Editorials and letters obscure facts on MSA

I have been extremely disheartened lately by some of the letters to the editor, and by numerous letters written by the editorial staff of The Minnesota Daily.
On Friday, Michael Miller, a sophomore in the College of Liberal Arts, wrote in reference to the decision of Minnesota Student Association President Nikki Kubista and Vice-President Erin Ferguson to not put the fees proposal before the forum that “Kubista knew the rules, but did not care as long as her cronies in the forum backed her up.” Well, as one of the “cronies,” I take exception to that misinformed statement.
When I became aware that the fees proposal was not going to appear before the forum before it was presented to the Fees Committee, I approached President Kubista and told her that as a member of the forum and a member of the campus community, I was upset with her decision. But, upon reviewing the constitution and by-laws of MSA, it became extremely clear that the constitution does not mandate that the fee proposal be brought before the entire forum.
As a Student Senate Consultative Committee senator, I take my position seriously. I take my responsibility to the entire University of Minnesota system seriously. I am quick to praise President Kubista, and I am quick to criticize her as well.
It is amusing to me that the accusations of misconduct have invariably all come from the “campus right.” It also amuses me that Kubista was accused of maliciousness with the intent to hide the proposal from the forum: a ridiculous assumption seeing that the proposal is public, the process is public and the timeline is public, as well.
But, what truly amuses me is that no member of forum, conservative or progressive, made any comment, debate or discussion regarding the line items contained in the fees proposal. When the fees proposal came before forum on Tuesday last, no member of forum contested the line items or offered amendments to be submitted to the Fees Committee to change the budget.
As a matter of fact, I am the only member of forum who questioned a line item of the budget, and the question arose concerning an increase in employment tax. The issue here has not been the proposal. The criticism of the fees proposal has solely been a device of the right used to attack Kubista because she is progressive and truly is attempting to change the monolithic way MSA does business.
The second point I want to make concerns the poor editorials being written and presented to the University community by the editorial board of the Daily. The MPIRG editorial earlier this week was proof of the lack of willingness of the Daily to do concrete research before presenting editorial as fact.
Second, the editorial entitled “Student apathy causes bias in the fees process” was a poorly written piecemeal article with little substance and a definite right-wing bent. I think it is interesting that when the editorial mentioned the three former and current GAPSA and MSA members involved with the fees committee it neglected to mention the one conservative member of the fees committee who is also a voting member of MSA: Sabeen Altaf.
I think that the current student services fees lawsuit and other right-wing attacks on campus organizing give sufficient proof as to why organizations receiving fees would do their best to make sure that the fees committee is fair and contains members who can attest to the value of student service fees to student organizations and to the campus community in general.
I hope that the Daily will do a better job of well-rounded reporting in the future. It has, of late, been unduly biased and misrepresentative of the facts. Yellow journalism and sensationalism are fine and dandy for the National Enquirer, but I contend that they have no business in the newspaper of the University.
W. Brandon Lacy Campos,College of Liberal Arts senior,Student Senate Consultative Committee Senator,Co-chair, Queer Student Cultural Center,Member, Student Services Fees Committee