Archive for the '2010 ASUO Elections' Category
December 11th, 2012 by C.W. Keating
After getting off of work in the dungeon that is the Knight Library basement, I stepped into the afternoon rain. I pulled a pre-rolled cigarette from my pocket (Bugler brand – mangy, disgusting Bugler) and lit it. Standing off to the side so as not to spread smoke, an elderly woman shot me the evil eye before stopping in front of me: “There’s no smoking on campus. Go smoke across the street.”
I stared at her until she left.
This kind of situation has become all-too-common since the Healthy Campus Initiative, in partnership with the UO Health Center and the administration (with a special guest funding appearance from the ASUO), implemented a campus-wide smoking ban at the beginning of the Fall. The idea of a smoking ban isn’t anything new; the Smoke Free Campus Task Force (SFTF) issued a report in 2008 that sought to
tak[e] up the matter of campus smoking policy with the understanding that the issue is fueled by strong personal convictions for perceived personal rights, both the right to be free from the effects of secondhand smoke and the right to choose to smoke cigarettes (STFT Report, emphasis mine)
The rest of the report either references student support from polls drawn from other universities, or flat-out neglects student responses in order to reference various studies, policies, and polls from other universities. Under “Synthesis of Survey Findings of UO Faculty, Staff, and Students,” the report states that
Many survey respondents are ready to support the move to a smoke free campus… [and] also were confident that this could be accomplished with designated smoking areas… (Ibid.)
Oh, hey, there’s a reasonable point. But no! The STFT simply cannot concede, because “enforcement becomes very difficult and compliance suffers as a result.” You don’t say.
No matter what the administration does, what programs it implements, what funding it pulls or pushes, students will push against it. Lord knows the Commentator will. The Healthy Campus Initiative tried to remedy this student disconnect with the “STFU” posters, a internet-conscious campaign that seemed to confuse people more than encourage quitting (check out this post about the issue from our very own Editor Emeritus Sophia Lawhead).
Another argument is that it unfairly targets lower-income UO workers. Even those filthy hipsters at the OV agree with us on this point. Making workers go off campus for a 15 minute smoke break is not only inconsiderate, but damaging to already-strained labor relationships.
“All I wanted was a non-fat, cream-jizzed latte with peasant tears in it!”
So why bring up this almost-5-year-old report, you may ask? Because Frances Dyke and company never really cared about what students thought. The UO has become a brand, and it needs to sell itself in order to keep flagging state funding and private donor contributions steady. The publicity surrounding the ban has relentlessly focused on the “progressive” aspects of the program without attending to the opinions of students or faculty – and if so, only through narrow data samples used to prop up their point.
But the effects of secondhand smoke are serious. I completely understand the goal behind the smoking ban. Cigarette butt litter continues to be a problem, and has only been exacerbated by the ban — take a look at the 13th and Kincaid entrance to campus if you don’t believe me. Families with young children and people with respiratory problems are also rightfully concerned.
The only way to fight this ban, then, is to implement a personal smoker code of ethics to demonstrate smoker commitment to a healthy campus and personal freedoms. Here’s mine:
- Always smoke away from buildings and large groups of people, and/or areas of great traffic.
- Stop inhaling and pull the cigarette as far away from passing families with children.
- If someone asks you to smoke off campus, politely decline or simply don’t say anything at all. You’ll be finished if and when they call DPS.
- Put butts out and make sure they’re extinguished before throwing them away.
- Throw butts in the trash.
- If an officer asks you to put your cigarette out, assess the situation. Fines suck, but so do the deprivation of “perceived personal rights.”
- Overall, recognize that your activity is looked down upon. Take pride in this.
It’s not perfect, but it works for me. The Commentator will continue to fight this arbitrary ban with articles, letters, appeals, and upcoming events like Tobacco Appreciation Day. But the ball is in smokers’ courts. We at the Commentator will do our best to point out the massive cavalcades of bullshit directed at students who make the choice to smoke. This smoking ban is just another attempt at nannying the student populace; the administration never does anything without direct benefit to them, and they’ve fucked smokers to bolster their public image under the pretense of “knowing what’s best.”
The whole campaign feels like yet another pat on the head, another assumption about our intelligence, actions, and responsibilities. But we’re not kids anymore. We’re adults, students, workers, and yes, smokers. So smoke ’em if ya got ’em. It’s going to be a long, long battle.
