Theodore Roosevelt once wrote that critics do not matter, but instead attention should be paid to “the man who is actually in the arena. . . who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes  short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming.” Roosevelt goes on to say the best one can hope for is a crowning achievement, while at the worst, one fails while attempting something great.

The University of Alaska – Fairbanks (UAF) student government deserves credit for its accomplishments this summer – all of the major actions they planned to take, they took. Their short laundry list included approving a $3,000 advertisement contract at this paper, an additional $3,000 to purchase promotional items for use at government-sponsored events, and $1,500 to hold a summer barbecue. The Associated Students of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (ASUAF) summer committee approved the advertising contract on June 1, they purchased promotional items that same month, and they held the barbecue in mid-July.

Toward the end of summer, the committee began writing legislation for the annual Starvation Gulch barbecue ($500), a short training video for new senators ($500), as well as binders for senatorial blue books ($100). Every year blue books, which include a copy of the senate’s bylaws and rules of procedure, are supposed to be made available to all senators. The senate did not vote on these bills as planned on Aug. 26 because not enough senators showed up to make quorum and the meeting was cancelled.

Despite successes, the committee was plagued with what are best described as “staffing issues.” Five senators made up the original committee: Jennifer Chambers, Arthur Martin, Joshua Cooper, Ean Pfeiffer, and Hollie Seiler. Seiler resigned prior to the committee’s first meeting and Pfeiffer (while an official committee member) was absent for the entirety of the summer. This left the committee with only three active members.

Because three-fifths of the committee were needed to make quorum, every active committee member (Chambers, Martin, and Cooper) needed to attend every meeting. However, as the summer progressed, meetings were postponed, cancelled, or called due to a lack of quorum. The primary cause was scheduling conflicts, according to Chambers.

Of the six official meeting minutes emailed over the student body list-serve, only three met quorum. This does not include the past two meetings, scheduled for Aug. 17 and Aug. 26, which were also cancelled due to lack of quorum. While the committee officially made quorum for 50% of their scheduled meetings, the actual number is most likely closer to 30% as the official minutes do not reflect the total number of times two committee members met only to find themselves lacking a third person.

How successful was the ASUAF summer committee? Compared to summer 2010, the first year ASUAF operated between terms, it was a run-away success. To be fair, the first summer was a joke. That committee only aimed to mobilize a campaign against higher tuition (which it did not do), it lost its committee chair early in the summer, and was plagued with attendance issues.

The summer 2011 committee likewise had difficulty getting enough people to show up. However, they were still able to pass legislation and hold a planned event. While the event was poorly marketed and committee chair Chambers was forced to co-op her roommates into helping out, it still occurred and students benefited from it.

Could the committee have done more? Ideally, yes. If a full committee was willing to meet on a weekly basis, I have little doubt that they would have found prudent and helpful means by which to spend their approximately $20,000 in student summer fees. If they made quorum 100% of the time, instead of their official 50%, they could have held monthly events, really sunk their teeth into their new senator training program, and re-launched their website (which has been down for months). However, when push came to shove, they had only 2 to 3 active members who could rarely meet more than once a month. This held them back. But the summer committee was in the arena.

Did the committee attempt anything great? No. By my reckoning they kept the government boat afloat and even made it a little farther downstream. When nobody shows up, it’s hard to get things done. However, that is not the fault of those who actually attend meetings. The committee accomplished what they set out to do, and by that standard they were successful.

Overall Rating: B

Redistricting is, first and foremost, a necessary process within a healthy and functional democracy. A shifting of the socio-economic and geographic lines improves the chances for a district’s constituents to be better represented. Better representation means having a representative with a good understanding of your wants and needs, can sympathize with your concerns, and who can speak on your behalf at the state legislature. While it is impossible to elect a representative who will make everyone within a district happy, with accurate redistricting it is possible to ensure that a good deal of those in the district will, at the very least, find their representation adequate. In a state the size of Alaska, sometimes adequate is the best we can hope for.

The process of redistricting is simple in theory, but complex in reality. In theory, once every ten years – every time a census is completed – political districts are redrawn to accommodate changes in a regions socio-economic status as well as shifts in overall population. The goal is to shape districts that are relatively equal in population and that are homogeneous both socially and economically. It is a challenging process, one that requires dedication and a thick-skin.

Like any task worth undertaking (and it most certainly is) it demands much from those who undertake it. It is believed, in fact, that Ron Miller, who directed the board until early March, died only because of the strain the position placed on him. An article in the Anchorage Daily News quoted board attorney Michael White as stating that “you go into your public hearings, and people are screaming and yelling.”  In the same article, a friend of Millers added that “he worked himself to death.” It is fair to say that the redistricting process is so demanding that it is even hazardous to one’s health.

It is well known that the board has been heavily criticized from the beginning. With four republicans and one democrat, it isn’t surprising someone would call foul. However, this unevenness is nothing new. In 2000, the redistricting board put in place by then-Gov. Tony Knowles was dominated by five democrats and no republicans.

While a governor will no doubt choose board members they feel to be qualified, there has most certainly been a trend toward choosing members of ones own political party. While such a precedent is not fair, it is also not wrong nor illegal. One’s political persuasion does not dictate one’s intellectual capacity or one’s powers of reasoning.

Even then, such politicizing shouldn’t matter. The demands placed on the board by both state and federal laws are difficult to maneuver around and very nearly bind the boards (metaphorical) hands. They board has to make sure the new districts have equitable populations, they have to make sure that both rural Alaska and urban Alaska is represented, districts must be contiguous geographically and all districts must be socially and economically equal. In addition, the districts must not discriminate against “a group that has been consistently excluded from the political process” (i.e. Native Alaskans). In short, the board doesn’t have a lot of wiggle room.

Does that mean I approve of the boards plan? No. It’s weird and splotchy, like a Rorschach test. And, come on, you want to lump the Goldstream Valley and Ester with communities toward the Bering Sea? You still want to put parts of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park in a district with Eagle, Galena, and Holy Cross? Delta Junction should be in the same district as Cordova? It’s absurd and takes on the form of a Lovecraftian horror.

