Rumble in the Board Room: Feelings Hurt
The meeting started off with an inauspicious start, as Permias Eugene (an International Student Group for Indonesian students) bumbled in with a couple surplus requests. Thankfully they got what they need for their event, Indonesia Night, but this was a clear example of the ever-continuing visibility issue with ASUO. Its own student groups don’t even know how to make special requests. In fact, I have to say that it’s impossible to know how to make special requests without sitting in on ASUO meetings.
Note to self: Increase accessibility of ASUO to students.
The Debate Team came in afterwards, with an $8,000 request to send debaters to three different tournaments. Naturally, the presentation was compelling, given the nature of the members. The discussion on the request that followed was centered mainly around the amount of fundraising that had happened, which was about 25% of the request amount.
Sen. Boye brought up a very valid point about the precedent of percentage of fundraising to amount of request. Sen. Warnecke then used the fallacious logic that since Senate had approved a $10,000 request a few weeks earlier that was sending less students than this request would, this request should also be approved. What he said afterwards was funny and true, though, that “Some weeks, ASUO is concerned with spending. It just depends on when you come in.”
But Special Requests were passed relatively quickly, because everyone knew what was on everyone’s minds: the resignation of Steven Wilsey on Monday.
Wilsey actually came in to discuss his resignation, since he didn’t want people talking behind his back like they did with Donnie Kim. The majority of his reasons for resigning revolve around the PFC recall hearing for the Veterans and Family Student Association on Monday, which I will save for ANOTHER blog post.
Ultimately it turned from a clarification of his resignation to an ass-kissing session where the Senators did a round-robin trying to convince Wilsey to stay. I do not doubt his merits, but the meeting was not the place to discuss those.
I found it very strange to be sitting in the meeting, as I was hearing my organization’s name thrown around, and at times felt a responsibility to defend the VFSA. Most of the Senators were not at any of the VFSA’s budget hearings, and while I am biased in this aspect, they do not understand the circumstances or context in which our budget request was made. Thus it was conveniently easy for them to gasp at the seemingly appalling special treatment that the VFSA received, without grasping the special circumstances.
Both PFC Chair Jacob Brennan and Steven Wilsey came in and urged Senate to vote down the budget. While I do not agree with how the budget was approved, I find it grossly unfair that we should take the fall for it in a time of such need for services like the VFSA…*end rant*
Sen. Myers, an Exec. appointment to Senate Seat 1 (Neil Brown’s old spot), was a surprise firecracker tonight. While discussing the arbitrary nature of the budgeting system, he managed to shoot at the Executive’s advocacy of spending, and the flaws of the entire system. Unafraid to make scathing remarks where they are deserving, and principled in his actions, Sen. Myers almost seems n worthy successor to Neil Brown.
The discussion about the VFSA budget and the PFC continued to spiral downwards, with Sen. Hernandez and Gulley quietly flinging crap at each other at one end of the table and Wilsey trying to speak on the other. He soon left the Board Room in a heat for the SECOND time this week. At this point, I was asking myself and the other spectators if we had mistakenly entered a circus tent instead of an ASUO meeting.
The meeting concluded when Sen. Hernandez left a little later in anger, losing quorum for the night.
We all know that ASUO reeks of unprofessionalism, but this was truly ASUO at its best. Props to Senate President Papailiou for keeping a cool head through the meeting and trying to keep the meeting in order, but he could only do so much to keep the kids from busting the little kiddie-pool.
Because he had the great insight to not stay in the ASUO, and he’s doing a lot more statesman-like things in Belgium.
He is a statesman in every stretch of the word. And Diego Hernandez is a punked little punani.
How can Neil be an ‘Elder Statesman Extraordinaire [sic]’ if he worked in the ASUO for 1 term?
pps Diego, do us all a little favor and suck it up.
Dear ASUO,
This should probably be its own post, but it should work as a comment.
Wow. First, I would like to congratulate Nick on being a what appears to be a beacon of sanity in what appears to be a Senate that has completely gone off the tracks. I really regret that I was unable to serve with Nick. I just wanted to advise everyone to grow up.