April 9th, 2010 by D
That’s what someone (I won’t mention who) inside the ASUO office said when the Elections Board was unveiling the results of the elections last night. They couldn’t have been more right. Sen. Demic Tipitno seemed crushed after reading elections results that saw Amelie Rousseau and Maneesh Arora take the Executive spot last night alongside a senate election that saw all but two seats get taken by Reality Check candidates. But the outlook may not be so bleak after all.
For members of the Reality Check campaign, their virtual sweep of the open senate positions was bittersweet. Only the Law and General Science open seats were not taken by Reality Check, yet their presidential candidate–arguably their most qualified and prominent member–lost.
After seeing the elections results, I got the feeling from members of Reality Check that they had lost some great landslide defeat. However, the opposite is almost certainly true. Key issues of the Reality Check campaign–parking on campus, student ticketing etc–can still be worked on. Funding issues, OSPIRG in particular, seems to be another area where Reality Check members need not to worry.
Next year’s senate will have 5 non-Reality Check members: Marissa Garcia, Zachary Stark-MacMillan, Max Barkley, Jeremy Blanchard and Tyler Griffin. However, that leaves an overwhelming majority of Reality Check members to fill senate and finance committee positions by sheer numbers.
The Executive of the ASUO is not the end-all be-all. While I personally feel that McCafferty was the only logical choice for ASUO Executive this year, the fact of the matter remains that qualifications and track record are hardly indicative of who wins votes in the ASUO.
Will next year be a disaster for supporters of Reality Check? No. Will next year be the year the progressives take over campus? Certainly not. What can, then, be guaranteed?
For thirty-something years the ASUO has been an upstanding example of children doing a job that should be left for adults. That–I guarantee you–will remain the same.
Good luck, all.
April 8th, 2010 by Drew Cattermole
Amelie Rousseau and Maneesh Arora have won the presidential elections. They recieved 2,082 votes while Alex McCafferty and Alden Williams received 1,752 votes. In another outsanding voter turnout the primary elections received 3,972 votes.
Although Reality Check did not win the presidential elections they won every senate seat besides one. Zachary Stark McMillan will be the lone non Reality Check member on ASUO senate.
Sen. Demic Tipitino reacts to election results.
April 8th, 2010 by Drew Cattermole
Today an anonymous informant came to our office today to show us text messages from firstname.lastname@example.org. The text reads as follows.
“We are 100 votes behind! Can you get 5 new votes for Amelie and Maneesh and Campus Change Coalition before voting closes at 5pm.”
I’m not sure who is keeping voting tabs right now but I am positive the only one who is can view them at this time is Nolan Gary ASUO elections coordinator.
As I was writing this post the informant also received a text from Brian Allen one of the top volunteer coordinators for the Amelie and Maneesh campaign. The text reads,
“We are down by 100 votes can you get 5 more votes for Amelie and Maneesh in the next 3C candidates in the next 2hrs?!”
Now these voting tabulations could be pure speculation by the Amelie and Maneesh campaign or a serious violation of campaign rules. Either way stay tuned to the blog for election results at 6 tonight.
April 7th, 2010 by Drew Cattermole
Amelie Rousseau came by the office to give us this apology letter today. I wonder which printer she used?
April 7th, 2010 by D
In decisions handed down today, the ASUO Elections Board has decided that the OSPIRG and Amelie Rousseau campaigns have violated some–but not all–of the highlighted rules filed in grievances by Tony Mecum last week.
In the case of OSPIRG, it was decided that the only rule they violated was Rule 6.8 which states, “No individual may disrupt University class time to promote or oppose a candidacy or ballot measure.” Their messages on classroom chalkboards violated this rule. The final decision, according to the Elections Board, was as such:
The Respondent’s actions were designed to influence the students in the classroom after Respondent had left. While the Respondent was not present, the Elections Board feels that the Respondent’s actions disrupted the class in order to promote a ballot measure and finds Respondent in violation of Election Rule 6.8
The Elections Board finds the Respondent in violation of Election Rule 6.8 and, pursuant to Election Rule 7.6, the Respondent shall issue a formal statement of apology to campus media.
As for the Rousseau campaign and Amelie’s personal use of the ASUO office copier for campaign purposes. The Elections Board decided that Rousseau violated Rule 6.10, but had taken proper steps to rectify the situation, and a lighter punishment was given:
The Elections Board finds that the Respondent’s actions are in violation of Election Rule 6.10. Due to limited scope and impact of the violation on elections, as well as the actions taken to rectify the situation before the grievance was filed, the Respondent shall not be removed from the Elections ballot. As the Elections Board feels that a formal letter of apology is a necessary part of any resolution to this violation, the Respondent shall issue a formal statement of apology to campus media, which shall include the apology and any steps taken to resolve the matter.