For the College area specifically, little will change. Most university students will still be able to vote for popular incumbent Rep. David Guttenberg (currently District 8D) . The only changes affecting UAF, is that the campus now finds itself no longer actually in Guttenberg’s new district, which would be District 6C.  Under the boards plans, UAF would be part of a restructured District 8D which would include territory from the original Districts 8D and 7D.

The plan is considered so bizarre and unfair that the Fairbanks North Star Borough has moved to sue the board over it’s proposed plan. The City of Petersburg is also joining in on the lawsuit.

Lawsuits aside– and this is very important – the new districts aren’t really all that weird when compared to their predecessors. Go ahead, open the boards two plans and view them with the current district placement. What is really at the issue is members of the Fairbanks North Star Borough will now share a representative with huge swaths of rural Alaska and that a good number of representatives will be switching District numbers. Is it fair? No, not as things stand, but it’s adequate, and in a state the size of Alaska, it’s as good as we’re going to get.

For those who haven’t read my column, or who don’t interact with me on a regular basis, you should know that I can be a pretty political dude. As such, I always have ideas as to how to make the system better – whichever system that happens to be. In this case, the “system” in question is the student government.

Now, before you read on, know this: I am not writing to torpedo any individual or organization. I’m writing this column to share ideas that have occurred to me during my time at UAF. As it happens, I’m the Sun Star’s go-to guy for reporting on the student government. I attended almost every senate meeting during the spring semester. I wrote a weekly column whose primary focus was politics at the university-level and penned an update on ASUAF that gave highlights from their latest meetings. I know every student representative (both legislative and executive) and can find common ground with all of them.

So, to the point of the matter: if I were involved with the student government what would I do?

• Revitalize the image – Many students either don’t like or don’t care about their student government, which is a shame. Our tuition goes to it, which means it’s our responsibility to make sure it flourishes. There is a project underway in the summer committee to get the word out about ASUAF via cool swag for students. It is the perfect start to revitalizing the organizations image. The ideas presented below are where I would go next.

• Make it a council… – There are 20 seats in the senate. During the 2010-11 term there were never 20 senators. Fewer senators (like 5-7) in a council would, in theory, be easier to schedule with. You’re juggling 5-7 schedules versus upwards of 20. Having fewer senators means you can actually pay them for their services, which leads me to my next idea.
• … and pay ‘em – You may not know this, but the only paid positions in the legislative branch of ASUAF are the senate clerk and senate chair. That’s it. The other dozen-and-a-half-or-so senators (it fluctuates constantly) are not paid. Moreover, this gives more incentive to students to vote if they actually control a senator’s job status. If anything, it gives senators a reason to be productive since it’s a) a job for which they’re paid and b) the student population controls their employment status.
• Free food! – Free food is one of the simplest ways a student government can give back to it’s constituent in an obvious and helpful way. The food doesn’t always have to be an outdoors BBQ event ala-Spring Fest, but even just free donuts or fruit every month in the Wood Center would be nice. Yes, ASUAF provides hot water and coffee to students in their offices. In the back of the Wood Center, where most students don’t go. Why not move it up to a table near the lower entrance? I know I’d stop by for a hot cuppa in January. Plus, you’d have to find someone to man it which means paying someone which means more money in student pockets.

• Sponsor more events – The best example of this was during Fall 2010. The public relations committee sponsored a debate between senate contenders Scott McAdams and Joe Miller. It was a huge success. It was awesome. However, I would never limit the student government to just sponsoring political debates. Why not underwrite a solid (and famous) speaker to come up once a semester or once a term? Then, there’s always the Concert Board. I know from personal experience that some of the best events put on at UAF are concerts. It works and people love it, therefore we should do it more.
• Establish student work programs – Seriously. Think an ASUAF version of FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) of the 1930′s. Just a few ideas? Pay students to take part in a campus beautification project, pay poll workers during student election season (the budget already allots money for this), or commission students to create a new work of art for somewhere on campus. If there is one thing that shows “we care” its underwriting student-interest projects that will leave an impact on UAF long after said students have left and graduated. It develops a sense of community. My parent/friend helped make _____ , how cool is that?
• Fund student projects -– ASUAF’s current Student Travel Grants ($22,000 for FY11-12) are the perfect example. Why not a few more for, say, academic achievement? It wouldn’t have to be for thousands of dollars. As a student who has earned and spoken to students who have earned scholarships or grants, even $500 helps. It pays for a class. A months worth of food or part of your rent. This is to say nothing of the club council allotment, which will be $33,400 for FY11-12. Don’t forget the numerous student organizations that go to regional or national competitions every year. A couple clubs I would help sponsor more? Phi Alpha Theta and the Society of Automotive Engineers, for starters.

Some might say that giving so much space and attention to the student government is ridiculous. Well, it isn’t, and let me tell you why. There is a common complaint among students that ASUAF doesn’t care about students. Well, how can we expect them to care if we don’t? I know that several former and current senators and members of the executive branch had/have a genuine interest in the well-being of their fellow students. They are hard-working people who deserve our support just as much we deserve theirs. We’re all students and it’s our collective dime that is spent or not spent. I know I want to see where it goes…won’t you help ensure our student government can kick ass come fall?

Jeremia Schrock / Sun Star Columnist
April 26, 2011

This past year, UAF added some impressive cartridges to its bandoleer of successes. The Board of Regents (BOR) approved the long-awaited anti-discrimination policy. It finalized the tuition increases through the 2012-13 fiscal year. The university saw its bond package get the “a-okay” from voters before finally begin construction on the new Life Sciences Building. To top it all off, the Board also approved the creation of a film major in order to take advantage of a tax-credit currently offered by the state legislature.

