Like a freshman undergraduate who recklessly uses that “emergency” credit card for pizza, CDs and other frivolous purchases, some here on campus also need to learn how to use their University credit cards.
Following a state audit that essentially scolded the University for misuse of credit cards, including purchases of airline tickets, food, flowers and even alcohol (unlike the freshmen who cannot buy beer with their parents’ credit cards), University Vice President for Administration Dan Williams said there was a need to “evaluate and improve business practices.”
Fortunately, the University administration decided to admit that some misuse of credit cards occurred and will address the situation. But rather than an enraged phone call from parents when they receive a credit-card bill, University faculty members will receive a “buddy” card that lists what they can and cannot purchase with their University credit cards.
So now when they get those itchy fingers to do some shopping, faculty members and administrators will ideally take a breather and check to see whether they can actually go ahead and make that purchase. Not only will there be handy aids to guide folks through departmental purchases, but the University is also planning to hold workshops to further elaborate on how University funds can be used.
While this all seems a little ridiculous, it will provide a foundation to give the University’s academic departments a better sense of accountability for what they do with their funds. The audit showed that this was necessary, and it is good to see that the University is stepping up and taking responsibility for past mistakes.

Exclusion law an insult
The powers-that-be here in Eugene have been trying for some time to turn the downtown mall into some type of small city shopping utopia. This effort has, for the most part, failed. One frequently sees “For Rent” signs in storefront windows rather than “open for business.”
And while it is commendable to see the City Council and others trying to fan the flames of a downtown revival, it is disheartening, to say the least, to see them trying to do it by excluding some residents from even being in the mall. On Monday the council voted to expand the area under the city exclusion law that allows police officers to remove any person who has been cited for a crime within the exclusion zone. That zone will now grow to the area between Eighth and 10th avenues and Oak and Lincoln streets.
While it is troubling to give the Eugene Police Department more control over individual rights, it is more concerning to witness the council’s disregard for basic respect for the citizens it tries to represent. This exclusion law will further alienate those people in the mall who already feel marginalized, and it does not combat the real source of crime but only pushes it to other areas of the city.
Essentially, the city is trying to change the look of the downtown mall by keeping folks it deems undesirable away from the area. But that is just an insult to civil liberty. If people commit serious enough crimes, they should be incarcerated. But if it’s just a citation, they should not lose their basic right to be wherever they choose.

Liability ruling makes sense
In a rare move from a state that has taken almost every opportunity to infringe upon an individual’s right to own a firearm, the California Supreme Court ruled recently that a firearm manufacturer cannot be held liable for a mentally unbalanced man’s shooting rampage in a San Francisco office building.
For some time, trying to make the makers of firearms responsible for the actions of criminals has been a tool for many anti-firearm zealots. This line of logic is both faulty and dangerous. If one follows this reasoning, then the crimes of the individual lose any meaning because a third party can be held accountable for what that criminal did.
The shooting spree in San Francisco was indeed a tragedy, and defending a firearm manufacturer does not defend the actions of the man who left children without parents and husbands and wives without their spouses. Instead of trying to attack the legality of firearms, individuals should instead focus on keeping rifles and handguns out of the hands of criminals or insane people. Suing a firearm manufacturer does not work to achieve that goal.