ASUO: Due Process Circumvention Polka
Today’s ODE outlines some new process by which ASUO Programs are recognized by the ASUO. From the article, which seems to liberally quote the ASUO press release memo:
The Recognition Review Committee will review groups missions, goals and by-laws to ensure services are not duplicated by other programs and that they are advantageous to the cultural or physical development of students, according to a memorandum from former ASUO President Adam Petkun.
Now, given the difficulties we’ve had in the past, especially the frustrations of just a year ago, I do not think this bodes well for the Commentator. Well, let me put that differently, I don’t think this bodes well for the Commentator’s stress level.
Given the legalities of government-funded speech, even if the RRC decides that the OC doesn’t meet Green Tape requirements, they cannot defund us. Legally, anyway. What’s more troubling, is that the RRC doesn’t actually have any authority under the Green Tape. They’ve done this specifically to avoid accountability. Perhaps this year’s group will do an admirable job, but it’s easy to extrapolate where things will be in another few years: the OC fighting against the diverse petty tyrants of the ASUO. So it has been, and so it shall be.
Molon Labe gents..
I was going to go with “this is the Alpha and the Omega” but then I thought better of it.
…and the last line of your post should read: “So it always has been, and so it always shall be.”
Nick Wilbur’s quoting an ASUO memo, not a press release, and I’d say the liberal quotations are warranted considering that it will soon be ASUO policy. Also, the part of the memo that you quote Wilbur as quoting is from the “Initial Application Review” section and should only apply to new groups who are trying to gain ASUO recognition. This was reiterated in a conversation Tyler and I had with Adam Walsh and David Goward.
With that being said, however, the “Renewal or Continuation of ASUO Recognized Status” section is troubling, as it specifically states that the RRC will inherit the PFC’s responsibility to perform a “review of [existing fee-funded] student group mission and goals as well as recent program and fiscal history.” There is no mention of verifying that existing groups are “advantageous to the cultural or physical development of students,” but I would guess that this responsibilty is presumed to be a part of the annual review of a group’s mission and goals.
Wilbur quoted me after I had just learned of the memo and not fully read it, so I think I overreacted at first. At the moment I doubt this change gives the ASUO Executive any additional leverage against student groups it dislikes. Indeed, on the surface it appears to take leverage away from the Exec. But the fact that the RRC could potentially change every year at the whim of each incoming president is a bit troubling. Whatever the case, it’s another committee that’ll soak up money and resume space.
As far as Wilbur’s story goes, he quoted me accurately and gave me a chance to read over the memo before responding. I must say, though, that the sentence which first mentions my name is worded oddly. It may give the appearance that I’m skeptical that our “student group’s stated mission and goals” are compatible with “the insititution’s broader educational mission.” That certainly isn’t the case. I’m just skeptical of how that wording will be applied by the RRC.
I’d post the full memo but I’m in a bit of a rush this morning. Apologies for any incoherence/errors.