The Campus Security Advisory Board needs a leadership overhaul. Meetings are either not scheduled, scheduled and then cancelled at the last minute, or announced only to a few members, but not enough for a quorum. Student members of the board and faculty member Jim Thomas want the current chairman, Donald Schoo, replaced by someone who will be more responsive.

The CSAB has a history of poor leadership. In 1982, the then-SA welfare adviser called a meeting because the board had not met in six years. She wanted to address the need for lighting at the lagoon. Had she not insisted that the CSAB do its job, the lagoon still might be very dark and very unsafe.

Currently, there are security issues on campus which need to be addressed, but are not receiving the CSAB’s attention. The question of the appropriate University Police response to student incidents—such as last spring’s “lagoon riot” and last semester’s tailgating incidents—has not been resolved.

In light of the rapes, and rumors of rapes, which occurred last semester, the board should determine the need for increased lighting on campus and for trimming bushes which have become overgrown, providing perfect hiding places. The sexual assault escort plan must be completed and put into action. A joint effort with the Sexual Assault Task Force for educational programs in fraternity houses is also a good idea.

There does not appear to be a lack of interest in addressing these issues on the part of the board’s members. They have complained loud and long about the non-responsiveness of board chairman Schoo. Thomas, in particular, has written a stack of memos to The Northern Star, other board members and President LaTourette, but no action has been taken.

The resolution seems simple enough. If Donald Schoo doesn’t think the objectives of the CSAB are important enough to warrant meetings and discussions of campus security issues, he should resign his post. Someone who thinks the board is important in spite of being “only advisory” should be appointed to replace him.

Because the current members of the board are concerned about the current state of things and are more than willing to be active in addressing security issues, the new chairperson is more likely to be someone who shares their concerns than has been the case in the past. They at least deserve the chance to try.