{ title: 'The Spectrum (Buffalo, N.Y.) 1955-current, April 30, 1979, Page 3, Image 3', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about NYS Historic Newspapers - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-04-30/ed-1/seq-3/png/', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-04-30/ed-1/seq-3.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-04-30/ed-1/seq-3/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-04-30/ed-1/seq-3/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
Image provided by: University at Buffalo
by Denise Stumpo Managing Editor March on Washington Pfoltzer last week filed a lawsuit, through the American Civil Liberties Union, against the Buffalo Police Commissioner, the Police Department, and its photographer, for illegal surveillance of public demonstrations. The suit stemmed from an April 18 rally downtown at which the police Anti-Subversive Squad photographer took numerous photos of anti-nuke protestors. The lawsuit, claiming constitutional violations of the rights of speech and public assembly, names as its plaintiffs “all persons who have or will in the future become participants in public meetings in the City of Buffalo.”* Although Pfoltzer says he is sure that “massive surveillance” will be employed for the Washington rally, hell be there. “1 feel strongly enough about the issue tha I’ll go anyway,” he said, “but I’m willing to bet that the FBI, CIA, military intelligence and White House guards will be there.” These agencies are known to have been involved in surveillance of the Vietnam demonstrations, he noted. Buffalo s contingent to the May 6 march continues to clear the protest path to Washington, D.C., as organizers chart bus schedules, distribute leaflets and plunge ahead with fund drives. “We’ve been getting one phone call every five minutes,^said Frank Butterini, NYPIRG project coordinator. “People want to know about bus tickets, activities in Washington and how they can help out.” NYPIRG is a member organization of the Coalition Against Nuclear Contamination and Economic Recklessness (CANCER), local organizer of the nationwide march which is expected to draw some 40,000 citizens. gams momentum on campus , Protestors will assemble this Sunday and begin to march at noon past the White House down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol building. There, dozens of prominent Americans, including entertainers, politicians, nuclear industry officials, labor leaders and Harrisburg evacuees, will testify on the hazards, viability and alternatives to nuclear power as an energy source. Pfoltzer recalled UB’s role in the Vietnam protests of the late sixties and early seventies; when this University was widely recognized as a stronghold of activism. When UB’s contingent would appear in Washington, Pfoltzer related, other protestors would yell, “All right, UB’s here!” Monday, Monday Many rallyers expect to remain in D.C.' Monday to lobby at Congress, the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A lobby strategy session has been planned by the Critical Mass energy group after the march. T-shirts To help offset the projected $10,000 in busing costs, CANCER has developed several fund raisers, including a raffle, collection cans at co-ops and high schools, sales of “March on Washington” t-shirts and buttons, and a benefit at the Schuper House this Thursday night. Part of the round-trip bus ticket cost of $20 may be later refunded if enough cash is raised, according to NYP1RG. Buses will leave UB’s Baird lot at midnight on Saturday along with buses from Buffalo State, and arrive in Washington about 9 a.m. Buses will leave Sunday at 9 a.m. and be back on campus by 7 a.m. Monday morning. If the demand warrants, some buses will remain in D.C. for those who wish to lobby/sit-in on Monday. “It’s really important that people stay to lobby on Monday,” noted CANCER Spokesperson Bill Nowak, “because on Tuesday and Wednesday the Edison Electric Institute will be lobbying Congress.” The EEI serves as the national research and public relations coordinator for 226 U.S. utilities. The DOE building will not only be the target of lobbyists Monday, but of a sit-in as well; the Mobilization for Survival coalition plans to occupy the site. While some organizers say they’ll participate in this act of civil disobediance, others feel it would be counterproductive. “We want to educate people to the fact that nuclear power is not viable,” said CANCER-member Daniel Pfoltzer. “Civil disobediance would turn-off alot of people, would label us as radical,” he stated, noting, “It’s important to reach the man who works at Chevy.” Transportation tickets are available at: all Buffalo food coops; NYPlRG, 356 Squire Hall; the Ellicott Square Building, 295 Main Street, room 1071;Worker’s World, 349 Niagara Street at Virginia, and the Greenfield Street Restaurant. Trustees reject Stony Brook presidential nomination by Cathy Carlson Spectrum Staff Writer Chairman Donald M. Blinken, “There were strong indications that the campus and immediate constituents were not by any means unanimous in their support of Pond .” He added that it was unfair to select a candidate who lacked enthusiastic support. Pond has been serving as Acting also hinted that there were underlying reasons for the rejection. Anderson contends, “We have to read between the lines and judge if divisiveness was the sole or compelling reason that the Board rejected Pond .” He refused to be more specific. Committee’s finding after an investigation of its own. The Council’s choice is forwarded to the Trustees who have, in the past, agreed with the Council’s selection. A mote immediate problem facing Stony Brook is the question of who will head the University until fall. Pond has been Acting President since last July, but in view of the Board’s decision it is uncertain if he will continue to hold that post. Board Chairman Blinken remarked, “It is uncertain who will be Acting President. It is something for Chancellor Wharton, Pond and Anderson to decide.” The unique precedent set by the Board has numerous implications for the SUNY system. According to Anderson, “Some people regard the Board’s decision as an act of eroding the Council’s power. It is more a question of making explicit the implicit relationship between the Council and die Board.” He claimed that the Council has limited power in recommending candidates and it is really the Trustees’ responsibility to elect the President. In an unprecedented move, the SUNY Board of Trustees rejected the Stony Brook Council’s nomination of T.A. Pond for University President marking the first ' However, a source with close ties to SUNY central told The Spectrum last week that Pond would be rejected. The source said that SUNY Chancellor Clifton R. Wharton did not consider Pond a qualified candidate and that Wharton had voiced his displeasure to the Trustees. Cold and calloused Ponds’ selection sparked opposition, mainly from students, who are asking for “new blood” in the Stony Brook Administration. President of Polity — Stony Brook’s student government - Keith Scarmato emphasized, “The present Administration, which Pond has been a part of for years, has a cold and calloused attitude.” Scarmato believes it is time for a change. Blinken regards the Trustees’ decision as an indication that the search committee procedure should be re-evaluated. He commented, ‘it is time to study and fine-tune the search process to see whether mbre importance could be placed on various constituents.” Blinken also believes that the Council should benefit from the broader experience of the Trustees. He explained that the Trustees evaluate candidates for various SUNY presidencies 6-10 times per year, while the average Council recommends a new President every 8 years. The change longed for by the students is closer to reality as the Council once again begins the extensive process of reviewing candidates for President. Chairman of the Council Anderson said, “It is now a matter of casting out the net and seeing who we come up with.” After Wednesday’s decision, the Council was asked by the Board to reinstate the search process. The search will start with a committee which reviews eligible candidates and makes recommendations to the Council, which in turn votes on the time that the Trustees have cast aside the recommendation of a university council. President since the resignation of President John .Toll last semester. President of the Council Christian Anderson acknowledged that the Board had to be concerned with the “divisiveness” created on campus, but he The Trustees cited “divisiveness” surrounding Ponds’ nomination as their main reason for rejecting the Stony Brook Council’s selection. According to Board PEER ADVISOR TRAINING PROGRAM Peer Advisors are students working with other students. This year, fifteen students successfully completed a course, which included skill training, academic information, & knowledge of campus resources. Ten of these students will assume some of the academic advising responsibilities at Summer Orientation. We want to develop the Peer Advising Program and will again- offer DUE 281 — Advising as a Learning Process. Interested students should talk with June Blatt, Sr. Academic Advisor, prior to the end of this semester, in room 206 Squire Hall or call 831-3631.