For OSPIRG, I find it hard to believe that the Elections Board did not find them in violation of Rule 2.2 (“The educational atmosphere of the University shall not be compromised by anyone involved in the election process.”) It almost seems that if they violated Rule 6.8 in that specific way, that 2.2 is therefore implied.
Rousseau’s punishment, however, I wholeheatedly disagree with. I find it despicable and downright ill-willed for her to have used those copiers. Rousseau works in the ASUO office, and since winter term those pink signs that say “Campaign Free Zone” have been on the outside of her office. Every single day she went to work and saw those signs, and yet she still decided to blatantly violate rules she was fully aware of.
It’s not like the ASUO, or their elections process, has ever had any integrity. But you couldn’t ask for it to get any lower. I’ll be expecting those apologies in my inbox shortly.
April 6th, 2010 by Drew Cattermole
April 5th, 2010 by Editorial Board
Here at the Oregon Commentator we had high hopes for our most recent ASUO executive ticket, but sadly the students of the University of Oregon do not want a more swashbuckling ASUO. With that being said, Alex McCafferty is the right choice for ASUO president.
McCafferty has experience within the ASUO, he served as senate president two years ago and is currently the omsbudsperson for the ASUO. Alex and Alden’s campaign platform sets out specific goals that will increase oppurtunity while decreasing costs. By focusing on goals such as student parking, LTD contracts and athletic tickets McCafferty is clearly able to show that his platform will benefit students from every spectrum at the University of Oregon. McCafferty also is a staunch opponent of renewing OSPIRG’s contract with the ASUO.
McCafferty’s position on the ACFC in the last year shows that he is more than able to handle the budgetory process in a harsh economic climate. He was able to restructure a struggling ticketing system while at the same time reducing the cost for students.
Rousseau and Arora have leadership ability and present inspiring ideas to improve student life on campus. However their platform is more focused on internal problems with the UO as an institution. Also they are both OSPIRG supporters.
McCafferty will be a president who works for every student. Vote McCafferty and Williams for president.
April 5th, 2010 by Drew Cattermole
OC: What students groups are you involved in?
AM: I am an ASUO senator, I work on the board of directors for the Oregon Daily Emerald, I am a student on the University hearings board, and I also serve in the student leader capacity on many University committees.
AW: I am a member of Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority , I currently an advocate for the Substance Abuse Prevention Program and I’m working on internships for my major as well.
OC: Can you give us a description of your platform?
AM: Our platform is very comprehensive. It’s all under the realm of saving student’s money. The first is responsible spending; we have athletic tickets, LTD and enhancing the EMU. So I will go through the first two. The first is responsible spending, every year the mandatory fee students pay goes up, and we want to make sure it does not do this because currently we pay the highest mandatory fee in the country. We have as student leaders autonomy in our student government, we have direct access over the allocation of the money and in our capacity we want to make sure that number does not increase and in fact decrease. The next is student tickets, it has been a pretty long process for myself I have been very involved in the student ticketing process. This past year we created the season pass program, I think this was very well received very well thought out and implemented because it gives more students a opportunity to attend football games. It also gives, fans who are willing to pay for a season pass a guaranteed spot at football home game. That is something that many students really wanted and will provide them that opportunity. Next it actually decreased the size of the ASUO budget, we were able to reduce the size of the ASUO athletics contract by 5%, while increasing opportunity to attend those games. Because actually increased the amount of tickets being obtained by combining season passes and free tickets with a full student section for every Pac-10 home game and that was all done while reducing the budget, which was a great success. We want to continue this because we have the opportunity to increase opportunity while limiting costs. We want to expand the student section at Autzen stadium. Frankly 5,445 seats is not enough seats with the size of the student body we have now. So our first priority would be to lobby to increase the size of the student section at Autzen stadium.
