The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator
 

5/24 Student Senate Meeting

It’s 7:10 and the meeting’s beginning. Senator Dallas Brown has made a motion to add his resolution regarding the Insurgent to the agenda, which Senator Sara Hamilton has seconded. I’ll be doing occasional updates through the comments section as the meeting progresses.

UPDATE: There is no longer a motion for a resolution on the table. Instead there is time set aside for the Senate to discuss the Insurgent.

UPDATE: A majority of the Student Senate has walked out of the meeting rather than discuss the Insurgent’s content. The members who did not walk out were Wally Hicks, Dallas Brown, Kyle McKenzie, Toby Piering, and Natalie Kinsey. Booo to the members who walked. While I don’t think the Senate should have attempted to handle the matter, it’s unreasonable to just walk out of a meeting rather than drop discussion through the proper process. As far as I can tell, Senate can talk about the issue’s content without violating Southworth. Indeed, the Senate itself debated the Emerald’s own coverage of Senate on May 10. (This is admittedly a slightly different scenario since the ODE is a contracted group rather than a student group.)

  1. bryan says:

    It’s really astounding to me that a student senator would bring a resolution before the senate– a resolution which he has admitted he knows would be illegal to pass and which basically has no place– and invite FOX News to cover the event. It’s staggering that he would stand on a chair with the cameras rolling and proclaim before a national audience that he deems his erstwhile colleagues to be cowards because they have artfully dodged the bullet he sent their way. How is it that refusing to take part in a conversation, when doing so cannot be of any service to one’s career, when the specifications of one’s job as senator place no obligation upon one to take part in the conversation, when the subject matter of that conversation has already been exhausted and its legal implications already definitively determined, when a proposal for a public quorum event to be held in the near future and advertised for what it is has already been announced and received favorably, when excusing oneself from the debate does not preclude the debate itself and simply allows more time to those who do wish to talk ad nauseum– how is it that this refusal can be likened to a stifling of others’ speech?
    This petty opportunism does not reflect well on our university at all.
    What a play, Dallas. What a play.

  2. Tyler says:

    What a strange, bitter debate.

    Tim: I think we’ve all concluded that these “Nate” posts are merely a parody of The Slate (it seems rather obvious now, in hindsight). Kudos, “Nate”, for your undying committment to your joke.

  3. Sara says:

    Toby I’m not afraid to put my name on anything. The above was not me, just to settle the confusion. Contact me personally if you want. -Sara

  4. Andy says:

    That’s right. Because we’re dicks here at the OC. Here’s a link to the rest of the analogy. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/quotes

  5. Toby says:

    Also, does no one have the guts to attach their name to a statement on this blog besides Axelrod at times, Anthony, and the OC Staff? Consider it a challenge!

  6. Toby says:

    Clarification, I am not calling Mat a hypocrite ( I am not afraid to name names). Love the dude. I am calling the Sneate itself hypocritical for freely discussing the ODE content and not the Insurgent’s. Sorry, I didn’t make that clear. I don’t know if you were at the meeting (I am sure you were since you are most likely a Senator who walked out and are afraid to put your name on what you submit. Most likely Sara, but maybe I am wrong) but I was and more than just mending the relationship was discussed and I heard no one…including myself for that matter (kicking myself) for even questioning the purpose of talking about the ODE. That my friend is hypocritical. Sorry to Mat if that first statement came out wrong.

  7. Timothy says:

    Do you have anything else to talk about Nate? You’re like the drunk guy at a party who runs around shouting “SHOW ME YOUR TITS!”

  8. Nate says:

    No worries people! The new and improved Senate is here! Under the leadership of the one… the only Jared Axelrod!

  9. Matt says:

    Yeah, it also seems to me that no one is entirely sure at this point as to why Erickson et al. walked out. While it appears it was probably intended to avoid talking about the Insurgent, I think a clearer explanation is needed. It was also a little odd to me that the Senate’s “statement” was issued by Goward and not by the AA. Either way, it’d be nice to know from the Senators themselves.

  10. Response to Toby says:

    Toby,

    To say that one of the Senators who walked out questioned the content of the Oregon Daily Emerald before the Senate and then call him a hypocrite is misleading. It was necessary for the Senator in question to bring up the content of the Emerald only because the issue that he raised was what he perceived to be the Emerald’s antagonism toward Senate. The remarks he made were more about the relationship between the Emerald and Senate and his wanting to find ways to mend that relationship. I can’t speak to that Senator’s reasons for leaving last night’s meeting, but these are different cases, and that Senator in particular is one of the last who I would jump to call a hypocrite.