But, with so many issues resolved – or at least temporarily placed on the back-burner in the case of tuition increases – the question now is where do we, as students, go from here? What will become the new clarion call to rouse students to action? As Elton John once sang, “Where to now, St. Peter?”

There is one issue that I think a worthwhile – if less glamorous – candidate.

While “fixing the roof” is a much less attractive slogan compared to “granting equal rights for all,” equal rights do not keep one warm during the long, cold and snowy winter months that one is in school. What keeps a person warm is buildings, especially the (aged) power plant. Without those, there is no UAF.

At present, the UA system has more than $750 million worth in deferred maintenance. According to a PowerPoint presentation made available by Facilities Services, the majority of buildings on campus were constructed between 1958 and 1972. The average age for buildings on campus is 35 years. The oldest building still in use, the Eielson building, was build almost 80 years ago.

In fact, the number of buildings in need of repair and/or renovation is absurd. What is even more ridiculous is the number of buildings whose maintenance costs go well over $10 million each: Elvey, O’Neill, Irving I, Irving II, the Ice Arena, the Patty Center, the Lola Tilly Commons, Constitution Hall, Gruening, Eielson, U-Park and last, but never least, the Power Plant. Yes, the deferred renewal need of all of these buildings is at least $110 million. In other words, 13 percent of the operating budget for the entire UA system for all of fiscal year 2011. That’s a minimum.

The worst part is, even if UAF wanted to fix itself up all pretty, it doesn’t have the money to do so. The BOR only received $37.5 million for the whole of the UA system. It doesn’t take a mathematics professor to know that isn’t enough to cut it.

The State Legislature is so concerned about declining oil revenue that it’s tightening its belt without (or so it seems) really considering the future cost to the university system – especially when one considers how outdated the infrastructure is already. The university is a state-operated system that deserves the full support of the state government and legislature. As Section 7.2 of the state constitution writes: “the University of Alaska is hereby established as the state university.” Ergo, state support.

However, there is no way I intend to end my final Nookraker of the year on a sour note. Despite the lack of funding, UAF is being gutsy and moving ahead with their campus restoration projects. Within the past several years, the university has begun repairing the showers in Skarland Hall, finished rebuilding the exterior of the CTC campus (making it more energy-savvy), revamped part of Gruening for the recently revitalized Psychology PhD program and has started replacing the worn-out sewer pipes that snake their way across campus. Plus, they even replaced the carpeting in Eielson. While it’s not something to get too excited about, at least it’s aesthetically pleasing.

Jeremia Schrock / Sun Star Reporter
April 19, 2011

Every term, UAF presents various students, staff and faculty with “of the Year” awards in honor of their service to the university. The student senate gives out annual awards for best staff and faculty member, while the Wood Center hands out employee of the month awards. UAF as a whole grants such diverse prizes as the Marion Frances Boswell Memorial Award for Outstanding Graduating Senior Woman and the Alumni Achievement Award for Business and Professional Excellence. We are a campus that loves awarding excellence and it is in that same spirit that I present to my readers the 2011 Nookraker Awards for Awesome.

Best Actor: Hadassah Nelson is the best actor UAF has at present. I use the word actor because “actress” implies something less than a “real” actor. The list of shows Nelson has acted in is extensive, with her best role (yet) being as Valentina in “The Bay at Nice.” Also, be sure to check her out as the Queen of Sicilia in Stephan Golux’s “The Winter’s Tale,” which debuts this Friday, April 22!

Best ASUAF Senator: Robert Kinnard III has worked tirelessly during his time on the senate. He is always available for discussion (whether in person or over email), spoke on behalf of student concerns in Juneau, has put forward numerous senate bills (including one which provides students with free ID cards) and is now chairing the Elections Board. He’s worked his ass off and deserves recognition.

Best Drink at the Pub: Moose’s Tooth Raspberry Wheat. It’s a raspberry-based beer and it’s only ever on tap. I really can’t say more then that.

Best Wood Center Employee: Julene Loudermilk, the administrative assistant who is always fun to be around and who is a great conversationalist. She is helpful and will always let you in to your office when you forget your keys.

Best Technology Guru(s): It’s a two-way tie between Robert Hale in OIT and Jeremy Smith at the Sun Star. According to an incredibly confidential source, Hale is helpful, understanding and always shows concern for the students that work in his department.

Smith is the man behind the Sun Star’s website. He is largely to thank for making the site as award-winning as it is. He updates it, organizes it and makes sure every photo we run looks snappy. Without Smith, the website would not be nearly as amazing as it is. He, in all honesty, deserves his own category.

Best Graffiti Art (That Makes a Statement): The pimp-hat wearing Nanook spray painted outside of the Wood Center that says “Pay Yo Fees Bitches.” Funny AND factual.

Best Graffiti Art (Just Because): The face of Elton John that was plastered around Gruening last summer. As classy as the man himself. So, really classy.

Best Place to Take a Nap on Campus: 6th Floor in the Rasmuson Library. Those chairs are comfy, am I right?

Best Coffee: The St. Nickerdoodle that the Polar Perk makes almost every morning. It’s made by the North Pole Coffee Roasters Company and is just delicious.

Best Librarian: Paul Adasiak of the Rasmuson Library is ridiculously helpful. Not only is he helpful and happy, but he has this great idea for setting up library help desks all around campus. Seriously.

Best Intramural Sport: Women’s Rugby. Why? Not only is rugby one challenging (and wicked cool) sport, but because we’re at a college campus in Alaska that has a women’s rugby team. Oh, and because if we ever played a UAF vs. UAA game of Red Rover they would TOTALLY be on my side.

Best Sport on Campus to Play with a Broom and Cape: Quidditch. Speaking of which, check out my article next week on Spring Fest’s newest (and most phantasmagorical) idea yet! You get to run around with a cape on your back and broom between your legs. You know you want to (read my article, that is).

Jeremia Schrock / Sun Star Columnist
April 12, 2011

The ASUAF senate has a laundry list of problems. Many of these problems are inherent to the organization itself but some have very little to do with the senators directly. That does not mean that senators are blameless, only that the issues of ASUAF are deeply entrenched and will take either a miracle worker or a voter referendum to fix.