AW: As you can see Alex really loves football and football tickets. I’m going to touch on a few of our platform points that are also very important. One of them being the EMU renovation that is going to happen with the Oregon 20/20 plan. With that being said there is several points we need to keep in mind in that renovation as a potential executive and that is increasing the space and facilities s and making the facilities in general more accessible for clubs, students groups, unions, all the students using resources at the EMU. Also increasing revenue because right now our EMU is not self sustainable, we are not bringing a lot of money in, and we are looking at getting a few more businesses and potentially a sports bar in the new EMU which would bring in a lot more revenue than right now and create more of a residential community where students really want to be. In addition to that we want to make sure that the EMU renovation includes input from students. We realize this is not something that is going to be happening any time within our legacy here, if you will. We would like to make sure that students are advocated for and when this does happen that it is well thought out and students are represented. Next I would like to address the issue of the urban Farm. Right now the urban farm has been here for thirty or forty years and they are a growing program but they do not have enough space and in order to work with them and address that issue we would like to put them on the I-fee. Also work with the CASTLE project as they are a partnership and we believe that sustainable living and sustainable parking are really important.
AM: Our next issue is student parking. Some students do not live within the realm of the bus stops, some students have no other choice to drive to school and to attend class they need to bring their car. Right now it cost an incredible amount to obtain a parking spot and currently the administration has more passes than it currently has spots. Which is the first thing we need to fix. Secondly, we also need to increase the amount of parking places we have. It is unfair to make students pay these outrageous fees to even get to class. The tangible way we can do that is to open up the Autzen lot for student parking. The Autzen parking lot is currently only used for football games and unfortunately there is not very many of those days. Every other day it is an empty lot not being used in any other sort of function. We can open the Autzen lot, let students park there and rework the LTD contract to provide a shuttle service from the Autzen lot to campus which will hopefully decrease the cost that is necessary to get a parking spot and increase the spots available so students have a tangible way to get to school without paying over $300 for parking fees.
AW: And also making sure that the LTD services are staying were they are right now and providing as much as possible for students with a lower cost in addition to the parking issue that Alex addressed.
OC: You talked about keeping the I-fee low, how would you achieve that?
AM: There are a variety of ways, first is creative growth. That is something that I strive for and something that I think the season passes did. Season passes increased opportunity while lowering the budget. Again we lowered the budget by 5% and increasing opportunity for additional services to students and that will lower the I-fee. Additionally if we move services off the fee to the general fund. Currently, the career center is in the process of moving off the I-fee to the general fund. The career center obviously still stands is still functional however students will not be paying for it through their mandatory fees. We can do the exact same thing with campus recycling. Campus recycling is a wonderful program, something we need on campus, something that we support however the administration is glad to pick it up, it can easily fall into facilities and services which is really where it belongs. If we move that of the fee and into the g-fund within in facilities and services we can lower the I-fee without reducing services, we can maintain and in fact increase services with creative growth and that is exactly how we lower the I-fee. Alden?
AW: We would like to also prepare ahead of time. When it comes to student budgets there are a lot of groups that are dealing with a large or small budget anomaly and are having issues but right now we don’t have advising or resources to create that budget and have to propose it to senate. The process of asking for money and budget forecasting is not that is readily accessible to all student groups. So we would like to improve that process and make sure that we are preparing ahead of time, not only ourselves but all groups involved so we don’t have unnecessary or unplanned shortfalls so that we don’t have that overwhelming surplus to refill the hole we can potentially create without planning ahead.
OC: Alex, you were big on bringing the New York Times to campus and if elected would you keep the NYT on campus.
AM: In the primary debates today they asked us what would you do in the first ten weeks of office I answered that the NYT is a clear tangible benefit that was in demand by the students and unfortunately it was not funded through the ASUO process this year which is OK, because as the executive if elected one of the first things we would do is secure funding mostly through fundraising as soon as possible.
OC: Can you define “sustainability?”
AM: Sustainability will not require funds to be continually increased, so if you want to be sustainable you are self-sufficient. You are able to provide for yourself without taking outside resources or outside funding and keeping the intake of student funds increasing every year.
OC: If you get elected, what is the one thing a year from now you would be proud of.
AM: The thing I would be most proud of is expanding the student section at Autzen stadium bringing the NYT to campus and most importantly reducing the cost of education at this university. That is my prime goal. That’s what I personally would be most proud of because this is a wonderful university, however it costs more and more every year to come here and as the ASUO president one of the most important things I could do to lower the cost of education.
AW: I think we both share that is important that students funds stay here on campus and students know where their funds are going and transparency within student government is very clear. I want students to be informed on what we are spending their money on and what their resources are and just exactly what it is what were doing.
OC: Thank you for your time.
April 5th, 2010 by Drew Cattermole
OC– Could you give us an outline of your platform?
