page 4

EDITORIAL

the other press

October 3 1977

 

 

 

 

College
gets
screwed

On Sept. 12, University of British Columbia professor Brahm
Wiesman released his long awaited report on the role of
community colleges in B.C.,recommending $23 million be
spent relocating the Douglas College New Westminster
campus in the city’s downtown core.

On Sept.27 the British Columbia Development Corporation
(BCDC) presented Douglas College Council with a proposal to
move Douglas College onto a permenant campus on Royal
Avenue in New Westminster.

In two weeks time, Provincial government funds needed for
further site assessment studies on college owned land adjacent
to the Canada Games Pool will be cut-off, leaving the four year
study in limbo.

Mayor Muni Evers and city council are drooling at the
prospect of BCDC’s $150 million scheme to redevelope the
downtown core, with Douglas College students providing the
additional market to support the business community.

Even though Douglas College has been labeled as the
catalust for the development, it was the last to be informed
and consulted on the proposals. All other parties have

committed themselves to the BCDC ee resting the success_

of the entire program squarely on the back of Douglas College.

For the first time in college councils short history, they have
been called on to make a decision of ‘‘great magnitude’. With
all the pressure being applied, we wonder what the chances
are of college council making an objective decision based on
the welfare of the student body instead of the self-interests of
various levels of government.

The push behind the scheme, in the person of BCDC project
director Bob MacIntyre, has shown no regard for student
needs, only student dollar$. ‘‘We are not involved in
education, just building,’’ said MacIntyre during his
presentation to College Council.

When asked by The Other Press why Douglas College was so
important to the plan, MacIntyre immediately replied, ‘‘we
need the other site (the college owned land on McBride Blvd.)
for housing.”’

As outlined in the development brochure, BCDC has made
no provisions for rental accommodation for the local students
or low to middle-income residents. The entire residentual
development consists of condominiums and townhouses
selling in the $80,000 to $250,000 price range.

Where does the student fit in this high priced development?
Will they be able to afford the housing and services,
supposedly designed for their needs?

e plan also allocates 600 free indoor parking stalls for
approximately 8,000 students.

The concept of integrating Douglas College into the
community is an admirable one, but the aspect of using the
college as a pawn to provide the economic success of a
community is icapanaible and unacceptable.

Unfortunatly, British Columbia Development Corporation
does not take NO for an answer. BCDC has all the money and
political influence to ram this deal through.

The downtown campus is a reality - Douglas College gets
$crewed.

 

 ., STAFFBOX 1}
Se the Other press

Managing Editor:Bill Cartier, News Wire| Editor:
Brian Jones, Copy Editor: Gord Isfeld. Reporters:
Graham Margach ee Westminster|, Colleen
Glynn [Surrey], Millie Santos [Haney-Coqguitlam],
Nina Westaway [Richmond]. Ad Manager: Colin
Richardson. Typesetters: Patrick Dyck, Colleen
Glynn, Rory and Christine Munro. Special thanks
to JoanO’Connor, Nancy McRitchie, Keith Baldry,
Guy Tanner. Sheighla Granville and Joy. Photo
Editor: Neil Dowie

Member of Canadian University Press, and subscriber of Pacific News 5
Service. :
* The Other Press is-a democratically run student newspaper. Published
under the auspices of the Douglas College Student Society every Monday.
The news office is located at the rear of the cafeteria on the New Westminster
campus. :

The Other Press, Box 2503, Douglas College, New Westminster, British |
Columbia, 522-6038, between 12 and 1, weekdays, Advertising: 522-6038.

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[

|

|

cae

AS

oe !

fe yf Ni ne i ot gt teagan
Downtoo* 600 PARKING SPACES FOR 8000 STUDENTS |

 

 

 

. staff that the

 

[Az letters must be typed, double spaced, no longer than 300 words. Deadline is Thursday noon.

Wootton replies |

The following is a response
to an open letter to Douglas
College principal George
Wootton which appeared in
the Sept. 19 issue of this
paper. The letter is addres-
sed to Steve Ferguson,.

Dear Steve:

I am writing in answer to.
your ‘‘open letter’? which
appeared in The Other Press
of September 19, 1977.

It appears that you phoned
Admissions of Thursday af-
ternoon, Sept. 15, and spoke
to Mr. Gerry DellaMattia.
After some discussion, he
offered to have Janice Frie-
sen call you -- which she did
shortly thereafter. It is true

that because of the moving of
the library at Richmond, the
staff were unable to ‘‘check
the shelves’’ at the time you
called. However, within
three hours the books were
re-shelved and, after a care-
ful check, it was found that
the book in question was still
missing.

I understand that shortly
after this you appeared on
the campus and, after
searching the shelves, you
told the staff that the book
was indeed ‘‘on_ the
shelves.’’ It was noted by the
book was
indeed ‘‘there now’’, but
that the loan card was still in
the ‘‘out’’ file.

Once the book was located,
your file was cleared and
Admissions was notified that
your marks could be releas-
ed. The total time from your
first call to the resolution of

the matter was less than 24
hours.

The reason for our ‘‘no book
- no marks’’ policy should be
clear. Unfortunately, some
people need an incentive to
“return books’’ at the end of
their course. If they do not
return them, other students
suffer. The only control we
have to protect the rights of
other students is the above
policy.

College policies are not
‘‘written in stone’ and are
always open to positive crit-
icism and review -- particu-
larly if a better method is
available.

Unfortunately, your letter is
neither positively critical nor
does it offer any better
solutions to the problem of
‘‘lost’’ books. On the con-
trary, it contains the worst
form of personal attack on
three employees of the Col-
lege -- two by name. You
have referred to unnamed
students and instructors who
have made disparaging re-
marks about the Director of
Admissions, Gerry Della-
Mattia, and you personally
attacked both Gerry and

janice. Yet you support none
of your claims!

It is fortunate that both of
these people and the un-
named ‘‘clerk’’ have their
personal confidence and the
confidence of other faculty,
staff, students and adminis-
tration regarding the per-
formance of their duties and
their commitment to keep
the ‘‘student at the centre’’.

I, would have hoped your
time at the College would
have made you aware of the
appropriate methods for
handling your concerns. To
quote you “‘...and in the
majority of times I have been
treated fairly by its (Douglas)
administrators.”

In conclusion, I really think

‘that 24 hours to solve your

problem was a reasonable
time, and that all those
involved made more than a
reasonable effort to help you.
Next time, Steve, let’s have
a reasonable request for
help, not a poorly thought-
out public outcry.

Yours very truly,

George C. Wootton
Principal

More advice?

Dear Editor,

I would like to congratulate
your publication on the app-
arent unbiased standpoint it
holds in regard to printing
letters’: “to-"‘the editor.

The cases I cite are: D.C.
Student response by W.
Burnham; Dear Georgie by

Steve Ferguson; and The
Pinion’s(?) letter(?) regard-
ing libel.

I might connect the latter —
two by stating that, in hold-
ing various editorial capaci-
ties, I have become aware of,
not only what libel is, but the
legal implications involved.

 

cont'd. on page | 4