As an example, on March 20 the senate voted on Senate Resolution (SR) 176-002: Amendability of Legislation’s Purpose. Sen. Jennifer Chambers, who doubles as the senate’s parliamentarian, wrote the resolution. A parliamentarian acts as an adviser for the senate, interpreting both the senate’s rules of procedure (how it governs itself), as well as its bylaws (actual legislation).

Chambers wrote the resolution to ensure that a bill’s purpose could not be amended on the floor, with the logic being that a loophole might enable someone other then the bill’s sponsors to change the intent of a bill. The consensus on the senate floor was that while the issue wasn’t a big deal, it was better to err on the side of caution. The senate voted in favor of the resolution.

The following week, ASUAF President Nicole Carvajal vetoed it. Her veto was mentioned during the next senate meeting, but nothing came of it. The veto stood and the senate moved on.

However, Chambers emailed the ASUAF ListServe stating that, as it was a senate resolution, Carvajal could not veto it. Chambers cited the senates own rules of procedure, which read (in part) that “a resolution is not an ‘act’ of the Senate, and is not subject to Veto…” Essentially, the president cannot veto senate resolutions that amend the senate’s rules of procedure.

I spoke to Carvajal and Chambers about the issue. Carvajal believed that the veto should stand since the senate had had the opportunity to overturn the veto and didn’t. As Chambers saw it, the resolution was effective because it could not be overturned in the first place.

In an effort to have the issue laid to rest, Chambers said that Duffy would speak with Sabra Phillips, ASUAF’s Executive Officer. Phillips oversees the financial side of ASUAF and settles disputes among the senate. As of April 8, Phillips said that she was aware of the situation but had not yet been contacted by any member of the student government.

My own review of the senate’s rules shows that Chambers is correct. The president cannot veto a senate resolution that is amending the rules of procedure, plain and simple. The fact that the resolution went unchallenged on the senate floor says less about the senate’s investment in the resolution than in their ignorance of their own rules.

This is one of the biggest problems with the student government: for the most part, they don’t know what they’re doing. To be fair, the inspiration to read the bylaws and rules of procedure isn’t there. Unless a senator is either the Senate Chair or Senate Clerk (parliamentarian), they do their jobs unpaid. In fact, many of them have jobs elsewhere on top of taking a full load of classes. Still, senators know they are unpaid going into the job, which means they either a) need to start giving a damn or b) get off the senate and let those who actually care about students get to work.

This may be harsh, but it’s also true. This past school year saw the ASUAF government receive more than $460,000 from student fees, which means the people spending (or not spending) student money should know what they’re doing. The student government needs to be an opportunity to enrich the lives of all students, not just a chance to pad the resumes of a few.

Jeremia Schrock / Sun Star Reporter
April 5, 2011

It’s April, which means student government elections are around the corner. By the end of the month, the students of UAF will have elected new senators and a new executive branch. But what does the student government do?

ASUAF’s Purpose

According to the student government’s official website, “It is our function to represent and act on behalf of the students of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.” The Associated Students of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (ASUAF) is the official title of the student government. Their primary job is to support and oversee student organizations and projects. The organizations include the Sun Star (the student paper), KSUA (the student radio station) and Concert Board (which holds concerts and cultural events). It supports student projects through both legislation (senate bills) and through Club Council, which directly funds student clubs and societies

Funding and oversight

But how does it support and oversee these organizations and projects? Attached to each student’s semester tuition is a $35 student government fee In the 2010-2011 school year (which included the Summer semester), ASUAF received $461,780. That money went to the ASUAF Executive Officer who then disbursed the funds between the student government and the three organizations previously mentioned. Each organization receives a set percentage of the total yearly allotment, which can only be altered by a student-supported ballot measure.

Each organization is managed by a board of directors, which includes student government representatives. In some cases, non-ASUAF affiliated students may petition for a board position or be voted onto the board during a student election.

The ASUAF government is also important when it comes to student outreach. Two of its biggest duties include providing funding to student clubs and petitioning state legislators in Juneau on behalf of the student body.

Supporting student endeavors

Officially recognized student organizations and clubs are eligible to receive funding from Club Council, which is overseen by the ASUAF vice president. This past fall, the council was allotted $20,000 to distribute amongst its various clubs. Such a number may seem high, but according to the UAF website, our campus has more than 120 active student clubs, ranging from ABADA Capoeira to the Yoga Club.

In order to receive funding, a club must submit a budget proposal to the council. The council discusses the proposals and doles out what it believes to be a fair amount. This occurs once a year, during the Fall Semester. The funding given to Club Council makes up 4 percent of the total operating budget that ASUAF receives throughout the year.

ASUAF also underwrites student travel grants ($7,000 was set aside for this school year) and is supposed to hold four blood drives a year.

Petitioning for students

One of ASUAF’s most important roles is petitioning the Board of Regents and state legislators on behalf of students. This past year, a dozen members of ASUAF played a role in the amending of the non-discrimination policy and keeping the increase in tuition low. The policy was amended to include sexual orientation and the tuition increase was limited to 7 percent (as opposed to 10 percent) for the 2012-2013 school year.

Since student elections are almost upon us, I encourage you to keep on the look out for election information both from the ASUAF student government and from the Sun Star. Remember, ASUAF spends your money. Shouldn’t you have a say in who uses it and how?

Jeremia Schrock / Sun Star Reporter
March 29, 2011

As of March 29, a bill that would affect the UA system as a whole (and the Board of Regents in particular) is making its way through the state legislature. House Bill 6, sponsored by Rep. Max Gruenberg (D), would grant the governor the power to “remove or suspend a member of the Board of Regents (BOR) of the University of Alaska for good cause.” The reasoning behind the bill is that while the BOR has the ability to regulate itself, it has failed to adopt the rules necessary to handle the removal or suspension of a regent.

