LETTERS TO THE EDITOR- Bruno asks too much for nat

ULM Hawkeye

The recent Hawkeye P.O.V. on the NAT, in several ways, echoed Dr. Bruno’s personal letter to the Hawkeye. Dr. Bruno was rightly called on that letter by a member of the student body. The authors, in addition, were concerned about irritation shown towards Dr. Bruno by certain members of the community. This ire followed a frustratingly vague, illogical and generally inept presentation by Dr. Bruno’s chosen architect. The authors failed to discuss several other important issues.

The funding question is vital. Dr. Bruno has challenged the community to provide for the renovation and indefinite upkeep of the pool without student contributions. He has simultaneously challenged the community to come up with $64 million in donations to improve the university for the students and faculty. This latter plan excludes the NAT, and thus implies an alternative use for that space, unrelated to the architect’s suggestions.

The P.O.V. authors were upset that comments were made to the effect that, on this issue, the current students, who are of necessity transitory, should not have a deciding vote. Such a stance by the community members might be justifiable if the incumbent administration and the community were actively striving together to keep the pool open. Given this administration’s approach, I agree with the authors that the student vote is very important and offers the best chance to preserve the NAT.

The current student contribution, $25 per semester (2011), seems a very reasonable sum to maintain an Olympic size swimming pool. The students were not complaining. If we only paid for facilities at time of use, very few institutions, including universities, could be kept operational. Availability carries a cost. There are currently a limited number of true Olympic size covered swimming pools in the USA. Most of these are entrusted to, and under the auspices of, universities, parks and big swimming clubs. It is puzzling that the new ULM Administration should be trying to influence the student body to spend a large sum of money to destroy our valuable asset.

Richard O’Donovan