AR– We have four main platform points. First is better advocating for student housing rights on campus, thirdly is you know more efficient spending and making sure that our fees are spent wisely and effectively, and then we have sustainability and making sure that students have a say in how that money is spent for student sustainability improvement on campus and then
MA– Also making sure students voices are heard.
AR– yes, definitely, and then fourthly is you know building communities, fostering civic engagement and bridging gaps between communities on campus.
OC– Can you divulge into what student groups you’re involved with currently?
AR-for sure I am currently working with the ASUO executive and I created the first annual farmers market. I am a member of Pi Beta Phi where I was publications chair I was an honest college chip leader, freshman mentor and fig assistant. I was an honors college editor and chief of the arts journal. I’ve been a member of alternative spring break and I am on the, er I was on the Greek judicial board.
MA– oh and then me as well?
MA– Okay so I’m a campaign manager with OSPIRG, I’m the team coordinator with the climate justice league. I’ m also a member of the students of the Indian subcontinent and then I was last year a member of the Warsaw sports business club.
OC-Your website’s mission says “we will make sure legislators and candidates for governor know that students can’t afford anymore debt” how do you reconcile that statement with your support for OSPIRG a group that would incur 117 thousand dollars to students if operational.
MA-um yea what was the question?
MA-yea totally, one of the things about OSPIRG is its cost effective so you’re getting a $600,000 organization for $117,000. um also they work on issues that save um students and citizens of Oregon money, such as the health care bill that passed in Oregon last year, to save citizens of Oregon 12 billion dollars over ten years, um so those are the kind of things that they are able to to do with that 117 thousand dollars so its not like you’re throwing away money, its that you’re making an investment to get money back, and the other thing is, ya know, I’m voting yes on OSPIRG, but as president and vice president you know we respect what students think, and so its really up to students if they think that OSPIRG is important on campus, so theres a question on the ballot and if students vote to have OSPIRG on this campus, if they think its important to them then we should respect that.
OC– I noticed on one of your campaign website your bullet point is a civic engagement minor, can you explain that?
AR– yea totally, its something were really excited about, its been talked about vice president Kassa has been working on that this year and we are going to continue promote the creation of this minor, and the theory behind it is that you know students should be able to learn outside their academic life, you know they’re in class for a couple hours a day but so much of our learning and experience comes outside the classroom and the minor would allow students to get academic credit for things that they’re already involved in. Community service that they are already doing on campus, both in campus on campus and within the Eugene community as well. um and so it would be kinda like working with um some sort of internship independent project attached to a organization both on or off campus and then also mixing and matching classes that fit with that project, with that specific passion interest. so we’re really excited about it and i think that its a really great way for students to take autonomy over their own education and be able to find things that they’re going to learn tangible skillsfor the future at the same time they’re making a difference.
OC– Would there be restrictions on to what you can study?
AR– I’m not sure what the restrictions would be, but I think that it would definitely have to be, you know, planned out with an adviser, but again it would definitely be very creative and you know, you would have say over how that was put together.
OC– Another one of your campaign centers around renters rights. Could you explain that?
AR-Yea definitely, so iIthink you know a lot of you know Eugene students are first time renters so you know they’re reluctant to fend for themselves to find housing on their own, even you know from the first time they enroll in school you know the administration has allowed 4x more freshman than we have beds for currently, so you know that right there students have to find housing on their own, they’re being you know having to have roommates that they don’t know before or they’re not necessarily their first choice for a living situations and then you know when they do become renters you know they move out of the residence halls, students haven’t really been educated on what their rights are what they can do against you know big real estate companies or just ya know one on one you know landlords smaller time landlords, and I think the ASUO is a great place for students to get educated on what their rights are, so you know holding workshops going to groups in the residence halls and things like that. and just letting them know just being able to support them in finding housing and also when they’re in it just making sure they’re in contact with things like legal services, conflict resolution, things that already exist on campus that not enough students know about.
OC– Are you guys running on the slate?
AR– no were independent candidates, like you.
OC-nice, that brings me to this question. What would you do if you guys were voted to executive positions to keep senators on the senate.
AR-I think one thing that’s really important is just maintaining good you know personal and professional relationships with each and every senator. That means you know both Getachew and sorry, both Maneesh and I will do a great job, I think Getachew has done ya know tried to do that as the vice president but I think Maneesh and I really value that and making sure that we ya know promote good relations between senate and the executive so we can get ya know get really good work done and work together on that. Ya know so checking with them having meetings, making sure were communicating with not just the senate president but every senator.
OC– So at the end of the 2010/1011 school year, if you’re voted in whats the one thing that you want students to reflect on your administration?