However, several individuals disagree with Gruenberg’s bill. “I don’t think the bill is needed,” said Joe Hayes, UAF’s Alumni Director. Between 1995-97, Hayes was a student regent and the board’s first African-American member.

Hayes believes such issues should be handled within the BOR itself and that the bill is simply a reaction to the 2007 federal indictment of former board member Jim Hayes, who is not related to the Alumni Director.

Jim Hayes is also a former Fairbanks mayor. He was indicted for conspiracy and money laundering by a federal grand jury in January 2007. Throughout the entire process, and despite calls for his resignation by both the legislature and then-Governor Sarah Palin, Hayes continued to serve as a member of the BOR until April 2007 when he (it is said) reluctantly resigned. In 2008, he was found guilty and is serving a five-year prison sentence.

“You would hope a sitting regent would not want to impugn the integrity of the board,” Joe Hayes said. “You’d hope they’d do the right thing and step down.” While the former mayor did eventually step down, the damage, it seems, had been done.

The BOR bylaws (BL05-C: Removal From Office) state “an officer of the board may be removed from the office by a simple majority vote of the whole board at any regular or special meeting.” In short, if the board wants to remove somebody it can.

That particular bylaw was revised on Feb. 7, 2007, two months before Jim Hayes’ resignation. While the minutes from both the regents’ regularly scheduled meeting on Feb. 7-8 and an earlier emergency meeting held on Jan. 23 remain mysteriously silent on Hayes and the changes to the bylaws, the fact remains that the BOR now has a process in place. This means that the primary reason for HB 6 to move from being a bill to a law is, essentially, false.

Jo Heckman, who became a member of the BOR on Feb. 7, also believes that the bill is unnecessary. “The process works just fine,” she said. “This is how I run my business: ‘if it’s not broke, why fix it?’” Heckman is the president and CEO of Denali State Bank and the first female bank president in Alaska.

In HB 6, Gruenberg states that the BOR is ignoring its obligations under AS 14.40.170 (b) (1). That statute states that the board will “adopt reasonable rules, orders, and plans with reasonable penalties for the good government of the university and for the regulation of the Board of Regents.” Is the February 2007 addition to the bylaws not a reasonable rule? Is being removed as a regent not a reasonable penalty?

While proper oversight of any organization is imperative, it is also important that the reasons for said oversight be justified. In the case of the BOR, it appears they are operating just as they should be.

On Feb. 23, HB 6 was referred to the Judiciary Committee and as of March 29, has not yet been discussed. If the bill remains in committee at the close of the legislative session on April 13, it will die in committee and cease to be on the table.

Jeremia Schrock / Sun Star Columnist
March 22, 2011

It’s easy to assume that once a political campaign season ends, whether it be for a local or national election, that the politicking ceases right along with it. As the cliché goes, however, to assume will make a you-know-what out of “u” and “me.”

“Politics affects everything, and our government was set up with the express intention of having people participate in the decision making process,” James Shewmake said. Shewmake, a master’s student in natural resource management, is also co-founder of the UAF Campus Democrats. He established the group toward the end of the 2010 campaign season with the express intent of getting more students involved with political activism.

For Shewmake, the club is about encouraging participation and activism in politics. “Political parties and democratic forms of government are only as effective as the people who are involved,” Shewmake said. “Simply sitting back and criticizing both parties while remaining apathetic really accomplishes nothing,” adding that a group such as the UAF Campus Democrats allows “young people” the opportunity to become involved. Shewmake also said that joining such organizations gives students the chance to become better acquainted with both local and state officials and helps them to better understand what goes on behind the scenes during a political campaign.

Ashley Briggs, an undergraduate in broadcast journalism, produces Fairbanks Focus: Alaska View, a weekly round-table program hosted by former Borough Mayor Jim Whitaker. Briggs said that prior to becoming involved with the program she felt “out of the loop on anything current.” Hosting the show has given her the opportunity to become better informed.

“Anytime someone brings up something about a bill being discussed or any kind of new legislation, that is always new to me,” Briggs said. “[It's] something I wouldn’t know about without the round table.” Briggs added that she rarely takes sides in political debates and, in spite of her role as producer of a political talk show, has never really been into politics.

ASUAF Vice President Mari Freitag feels just the opposite. “I love following politics!” she said in an email. Freitag, a political science major, said that even if she hadn’t been elected vice president of the student government, she would still have been just as politically aware as she is now. She stated that she ran for the VP slot after her friend Nikki Carvajal (the current ASUAF President) asked her to be her running mate.  She ran with Carvajal because she felt that being VP would be a “good challenge.”

After she and Carvajal won the election in a landslide, Freitag began to see just how much of a challenge her new role would become. “This job has taught me how to deal with people more than anything. It’s showed me that I can’t make everyone happy and that I need to be ok with that.” Freitag added that her tenure as VP has better exposed her to the inner workings of the university system which she says helps her better explain issues to students.

Keeping all this in mind, the political life of UAF is alive and well. Not just because student government elections are around the corner (this April), but because for several students, politics is infused directly into life. Whether it be on a talk show, at lunch in the Wood Center or on Facebook chat, talking politics and dealing with politics is difficult to avoid.

Jeremia Schrock  /  Sun Star Columnist
March 15, 2011

Ask a group of historians what moves history and you will be often be told a variety of answers: religion, economics, the environment, politics. Less often will one hear the response “ideas.” Ideas, and a peoples’ willingness to defend them, are oftentimes overlooked in historical commentary. Even when ideas are at the forefront of discussion, how often does one see the international community spontaneously take part in them?

The answer is rarely. However, there are several instances within the past one hundred and fifty years when individuals from one country felt moved to defend the ideals at stake in another. In 1860, Giuseppe Garibaldi organized the International Legion, a military unit composed of British, French, Swiss, German and Polish citizen-soldiers who desired to liberate Italy before carrying the fight to their own homelands. In 1916, before any official involvement in WWI, American volunteers joined Allied units in France in order to fight against imperialist Germany. I am not referring to “Country A” sending regular government troops into “Country B,” but am instead casting a light on the individual citizens of one country who felt the need to protect the citizens of another.

