Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (March 27, 1980)
; Opinion Closed session In order to avoid the provisions of the Texas Open Meet ings Law, the student senate says it is not a governmental body. It began last night when the senate abruptly changed its bylaws to allow a closed session on a two-thirds vote. A unanimous vote had been required. Following the approval of the bylaw change, the senate went into closed session to discuss two bills. The first was a proposal to withdraw from the Texas Student Association, a state-wide lobbying organization for student interests. The second was a recommendation that student service fees be increased an additional 50 cents. Included in the second bill was a proposal that student service money be given to the Athletic Department to help offset the in creased costs in women’s athletics due to HEW regulations. The Battalion reporter covering the meeting and the small audience in attendence were told to leave the meeting. We feel that that action violated the Texas Open Meetings Law. According to the law, governmental bodies may only go into closed session to discuss pending litigation, proposed land sales, and personnel matters. In addition, any vote on matters discussed in closed session must occur in open session. None of the topics discussed by the senate in closed session fits the exemptions allowed by the law. As a matter of fact, the bylaw change that passed last night did not specify any criteria for calling closed session. The student service fee increase was separated from the Athletic Department allocation, moved to open session and defeated. The fate of the other two bills is known only to senators — they aren’t telling anyone else. The Battalion does not question the propriety of the sen ate discussing those particular issues. The two issues discus sed in the session are worth debating and within the pre rogative of the senate to debate — it is the closed session that strikes us as needless and arbitrary. Senate members contend that student government is not a governmental body according to the law. We disagree. They claim exemption from the law by the nature of their existence — they do not legislate. They make recommenda tions to the various administrative branches of the Universi ty for possible action. The burden of proof in this issue is on The Battalion. We have to prove the senate is in fact a governmental body under the law. We are going to request a clarification of the law from the Attorney General’s office. If, in the Attorney General’s opinion, the senate is a governmental body as defined by the Open Meetings Law, last night’s closed session was illegal, and anything the sen ate did in the session is void. But even if it isn’t, we feel that the closed session bylaw must be rescinded. Whatever the nature of the senate’s power, we feel that it has a moral obligation to the students it represents to discuss its recommendations in public. By excluding the public and press from its meeting, the senate in effect has said that it is an elite group of students at Texas A&M, a group of students privileged to discuss and act on matters which other students can’t even be told about. They’re telling us that what they recommend to the admi nistration — and, more importantly, why they recommend it — is none of our business. We put the question to the students of Texas A&M: Does the student senate have the right to go into closed session to discuss issues that will ultimately affect all Texas A&M students? We don’t think so. The Battalion usps LETTERS POLICY lA'ttirs to the editor should not exceed 300 words and are subject to beinfi cut to that length or less if longer The editorial staff reserves the right to edit such letttrs and does not guarantee to publish any letter. Each letter must be signed, show the address of the uriter and list a telephone number for verification. Address correspondence to Lettws to the Editor. The Battalion. Room 216, Reed McDonald Building. College Station, Texas 77843. Represented nationally by National Educational Adver tising Services, Inc.. New York City, Chicago and Los. Angeles. The Battalion is published Monday through Friday from September through May except during exam and holiday x*riods and the summer, when it is published on Tuesday hrough Thursday. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester; $33.25 per school year; $35.00 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on request. Address: The Battalion. Room 216. Reed McDonald Building. College Station. Texas 77843. United Press International is entitled exclusiveb to the , r r> r i use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it. xilOtOgnipnerS Lee Floy LcSCliper, Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reserved. Steve Clark, Ed Clinnius, Second-Class postage paid at College Station. TX 77843. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are Regents. The Battalion is a non-profit, self- those of the editor or of the writer of the supporting enterprise operated by students article and are not necessarily those of the as a university and community newspaper. University administration or the Board of Editorial policy is determined by the editor. 045 360 MEMBER Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Congress Editor Roy Bragg Associate Editor Keith Taylor News Editor Rusty Cawley Asst. News Editor Karen Cornelison Copy Editor Dillard Stone Sports Editor Mike Burrichter Focus Editor Rhonda Watters City Editor Louie Arthur Campus Editor Diane Blake Staff Writers Nancy Andersen, Tricia Brunhart, Angelique Copeland, Laura Cortez, Meril Edwards, Carol Hancock, Kathleen McElroy, Debbie Nelson, Richard Oliver, Tim Sager, Steve Sisney, Becky Swanson, Andy Williams Chief Photographer Lynn Blanco Viewpoint The Battalion Thursday Texas A&M University March 27, 1980 tie food Italian communists defy Moscow: terestin A crc into 201 articip ents and lean towards U. S. capitalis bega TO sll. ith fo ional c A tali stunnei studen 1 By MARIO DEAGLIO International Writers Service TURIN, Italy — Experts are constantly baffled by Italy, whose behavior defies pre diction. As they face the decade ahead, even an Italian commentator like myself has more questions that answers about the future. In pondering these questions, however, it seems to me that the political shape of the country in the years ahead will depend largely on its economic development. And the economy is likely to be determined by the same problem that confronts other in dustrial nations — the need for energy. Thus Italy is going to be sensitive