it needs to be run in such a cloak and dagger manner. Why is belonging to the Ombudsman Committee like being a member of the secret police? Why does the Ombudsman have an outer committee whose members only the Ombudsman chairman knows? Why is attendance of Ombudsman meetings by special invitation only? Why don't the echelons of student government and administration know what this committee does before it is done?" Jeannie continued with a speculation that Ombudsman techniques could sever communications between the administra- tion and the students. At about the same time that Jeannie started criticizing the Ombudsmen, complaints about her handling of the news-paper were filtering in to the Executive Cabinet. Among the major complaints against the Signpost were those lodged by AWS President, Paula Butterfield that she had tried to place an article in the newspaper announcing an AWS function. Jeannie explained in a meeting of the Publications Board that she did not print Paula's notice because it was very poorly written. But she said she would print it if it were rewritten. In addition to several complaints similar to Paula's, the flames burning between Signpost and student government were fanned by a rider attached to the Signpost budget as part of election bylaws being debated in the ASWSC Senate. The rider required the Signpost to give equal space to a candidate whose opponent had been supported by the paper. Signpost political editor, Barbara O Shell was the author of a November 5 editorial that called the restriction an infringement of the freedom of the press. The editorial entitled, "Senate learns a new word- Censorship", declared, "The Signpost cannot prostitute itself on its editorial pages and retain any self respect. The freedom of the press cannot be compromise The evening before Barbara's editor made its appearance on campus, the senate held a special session to take decisive action concerning the publications. Rules of were suspended to enable the senate to take immediate action. Studentbody President, Dan introduced an act to change the membership of the Publications Board, which approved by a vote of 10-2 with one abstension. The rider to the Signpost budget was repealed unanimously. The senate also approved Kevin Wheelwright as the student representative of the newly organize Publications Board. In response to the senate and executive cabinet actions, Jeannie printed a from page picture of herself bound and gagged (See picture on page 61.) Beneath the picture was printed, "Freedom of the press an endangered species!!" It is rumored that Dan Hunter attempted to stop publication of the paper. He admitted to visiting the printer but denied that he made any effort to stop publication. (continued page 120) Ralph Nader Crusades At Noon Convocation By Barbara O'Shell Political Editor Editor note: Student senate, executive cabinet and the Signpost locked horns again in this week's senate session, culminating a week long battle in which no one emerged the winner. Conflict is not only unresolved; but the issues are not clearly defined. Early in the day, petitions had been circulated, coming from the Signpost office, demanding that an investigation be made of alleged attempts by the studentbody president, Dan Hunter, to stop the printing of the student newspaper and demanding that the president be impeached if the charge could be proven. Discussing the impeachment issue in executive cabinet session, Phil Johnson, ASWSC financial vice president, had stated, "We're all behind Dan. If they're going to call a recall on one, they just as well do the whole damn thing." Tom Davenport, activities vice president, added, "If Dan Hunter is impeached by the things which we did as an executive cabinet, then I personally will resign." Every member of the executive cabinet went on record as supporting Dan Hunter, with the exception of Dr. Dayley, Dean of Students, who was not present when the decision was made. However, earlier in the same day, in closed session, it was reported that Dan Hunter failed to receive a vote of confidence from his cabinet. It was decided by a vote of 4-2 that the cabinet would not seek a supreme court injunction to stop publication of the Signpost. let it not be said that this generation refused to give up so little to attain so much," a leader in the consumer vrs. big business battle admonished a Weber State College audience. Ralph Nader, a consumer crusader, told a capacity crowd at the WSC Fine Arts auditorium to "start by recognizing how easy it is to converge the roles of student and citizen." Three major problem areas were discussed by Mr. Nader in his noon convocation Feb. 16. He developed his presentation upon the auto industry, food industries and the environment. He stressed the gap between our capacity to solve problems and our actually solving them. He said that we have too much of a history of waiting until the problem is serious to solve it instead of trying to "foresee and foresolve" He cited as an example of the automotive industry's unwillingness to reduce safety hazards, the collapsible steering column, which according to Mr. Nader was not installed until many years after it was developed." Mr. Nader also indicted the car manufacturers for reluctancy I provide safer braking systems, poorly designed bumpers, and the usage of sharp protrusions in auto design. "The best thing a student can learn is the difference between Prevention and remedy. Remedy has nothing to do with the cause," the consumer advocate counseled. "If you ask the right questions you are halfway to the right answers. It all depends on the way the question is asked," Mr. Nader asserted. Turning his attacks to the food industry, Mr. Nader maintained it operated on a process of "you scratch my fraud, I'll scatch yours." Mr. Nader said that food should be evaluated by nutrition, cleanliness and lack of dangerous chemicals. "Where do you get fa information? You're not going to get it from the label unless you eat dog and cat food." The hot dog was singled out by Mr. Nader as one of the industry's biggest frauds. He said the hot dog today contains half the protein and double the fat content compared to the product of 30 years ago. Mr. Nader contended that corporations are getting bigger and more insulated. As of now most consumer complaints are shut of court. Mr. Nader classified pollution as a massive form of violence. The law allow the industries to render the greatest source of destruction of private property, he asserted, he pegged the destruction at $16 billion per year. He considered it to be one of the greatest non-war threats to mankind. Spring Fever Leap into today's world with fashions designed for the young at heart. Today's mood is anything goes and you'll find just that at Auerbach's anything to go anywhere OGDEN AND SALT LAKE CITY