The best example comes during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), when tens of thousands of volunteers joined the Spanish Republic in an effort to quell the Fascist coup led by Francisco Franco. Thousands of these soldiers came from outside of Spain, pouring into the country from places as far east as the Soviet Union and as far west as the United States. These soldiers made up what were called the “International Brigades” and fought not for land, wealth or power, but for the defense of a threatened republic.

In an interview with the BBC in 2010, Sam Lesser, a British veteran of the International Brigades, recalled why he chose to fight in Spain. “The legally elected government of the republic was being attacked by Fascist forces in Spain. My attitude [was that] ‘If they are doing this today and getting away with it in Spain, can you guarantee that it won’t happen in England, too?’”

Lesser lived and fought during an extremely volatile time in humanity’s history, a time when disparate ideologies were waging global conflicts not just through the pen and on the soapbox, but with the rifle and bayonet. Now, 75 years later, the world again finds itself in the midst of global revolution.

The past decade has seen global change brought on by global conflict. While World War III has yet to be declared, the advent of globalization and the inter-connectivity it has brought with it means warfare somewhere will have ramifications everywhere. The uprisings in Egypt may influence the long-standing, albeit tenuous, peace between Israel and the rest of the Middle East. The civil war in Libya has directly affected the price we pay at the pump. A revolution in Iran could just as easily stabilize the Middle East as it could throw it into turmoil. Even Syria has seen anti-government protests.

Politically, America sits in the middle of it all. But America is a fickle and evolving nation. Past are the halcyon days of democracy when war was fought to preserve a republic, rather then install one. From the proxy wars fought during the twentieth century, to the advent of the Bush Doctrine in the twenty-first, the U.S. has decided to wage war not for the sake of preserving democracy, but for the sake of national defense (whether national defense was threatened or not).

A Reuters poll from February 2011 stated that 58 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. should be cautious of backing burgeoning democracies in the Middle East because said democracies could elect an anti-American Islamist government. America, land of the free and home of the brave, is fearful of defending democracies that are at this moment fighting for their very survival. Why? Because someone America doesn’t like might be elected.

America has a self-image problem. In 2001, we saw ourselves as the guardians of democracy, defending ourselves by waging preemptive war. Now, when democracies are actually springing up of their own accord, in a region long dominated by totalitarianism and fascism, we find ourselves impotent. We don’t want to fight for democracy because it might not be the democracy we like.

America also has a global image problem. For a handful of months after 9/11, the world grieved along with the rest of us. The French newspaper Le Monde, soon after the attack, ran a headline that read “We Are All Americans.” Even with the election of Barack Obama, America is still viewed with great disdain across the world. Why shouldn’t the world think ill of us? We talk freedom and democracy but only when it is convenient to us.

So, what happened during the Spanish Civil War? Who won? Surely, democracy and “the good guys” (including the International Brigades) were victorious?

The answer is a regrettable “no.” By 1938, Britain and France were fearful of the civil war in Spain escalating into a larger European conflict. In an effort to appease Italy and Germany, both of whom were actively supporting Franco with troops and supplies, a European non-intervention committee was established to prevent materials from reaching either side of the conflict. Since Germany and Italy did not halt their aide to Franco, the policy of non-involvement only affected the democratic Spanish Republic. Democracy in Spain was defeated because the democracies in Europe failed to act.

Where are today’s International Brigades? Where is the mobilization in defense of democracy in other countries? While it is counter-intuitive to impose democracy, is it not right to defend it where it already exists? Right now much of the Middle East is experiencing (hopefully) democratic revolution. If they fail to succeed, it is only because the democratic and freedom-loving nations of the First World stood idly by.

Nookraker

Jeremia Schrock / Sun Star Reporter
March 1, 2011

Getting something changed at the university level can be a grind. It took the better part of three years for UAF to institute a film major and now there’s a good chance the program won’t begin accepting students until Fall 2012. Just in time for the apocalypse as foretold by the Mayan calendar.

The new program (approved by the Board of Regents on Feb. 18) still needs to be developed, then reviewed and approved the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU), the body responsible for accrediting the colleges in the UA system. For Chancellor Rogers, the major “is an example of how we can respond to a specific workforce need and focus an existing program to better serve our students.” The state and the university are making a concerted effort to help diversify Alaska’s economy by investing in cinema. Just look at SB 23, which, if it passes the State Legislature, will extend the state’s current film tax credit program for an additional 10 years, to 2023.

Before the regents’ decision to move forward with the new major, no infrastructure existed to help Alaskans develop their cinematic muscles. With that in mind, I asked around campus to see what other programs and classes students would like to see added – or cut. The list was intriguing and, at times, brilliant, funny and surprising.

In the perfect world of those polled, UAF would expand its foreign languages department to allow undergraduate degrees in Chinese and Arabic. Currently, UAF offers two elementary and two intermediate classes in Chinese and two introductory Arabic classes taught “as demand warrants.” In addition to languages, liberal arts students would like to see expansions in justice (to a doctorate), sociology (to a master’s) and women and gender studies (to a bachelor’s).

In the sciences, students would like web development classes become a part of the computer sciences program. They’d also like to declare themselves majors in botany and paleontology. Speaking of paleontology, UAF already has the world’s foremost collection of polar dinosaurs and some excellent faculty members (Patrick Druckenmiller and Sarah Fowell among them) at its disposal. If there is one thing almost everybody living in a post “Jurassic Park” America loves to read about and see, it’s dinosaurs. If there was ever a way to attract people to the sciences at UAF (and to inspire charitable contributions to the university) it’s to make everything UAF does just a little more about dinosaurs.