  11. Toby says:

    So I am going to echo what Ian said. Supposedly all of these above Senators walked out simply because a discussion was put on the agenda, and that perhaps during this discussion someone MAYBE would have proposed something limiting free speech? So then why not stay and see if this sort of actions actually occurreed and vote it down. I think that it is only illegal if action if action is officially taken. I bet Melinda Greer would agree. It seems to strike me as odd that one of these Senators that walked out had no problem questioning the content of the Oregon Daily Emerald before the Senate mere weeks ago. Hypocricy??? Rumors has it some motivations for the walk out went beyond the discussion of the Insurgent and were centered around jockeying for positions of leadership within Senate next year. I can say these are rumors but then again I know what other Senators have told me and if I get pissed off enough I will tell you who wants what for next year, and this statement can be confirmed when Senate elects its next officials. Pretty sad guys…and gals…

  12. Ian says:

    Erickson, Faust, Malena, Kato, Irvin, and Filippelli walked out. Hamilton and Papailiou also left at that point, although I have not confirmed that they left specifically because of the Insurgent line item.

    We will be posting a complete audio file of the meeting and (most of) the aftermath tomorrow. (And by that I mean later today.)

  13. Amy says:

    So who did walk out?

  14. Ian says:

    Wait – question: Does the

  15. Black Maria says:

    thanks “anti-goward” i wonder who you could be? isn’t it past your usual sleep time sir?

    Agreed though that it is not against any rules to discuss groups in general. It is not even against any rules to condemn or condone them. I pity those that do not wish and want and yean to engage in debate. Ian says boo to them, but I just fell sorry for them. “it is better to avoid the situation” was the thought of some senators (especially those that wait to hear how sen. hicks votes) tonight. I believe “easier” should be substituted for “better”.

    and amy….president-elect Axelrod had already resigned and did not sit on senate tonight, so he did not walk out. although I am sure the women “behind the curtain” would have insisted he do so anyway. who is really running next years exec? the world may never know.

  16. The Anti-Goward says:

    I think no one really agrees with or respects your opinion David. I think you are better off trying to save what little face if any you have an disappearing into the darkness. I know you are rejected for DDS coordinator so you really are in no place to criticize Dallas. We all know you think you are so high and mighty and trying to make a name for yourself so you really need to start checking your attitude at the door. I think you are one of the least viewpoint neutral people (formaly) in the ASUO as you are afraid to even here any debate on the issue. You forget the viewpoint nuetrality clause need only to apply to allocation of fees, not discussion about group in general. I suggest you open the green tape notebook. Anyway, time for you to run along and get to bed. Mrs. Greer is wait for you David…

  17. David says:

    Just be glad that the senate was protected from itself tonight! It did not break any laws, go on camera being un-view point neutral and being tool bags. The Senators took a stand, made a point, and did not get bullied into a corner by Dallas Brown, who was the only one miked, and wanted to make a stand on national television standing up for the “average student.” If he stood up for the average student, he would have done his job at DDS, and earned his stipend, instead of getting $125 a month for shit! Dallas only stands up when it forwards his image and makes him look good, not for students, and most defiantly not for legality or the constitution!

  18. Miles Rost says:

    I am so done with Student Government. Glad I’m out.

  19. Amy says:

    Oh, well, that’s just fabulous.

  20. The All-Knowing Insider says:

    Rumor has it nside the office that the slate is having meetings still with Axelrod to determine the new Senate agenda for the year. First up… Iran Resolution. Judging by the people who walked out tonight and the new addition of the slate members, I wouldn’t have too much confidence in next year’s Senate. I am looking forward to the ride.

  21. Toby says:

    So tell me again why only one person voted AGAISNT putting this on the agenda but then what 7 people walked out in opposition? Why not have the 7 people vote NOT to put it on the agenda then protect the Senate from looking horrible in from of everyone, follow the rules in place. Seems pretty clear to me, but I am also the guy who thinks mere discussion is legal under Southworth, what do I know?

  22. Amy says:

    Wait – question: Does the “The members who did not walk out were Wally Hicks, Dallas Brown, Kyle McKenzie, Toby Piering, and Natalie Kinsey” comment mean our beloved President-elect (and now President) Axelrod walk out? Or not?

    Who exactly walked out?

  23. Amy says:

    I’m going to save my comments about the whole Senate/Insurgent issue, but I did want to say that I think it is incredibly unprofessional and immature to see a group of senators walk out of a meeting.

