I was still in the Senate when Dean Laskowski brought hisproposal to us for the athletic fee increase. In fact, I was one of the veryfew Senators who agreed, from the outset, with his proposal. I felt stronglythen, and continue to feel strongly now, that a strengthened athletic programhere at Stony Brook would do wonders for campus recreational activities,student morale, and increased funds flowing into campus coffers.

There are several in-depthreasons as to why I have taken this stance, and would be happy to discuss themwith you and anyone else who is interested at a later time. But the fact of thematter is that Dean Laskowski had, in myself and a handful of others, verystaunch supporters.

The debate over the issue inSenate was candid and vigorous. I made the original motion for the Senate toapprove Laskowski’s request; it was defeated by a pretty healthy margin. I thenmade a similar motion for approval, only with a lower fee increase than originallyproposed. That was defeated as well, but by a much closer tally. When I made athird motion, lowering the fee yet again (but still at a substantial level tobring in several new funds for the athletic department and SBU), it looked (atleast to me) as if I had the votes to get it passed.

However, certain Senatorsmanaged to pass a motion to table the matter until the following week.

It was a clever proceduralmove, perfectly legal, one which delayed further action on my part.

That meeting being at the veryend of the semester, I was not able to bring it up again. So the fee remainedthe same.

Obviously, there are certainindividuals who do not agree with my stance. I have no problem with that; youare certainly not alone, and I always respect your viewpoint on such matters ofconsequence.

Nevertheless, I do take issuewith the tone and content of Senate statements concerning media coverage. Youcharge the student media on campus with malfeasance in their failure to coverthis issue in the printed press.

Often times, however, theSenate meetings, even when we discuss issues of tremendous importance andrelevance, do not get press coverage. This, while certainly unfortunate, iscertainly a well-known fact. Moreover, to be blunt, nothing stopped Senators fromsubmitting their own editorial or commentary about this issue. Yet, forwhatever reason, they chose not to do so, even though it is clearly within therealm of Senatorial duty/obligation; namely, to enlighten constituents as tothe affairs of their elected representatives and the institutions in which theyserve.

Further, as an editorialwriter on the Statesman Board, I take offense when an individual charges that’democracy around here is in trouble because someone (yeah, someone) sawed two legs off of the four legged-stool.’ Ihave written probably a few dozen opinion pieces of the affairs of Polity ingeneral, and the Senate in particular, over these past two and a half years.

I would like to think I, andseveral others on our staff, have contributed to the ongoing campus debate onsuch matters. Whatever our opinions, we are not ‘lapdogs’ ofadministration, as it has been disrespectfully put. Do I always agree with myeditors? Certainly not; indeed, my own editor-in-chief feels quite differentlyabout the Senate than I do. But I respect his different opinion, and hiscourage for making it known. Quite frankly, he is good at what he does, and ourpaper is that much better for his dedicated efforts.

But as I stated earlier, eventhough nothing has EVER stopped anyone from making a submission to ournewspaper, I cannot think of a single instance where the Senators making thesecharges have submitted an article with their name on it for publication.

One of them states in a masse-mail, ‘You might be surprised what was and is not published by thepapers, and even more surprised by the REAL reasons why.’ That is adamning charge, one hell of a conspiracy theory; but as of right now, Iconsider it completely, utterly unfounded and fallacious, unless and until yousummon the courage to publicly state your reasons for such a charge.

Where is your evidence? Careto show me your proof? Because if a debate on Statesman’s sincerity andintegrity is what you seek, look no further than myself for an opponent. I’d bemore than happy to take this one all over the campus and its airwaves, if youso desire.

But be careful what you wishfor here. Because let me tell you, you have met your match.