Comments by
Page 1 of 7 | Next
Posted on September 25 at 2:50 p.m.Suggest removal
Letter to the Editor
This letter is in response to the article published in the September 25th edition of the OU Daily, entitled, “UOSA Recalls Members of Student Congress.”
I want to say I totally understand that matters pertaining to the UOSA and its constitution are sometimes complicated, and probably difficult to always report accurately. And I think the few errors in the article are understandable. But for the sake of clarity, I feel some details need to be cleaned up and clarified.
First, the headline is very misleading. It makes it sound like the UOSA has recalled members of student congress, which is untrue. The first step of the overall recall process has indeed been completed with the submission of valid petitions, but no recall has yet taken place and all congress members are still serving in their respective elected positions.
Second, I think the section in the news story about the invalidation of a particular signature was confusing. To clarify, a single signature on a single petition was deemed invalid because the signatory was not a member of the district the petition pertained to. The petition was nonetheless certified because the signature was beyond the threshold requirement and was not needed anyway.
Michael J. Davis
General Counsel
University of Oklahoma Student Association
Posted on August 26 at 3:58 p.m.Suggest removal
Matt and Kim were amazing performers, and I have no doubt they will make it big. They were exciting, charismatic, energetic, and gave the crowd what they wanted. They even had an afterparty on Campus Corner! We all owe CAC a debt of gratitude for bringing such spectacular performers to campus.
Posted on August 24 at 1:55 p.m.Suggest removal
I STILL don't have my money. I met every deadline, followed every rule. Nobody even gave me the courtesy of telling me there was a delay. I have bills to pay.
Posted on August 21 at 1:22 p.m.Suggest removal
So let me get this straight. You think Atheism makes too much sense to be true? What does that even mean?
Posted on August 21 at 1:20 p.m.Suggest removal
I have the same problem. I met every deadline, and I still don't have my money. Its sickening. Nobody ever called me and told me that there was a hold on my account, and it turns out there was never a need for a hold on my account. I could have had my money on Tuesday, now I am told I have to wait as long as 5 days!
Posted on April 29 at 10:43 a.m.Suggest removal
The Opinion section of the paper is alive today. I love it.
Posted on April 29 at 10:40 a.m.Suggest removal
Kudos to the court on this column. There was no question the daily made several factual errors in their "Our Views" editorial. Several folks made comments about the inaccuracy of the editorial online, but a retraction was never printed. This either means A) the Daily doesn't read comments made to their articles. or B) they read them, but chose to continue to allow the public to think their facts were accurate rather than print a retraction.
Their journalistic integrity has been restored, a bit, by printing this column by the Superior Court, but I STILL dont see a retraction. It still seems like one is appropriate.
Posted on April 28 at 8:03 a.m.Suggest removal
Gee, I wonder if this column is going to stir some heated controversy?
Page 1 of 7 | Next
Posted on October 7 at 12:33 a.m.Suggest removal
A couple points of clarity:
1. I think I said its the only Presidential election in recent memory to be uncontested, not the only election in history. Our records do not go far back enough to establish a real answer.
2. I want to be clear, my decision not to certify the petitions had nothing to do with the substance of the proposed amendments themselves, it had everything to do with the question of how many signatures were needed for valid petitions.
3. It is my opinion that preserving the intent of the constitution is more important that blindly following its language. If the Superior Court overturns the General Counsel, I think they would be allowing a totally unintended loophole to exist - a loophole that opens the floodgates to many constitutional amendments over the course of the current academic year - each of which with only a single signature.
On