to its internal dynamics as well as to foreign events, especially in the Middle East, the source of its vital oil supplies. Americans viewing the Italian political scene often tend to assess it in simplistic terms as a struggle by the anti-Communist parties to resist Communism. In Italiam eyes, however, the issue is more compli cated. As we see it, the real question is whether the Communists, who are seeking a role in the government as junior partners to the ruling Christian Democrats, will become increasingly temperate as they approach power. It is already clear that the Italian Com munists, in contrast to their French com rades, have long ceased to be pawns of Moscow. They support Italy’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and, in addition to their other criticism of the Kremlin, they denounced the gsoviet invasion of Afghanistan. On the domestic front, moreover, they are not much different from the British Labor party. They oppose further nationa lization of industry and proclaim the need for private enterprise, albeit within the framework of a planned economy. In my opinion, their sincerity is reflected in the fact that they have been willing to pay a high prices for their position, since it has caused them to be abandoned by the left flank of their movement. It may be, of course, that they will even tually find the price too high and revert to the toughline they espoused during the 25 years after World War II. For them to shift back would be equally expensive, howev er, since they would be bucking economic and social trends that have been taking place in Italy within recent years. After two decades of craving for security and government protection, Italians have scrappedtheir reliance on the welfare state and are becoming more and more adventurous. In short, they are returning to a competitive society in which, for the first time in memory, they are beginning to function as aggresssive entrepreneurs. This has been due in part to technologic al innovation, which has made Italy one of the world’s major exportrs of engineering and construction expertise. It has also been the result of a breakdown of government attempts to manage the economy. All this has not only dramafadtl Com m u nist leaders that the tastefcij ism is waning, but Communist c tives themsleves have adapted toes tic methods, often with marked si Gradually, too, the governments! compelled to relax controls, ore 1h> overtaken by new politicalpai attuned to the free spirit. Tliis! incidentally, is particularly strong11 towns and villages, which foreigner;] observe. Largely because of bureaucratic ineffi ciency, Italians have created a parallel sys tem that, in effect, is nothing more or less than a form of old-fashioned, free-for-all capitalism. The system is attractive as well as a device for tax evasion. The failure of the post office to deliver mail, for instance, has encouraged private carrier services. The unknown factor, though,iss-| Italy can continue to meet its energjij since it imports 85 percentofitsp Maintaining the oil flow from the!( East, therefore, is its biggest chair! bigger than inflation, which has by rising incomes, and bigj ism, which is limited event newspaper headlines. The Private schools are prospering because parents are dissatisfied with declining stan dards in government schools. Private cli nics are proliferating as an alternative to decrepit public hospitals. And hundreds of independent radio and television stations have sprung up, providing a lively change from the government broadcasting net work. The country’s direction points toil creased moderation and stability, mately, its future is contingent oil beyond its control. That is true fci] nation, however. Thus the mostii unanswered question is universal (Dcaglio is a political andecom mentator for II Sole/24 Ore, thtli daily.) Tin at lun the fo Price index is prime cause of inflation By DICK WEST United Press International WASHINGTON — Heresy, good sir, abounds. Man and boy, and at numerous points in between, I have heard the federal deficit scourged as economic evil incarnate. But now that President Carter has prop osed a balanced budget, which many of us thought we would never live to see, eco nomists both myriad and sundry are saying the federal deficit really isn’t all that infla tionary. Gad! If a man can’t believe in the fiscal detriment of the federal deficit, what can he believe in? Next they’ll be telling us that Jack the Ripper’s only vice was performing surgery without getting a second opinion. Assuming the deficit isn’t the prime cause of inflation, then we shall have to look elsewhere for the villian in the piece. I’m thinking of switching to the theory that the main inflationary force is the index used to measure inflation. This thesis rests on the premise that if we didn’t have someone telling us how much and how fast our living cost are rising, chances are our living costs wouldn’t be rising so much so fast. Let’s examine the nature of inflation psychology a bit further. Let’s say, plucking names and figures out of thin air, that Samuel Goodfringe earns $20,000 a year working in a swizzle stick factory. The Consumer Price Index rises 10 percent and Goodfringe demands a 10 percent cost-of-living pay increase. Actually, however, Goodfringe only spends $15,000 a year on CPI items. His $2,000 increase is, therefore, $500 more than necessary to keep pace with inflation. So his pay raise itself is inflationary. Meanwhile, Goodfringe’s employer, the Amalgamated Agitation Corp., noting that its labor costs have risen 10 percent, raises the wholesale price of swizzle sticks by the same percentage. The company has sales of $500,000 a year. Its payroll, however, totals $300,000. The 10 percent price increase brings in $200,000 more than needed to meet the wage increase. That likewise is inflationary. The wholesale price increase is, of course, passed along to the retailer, the Manual Mix Co., which sells$20,0 of swizzle sticks a year, for which it! $15,000. Does anyone seriously think Manui won’t pass along the 10 percent, 1 wholesale price increase to its oust in the form of a 10 percent, price increase? By the time the new retail priceis<j pared to the base period 10; found to have risen 20 percent.' centage then is figured into the nett] sumer Price Index. And the j grew all around. The foregoing explains why we J need to freeze wages and prices to fl inflation. A better plan would betoh wage and price statistics. THOXZ INJ A.LL CsTHEft. AbtUCVJ LTUREi (oOMERHIAtMT fULGOLATlOMS Ate DSUV/lNb AKMAChU-O R.AWCHER.S OUT OF pusitUESS,