MA– the one thing, that’s tough. I think one of the things for me is just to see how passionate we are about a lot of the issues that we care about, I mean I know Amelie is really passionate about like the farmers market and civic engagement and housing, she talks a lot about that, I’m really passionate about civic engagement as well as well as sustainability, we both have done a lot of work on this campus. we’ve seen what students can do when we collaborate and when we work together on issues that we care about, and we really just want to be a voice for that positive energy and that activism
MA-and so I think one of the things I want people to look back on is hopefully how were able to bring people together, because I think that’s really important, and I think there is a lot of students on this campus that care about similar things, and we just want to give them the support and the resources that they can.
AR– I would second that and I’d say that ya know we don’t necessarily know, like we have some goals that we want to accomplish, but its about figuring out. What students want to have done, and what they want to change, and what goals they want to set for themselves, and then supporting that and fostering growth ya know, not just environmental groups but all communities on campus and ya know putting fun events together that like ya know we can learn to support each other. Ya know maybe making something like sustainability goals that we can you know really see the changes of you know before and after so you know once we set those with as much student input as possible. Then we’ll be able to look back and see how well we did and how well we um were able to be kind of the facilitators for making student action happen.
OC-Well done. Thank you for your time.
April 3rd, 2010 by Ross Coyle
Four snippets of what’s to come with more posts. Had a good time getting these and I hope everyone votes for Reality Check the most appropriate candidate.
March 31st, 2010 by D
Last night at the ASUO executive debate, Cassi and Lucas (dark blue shirts) left the debate because they felt that “there were no undecided voters here” and that it was a waste of time.
Looks like they made up for that political blunder by doing something even more ill-advised. Here’s an e-mail we’ve received. It’s original senders are Cassi and Lucas.
“Looks like we did a little mess up. We had this great idea to sit in coffee shops and let people come talk to us, so we made signs that said “Let’s talk” and went to find a place for a suitable discussion. We posted up in the EMU to wait for people to talk to us, Cassi got some lunch and we sat for a minute and looked around with our signs up. Three minutes later, we noticed a guy snapping a picture of us on his iPhone. We went to talk to him, and he said “you can’t campaign in the EMU.” Immediately our red flags went off and we took the signs down and went down to find a member of the Elections Board to talk to. We found President Kallaway and she advised us on how to deal with it.”
Just like Rousseau’s mistake with the printers, you have to know the rules before you do anything. If they left the debate to go strategize, don’t you think they could have avoided something like this?
By the way, if you’re “that guy with the iPhone” we’d love to see that picture.
March 30th, 2010 by Drew Cattermole
March 29th, 2010 by D
Tony Mecum just e-mailed us and informed us that he will be filing against OSPIRG and Amelie Rousseau, respectively. For OSPIRG, the grievance centers around the fact that there was pro-OSPIRG messages written on chalkboards all over campus (see above).
For Rousseau, it centers around her misuse of ASUO office space to print campaign materials.
For OSPIRG, Mecum’s suggested punishment is that they not be able to campaign on campus for 24 hours. For Rousseau, Mecum suggests removing her from the ballot entirely. This would seem egregious except for the fact that a pink “no campainging” sign has been on the ASUO office for months–that’s the place Rousseau works by the way–and her “accidental” breaking of the rules seems rather blatant.
I saw one of those messages on the chalkboard in Lillis 282 today. I did the honorable thing, and changed it say say “Vote NO on OSPIRG.”
After all, fair’s fair.
March 29th, 2010 by D
The Reality Check campaign (blue shirts) will be hosting an anti-OSPIRG rally tomorrow in the EMU Amphitheater at noon. I’ve already been told by one student that the 3 kids they interacted with, who were wearing CCC shirts (red shirts) and lobbying kids to support OSPIRG were not, in fact, even students. With the fact that Amelie Rousseau has violated ASUO campaign rules already, it looks like things are beginning to get into full mcdisasterfuck mode. I look forward to grievances being filed.
Here’s the press release:
Tuesday March 30th
12:00 PM EMU Amphitheater
Rally against OSPIRG
The Reality Check campaign will be hosting a one hour rally against special interest group OSPIRG’s request for a budget. The event will consist of information on why OSPIRG should not receive funding, as well as a display of just how much money is going off campus. Join us as we fight the embedded interests of the ASUO that for years have been lobbying and mishandling your hard earned money.
For questions contact Jeremy Cabalona, campaign manager for Reality Check