    I know some of you loyal OC-ers will have comments about just HOW professional or mature some of the senators are, but I would like to think that they have some level of decorum. Oh well… new year, new senate. Hopefully, that is. I would like to see those who broke the slate earlier this term actually do something productive in senate. As would everyone else.

  24. Matt says:

    Nah, the Senate broke the quorum in some stroke of parliamentary genius (and slight amount of sleeze, but okay) and then Dallas went off on the hypocrisy of the whole deal. Adam also gave an interesting speech.

    I don’t know what happened much after that. I spoke to Dallas briefly on his way out, just wondering what the reasoning was behind his resolution. Anywho, I’m out.

  25. Anika says:

    Is the meeting still in session? What did Dallas say?

  26. Matt says:

    Dallas Brown. There’s just no predicting him.

  27. Anthony says:

    and you would know Nate…

  28. Nate says:

    Axlerod has HUGE balls!

  29. Ian says:

    Most of the Senate has walked out of the meeting rather than debate the Insurgent. There is no quorum.

  30. Anthony says:

    what a waste of student fee dollars…too bad axelrod won’t have the balls to veto it

  31. Andy says:

    omfg!!!!

  32. Ian says:

    The motion passes 7-3-3 and the Cultural Forum is given $20,000 to bring the concert.

  33. Ian says:

    “More students would benefit than would lose out,” the guy giving the presentation says. Yet he estimates that less than 2000 students would attend the concert.

  34. Ian says:

    Wally Hicks argues that by requesting so much money, the students as a whole are being compelled to pay for the show rather than just the people who want to attend. “I just wonder if this is just another example of us forcing diversity down people’s throats,” Hicks says.

  35. Ian says:

    There’s now a special request on the table requesting $22,500 so that they can bring Ozomatli to the University for next year’s Week of Welcome.

  36. Ian says:

    Motion passes to override the veto: 10-1-1, with Stephanie Erickson voting “yea”, Brown voting “nay”, and Hicks abstaining.

  37. Ian says:

    Brown opposes overriding the veto, pointing out that the two players were convicted of misdemeanors and urging that the money which would go towards those two players going on the trip be deducted from the total.

  38. Ian says:

    A disturbingly sober Adam Walsh is now talking about the clubs sports baseball team’s special request for funds to go to a national competition. After two of the baseball players robbed the clubhouse, Walsh vetoed an earlier special request. But he says now that after much deliberation he’s changed his mind and urges Senate to override his veto.

  39. Ian says:

    Not sure, but probably. Probably won’t have any updates for awhile, they need to go through the regular bullshit.

  40. Niedermeyer says:

    Is debate happening at the bottom of the agenda?

  41. Ian says:

    There is a video crew here, presumably from FOX News. They’ve stopped proposal of the resolution because they know it’s in contradiction both of senate rules and Southworth, but this way they can at least get video clips of themselves railing against the Insurgent.

  42. Ian says:

    Sen. Wally Hicks has proposed an addition to the agenda titled “Student Insurgent,” overriding Brown’s existing resolution. This new item on the agenda would essentially be a time set aside for the Student Senate to debate the Insurgent rather than pass a resolution against them.

    In other words, this is so that they can make a PR move rather than a legal one. Smart.

  43. Ian says:

    Sara Hamilton: “I’d like to remind the Senate that we’ve broken these rules multiple times, including the textbook resolution.” “This is a perfect place [for this debate] to happen,” she says, agreeing with Brown.

  44. Ian says:

    Melinda Greer is in the room, and Goward says that she will debate the issue if asked to. She would presumably argue against the resolution. Big guns.

  45. Ian says:

    (Excuse me, it must be submitted five school days in advance, not *technically* a week.

  46. Ian says:

    “The resolution in question has something that is illegal” inside of it, Mike Filipelli points out, agreeing that the motion for the resolution should not be heard.

  47. Ian says:

    Dallas apologizes for accusing him of limiting speech, but reiterates that he believes the Senate should hear the motion and that it was a “very strange mistake” that it didn’t make it into Senator’s mailboxes a week ago.

  48. Timothy says:

    Brilliant!

  49. Ian says:

    Richard Malena opposes Brown’s motion, saying that Brown’s resolution was not in their inboxes for a week, as per this year’s internal Senate rules. Because of this, Malena says, the item should be deferred. Former Senator Jared Axelrod agrees, saying that they should not suspend rules for this specific motion. In turn, Dallas claims Jared is trying to “limit students speech.”

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.