The people who gripe the most about viewpoint neutrality are the people who appear to understand it the least. I’m referring to those who think viewpoint neutrality means one should discard every meaningful factor in regards to determining funding and simply focus on what makes us feel warm and fuzzy on the inside. My friends, that is the polar opposite of viewpoint neutrality.
For all of our legal minded friends out there let’s have a small discussion of what viewpoint neutrality really means. There are two major Supreme Court cases dealing with student mandatory fees and viewpoint discrimination. Rosenberger v. Rectors of the University of Virginia and Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin system v. Southworth. I’m not a lawyer, but I do happen to be literate and can read that both cases define viewpoint neutrality as the absence of viewpoint discrimination. That begs the question, what is viewpoint discrimination? Viewpoint discrimination is not unique to college campuses, but is applied to all sorts of first amendment restrictions. For example, the city of Eugene could potentially ban the posting of political yard signs during this election cycle because they too often interfere with a driver’s ability to see. This regulation would not be viewpoint discriminate and therefore would be viewpoint neutral. However, if Mayor Kitty decided to ban the posting of only Republican yard signs then you have a case of VD and you are not viewpoint neutral.
I don’t see why viewpoint neutrality continues to emerge as a controversial topic, it seems pretty straight forward to me. Viewpoint neutrality simply consists of applying a consistent level of scrutiny and accountability (or lack thereof) on the whole campus. I guess it isn’t as easy when one is trying to manipulate the term to get extra cash for a certain set of friends.
One more thing before I go back to going real work and protecting our great nation from foreign enemies. I read all of the Donnie Kim stuff. Let me first say Donnie is a good guy and form what I can tell he is reasonable man that did a reasonable thing. If you don’t like so called “back door politics” resign and don’t ever get into politics again. Other senators asking you to vote a certain way or sharing their opinions with you is part of the gig. No money or favors are being traded. Nothing illegal is going on. I’ve heard back door politics spewed in the ASUO like Richard Daley is offering real estate deals to Dan Feldman for approving the Oregon Marching Band’s $200 special request for new uniforms. Talking with other senators and trying to sell each other on certain plans isn’t back door politics, it’s politics. And again, like viewpoint neutrality, it seems to me like some of the people pointing the fingers are either unaware what they are talking about or are hypocrites.
Your humble servant,
Neil Brown
PS I apologize for any typos, I’m using a French keyboard with a French spell checker. If you’ve tried to use one, you know what I mean.
DAMN MY TONE DEAFNESS!
Man, I bet that’s a gas though. They didn’t really do that when I was there.
I assume Toby is kidding around… the funniest part of any Senate meeting is confirmations, when nominees are asked what viewpoint neutrality means to them. Hilarity, every single time.
Viewpoint neutrality means disbursement of funds without regard for the views of the group to which the funds are disbursed so long as they meet some pre-defined list of requirements. That is, you can require that the group have X members or be comprised entirely of students and so forth, but you can’t require that they all believe penguins are awesome or that capitalism is a tool of the patriarchy or something.
See: hier.
what the heck is viewpoint neutrality?
why did hernandez support allocating more funds to MEChA than they were even asking for during the recall hearing? conflict of interest or viewpoint neutrality? call OSA
Yes, how dare these senators have such ideals of responsibile spending and saving the student fee money. They should know what kind of an organization they got themselves into and go with the status quo, approving arbitrary budget allocations and rediculous special requests. How dare those Senators have morals and feel responsible to their constituents (students). How dare they!
I am sorry but are you fucking kidding me
To quote a former OC cover, Why, God, why? Why does the Senate feel it necessary to discuss these matters during the meetings. What a great time to have a special request in though. It seems every other week that special requests are passed with little discussion simply so the senators can get to the “new business” of bitching and moaning. Shouldn’t they be using this time to raise their stipend pay? I know I would.
Somebody call up Fox and pitch them an ASUO Senate reality show.
I can’t even read about this stuff anymore…
This is a distinction without difference.