While there are plenty of courses and programs people want to see added, there are several that students wish to see axed. As far as programs go, the first that would be given over to the guillotine is communications. Several people who answered the survey felt that while communications is important, it doesn’t warrant its own program. Another program that inspired similar feelings was (and it hurts me to write because it’s my own minor) philosophy. Respondents felt that philosophy lacks practical value.

Two classes that were met with equal disdain were Library Science 100X and Art/Mus/Theater 200X. On the flip side, two students were more then ready to begin taking Underwater Basket Weaving 100X and the Art of Maiming 201. I have a pretty good feeling that those classes would be both lucrative for the university, as well as totally awesome.

Jeremia Schrock
Feb. 22, 2011

There’s a famous little adage that goes “Power corrupts.” While I doubt few would disagree with such a statement, it deserves an addendum. Power also breeds laziness. This slothfulness is evident in two separate instances: both of which have occurred within the University of Alaska system within the past several weeks.

ASUAF removes GPA requirement

On Feb. 6, the ASUAF senate passed SB 176-005: Juneau Legislative Conference Spring 2011. Included in the bill was a clause to rescind the GPA requirement of 2.0 for individuals wishing to attend the conference in Juneau. Sen. Jesse Cervin made the motion to remove the GPA requirement citing a “low number of applicants.” It appears that desperate times do indeed call for desperate measures.

Sen. Robert Kinnard III, who voted against the bill, felt that removing the GPA requirement was tantamount to circumventing the rules. “It’s a slick way to disregard criteria,” he said.

All rules aside, what concerns me most is the message such a bill sends to not only members of the UA system, but also to legislators in the capitol. Is the quantity of students ASUAF sends to the capitol more important than the quality?

While petitioning for university rights is important, what does it say to those we go to petition? We send you not the best and brightest, but those who simply showed up.

However, and this is important, showing up is half the battle. You took the time to show up, and that reflects better on your character then a GPA ever could.

Forgiveness > Permission

On Jan. 31, UA president Patrick Gamble announced that Tom Case, (another) former general, would replace Fran Ulmer as the chancellor of UAA. According to John Petraitis, UAA faculty senate president, this announcement took him and many faculty members by surprise.

In the past, faculty members have had the opportunity to review and interview a pool of candidates before making their recommendation to the president. Instead, after meeting with an advisory board to determine just how he, as president, should proceed, he went ahead and selected Case as new chancellor. Shortly thereafter, Gamble visited the UAA campus to apologize for his quick decision. But that was all.

The issue at hand is not whether Case is the man for the job or not. By all accounts, he seems to be. The issue is whether the precedent set by Gamble is a good one. Gamble circumvented standard procedure in order to fill the position quickly. While one cannot fault him for a failure to act, the question that arises is: did he act too quickly?

I believe he did. According to Petraitis, many people on the advisory council were already in favor of making the search for a new chancellor local. Indeed, Case was one of only two people that the president really had in mind. Regardless, allowing those who are about to be lead a chance to meet their potential leader is a cornerstone of what makes the UA system as good as it is. We like knowing we have a chancellor who is out there for us, someone who owes his or her job to us.

For Gamble and his methods to be seen as a success, Case’s performance has to be nothing short of stellar. If Case proves to be the Hercules of UAA, Gamble will look like the greatest of talent scouts. If Case errs, there is a good chance that Gamble will look like a malevolent reactionary: an emperor naming his favorite horse to the position of consul.

On Feb. 2, John White, an employee of Doyon Security Services emailed Jennifer Ward, the VA Coordinator for Financial Aid. White had a question regarding his taxes; a perfectly innocuous thing considering springtime is also tax time. The only difference was instead of emailing just Ward he sent his out email over the entire ASUAF ListServe.

What exactly is the ListServe? The ListServe is the primary means of communication between ASUAF and the student body. You send an email out over the ListServe and everyone on it gets the message. Everyone.

Within hours half-a-dozen members of the ListServe responded to White’s email, arguing that the message now inhabiting their inboxes had no place being sent out over the server. A common complaint about the email was that ASUAF was abusing it’s own server. One woman wrote that receiving such emails made her think poorly about ASUAF, who added that she was sure others felt the same. Ultimately, members of both the senate and the executive branch of ASUAF responded to the emails in an attempt to curb the exchange.

While I’m sure others do take issue with ASUAF for one reason or another, the email that started the subsequent chain reaction of explosive bile and disgust was not sent out by a member of ASUAF. A government contractor with a legitimate question accidentally mass emailed his tax question to the members of the ListServe. As it stands, such an exchange is not the fault of ASUAF.

“It was just an error and that happens,” said Sabra Phillips, ASUAF’s Executive Officer. Phillips has been moderating the ListServe for the better part of the past decade and feels that the negative sentiment behind the recent email exchange is misplaced. ASUAF Vice President Mari Freitag agrees.

“The whole situation has been blown out of proportion,” said Freitag, adding that mass emails like the recent one occur once or twice a year. For Freitag, these exchanges are not necessarily abuses and are not “as big a deal as people are making it out to be.” What’s important for Freitag is that the ListServe remain an open forum. ASUAF President Nicole Carvajal shares the same feelings, calling the ListServe “an email signboard.”

Oddly enough, the ListServe has no official guidelines and anyone can be added to it, not just ASUAF members. The only protocol that does exist, and which Phillips uses to moderate the server, is the University of Alaska’s Acceptable Use of Online Resources which states that an individual is prohibited from using “list serves or mailing lists…in a manner inconsistent with or disruptive of University business.”

Since the ListServe was created by ASUAF, Phillips said, it has the ability to create a list of rules to govern its use. Freitag, however, was unaware that the senate could govern the ListServe. Carvajal, too, informed me that while ASUAF can recommend someone be removed, the decision ultimately lay in the hands of the server’s staff moderator (Phillips).

While there is nothing in the ASUAF bylaws about governing the ListServe, it is, according to Phillips, within the body’s jurisdiction to do so. While Freitag doesn’t believe that the senate will pass laws regulating the ListServe anytime soon, she remains apprehensive about the senate’s role in potentially governing the server. The first step, she says, is to “educate the senate about its use.”

This exchange, between disgruntled ListServe members and ASUAF employees, is an old fight over what exactly the ListServe should be used for. Ryan Duffy, the ASUAF senate chair, said it best: “The ASUAF list serve is a public list serve and everyone is welcome on it. It is not only for Senators or Executives…someone made [an] obvious mistake, people complain about messages being sent over the ASUAF list serve by sending messages over [the] ASUAF list serve.”

By Jeremia Schrock

Sex is, and always has been, political.

In the early twentieth century, condoms and other forms of birth control were branded as illegal. Some states even continued to ban birth control well into the 1970′s. While the country has moved sex into a new century, the hostility toward sex and prophylactics has lingered well into our own generation. It is also something almost every UAF student will have to face during their college years.

“The entire issue of sexuality has been politicized at UAF, but it’s subtle,” wrote Sine Anahita, an assistant professor in UAF’s sociology department, in an email interview. A few years ago, Anahita and another faculty member had attempted to design a correspondence course on human sexualities. However, the Center for Distance Education (CDE) turned them down. “The head instructional designer at the time refused to work with us on the design of the course because of its topic,” Anahita wrote. “Luckily, several other instructional designers were willing to work with me, and eventually it became a course.” That course became known as SOC/WMS 333: Human Sexualities Across Cultures and is offered online every semester and in class every other fall.

While the idea that sex and college students go hand-in-hand is common, not every student is as geared-up for sex as they may seem. During the 2008/2009 term, a bill (SB 172-016) was introduced into the ASUAF senate that would have allocated $300 to “to purchase condoms and dental dams with ASUAF logo packaging with the intent of distributing them in [the] ASUAF office.” After an extensive senate battle, the bill was defeated by a one-vote margin (6 in favor, 7 against). Current ASUAF President Nicole Carvajal (then a senator) was one of the six legislators who supported the measure while Vice President Mari Freitag voted against it.

Despite the bill’s defeat on the senate floor, then-Senate Chair Jennifer Chambers used money from the Executive Contingency fund to purchase the condoms anyway. Chambers’ original intention was to use them as promotional items for ASUAF, but also felt that providing condoms would be a public service. “I think it’s important that people have access to those items,” she added.

Why did the bill fail? Chambers feels religious beliefs were partially to blame. “I think the way some people voted was based on that fact.” Currently, neither Chambers nor ASUAF have any plans to restock their condom supply. “We haven’t bought any since that time. I don’t know what would happen if we tried to get money for that again.”

The Catholic Church, represented at UAF by Catholic Campus Ministries, exemplifies those beliefs. The Church recently reversed it’s absolute ban on the use of condoms, saying that condom use should be judged on a case-by-case basis, adding that it is acceptable to use said prophylactic only when the alternative may result in infection by the AIDS virus. The Church has tailored its doctrine primarily in response to the continuing AIDS crisis in Africa.

The good news is that UAF appears to be a relatively clean campus, sexually speaking. Not a single case of HIV has been reported at UAF, according to BJ Aldrich, the Director of Student Health and Counseling at the UAF Health Center. UAF also has low rates of herpes, genital warts and gonorrhea with the most prevalent STD on campus being Chlamydia. The Health Center currently provides emergency contraception (like Plan B) and condoms to the student population.

“I am definitely an advocate for sexual awareness,” says Anahita. She is, I am and we think you should be too.

By Jeremia Schrock
Sun Star Columnist

President Obama wants us to win the future (whatever that means). In his Jan. 25 State of the Union address, the President said, “We will move forward together, or not at all.”

Such “all or nothing” phraseology has roots deep in American history, beyond the New Neolithic period of the 2000s. Think of the “with us or against us” mentality that so guided our last president during the “War on Terror.”

It was Benjamin Franklin who, during the signing of the Declaration of Independence, allegedly proclaimed that “we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Helen Keller wrote that “alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” In 1964, Martin Luther King, Jr. echoed that sentiment, “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”

Obama, recovering from the sting of 2010′s midterm elections, is now more the friend of compromise than ever. Those who paid attention know that it was only compromise (and Obama’s signature) that saw the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts. It was through compromise between Democrats and independents that President Obama was elected in 2008 at all.

What is striking about the “all or nothing” mentality is that we so rarely apply it on the large scale and when we do, it’s usually during a period of conflict. For example, in the first weeks of the war in Afghanistan, President Bush enjoyed 89 percent approval ratings. There were only two other moments afterward when Bush experienced a spike in popularity: when he authorized the invasion of Iraq and after Saddam Hussein was captured.

The spirit of compromise is in the air both in Alaska and nationally. On a Jan. 29 Facebook entry, Governor Parnell said that he “had positive meetings in DC with Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich related to a myriad of resource development, education, and health topics.” Even Sen. Begich is feeling the spirit, saying “with so many important issues on the table for Alaska, our pledge today was to work together as often as possible to improve and help our state and its residents.”

Such compromise can even be seen at UAF. Governor Parnell recently appointed two new members to the UA Board of Regents, Jo Heckman and Mike Powers. Their appointments are significant in that they will maintain the representational status quo of the Board: both are from Fairbanks and are replacing out-going board members Cynthia Henry and Erik Drygas.

ASUAF, our student government, may see some compromise this semester. Joshua Luther, a former student senator and now the Coalition Coordinator for the Coalition of Student Leaders, said during the Jan. 23 senate meeting that he hopes to see more involvement from ASUAF when it comes to making a “big push” for the Governor’s Performance Scholarship. It was former senator Lauren Wiley who, in a Jan. 24 email, said (albeit sarcastically) that she hopes “that ASUAF has a successful year and will actually make progress and not waste their time on issues that will not aid the students and our campus.”

So, how exactly does one “win the future?” By compromise. Because, let’s face it, the alternative just isn’t working. It’s time for the country to start seeing other ideologies.