Yes, the Student Senate has been meeting this term. I’ve simply been too disillusioned to write about it. The doctors have kindly upped my dosage, so here goes…

Committee reports offered a few nuggets of good news. Senator McKenzie, in is ADFC report, stated that they were set to reach a benchmark that is significantly closer to 4% than the agreed-upon 7%. Since the 7% figure was based on the fact that there was an unexpected extra home game scheduled for next year, and that at initial benchmark negotiation, the ADFC was claiming that even t 7% wouldn’t be enough, this represents real progress. Too often, when you ask a program director if they can make cuts on a certain line item, they claim that it is impossible because students will be outraged. Certainly, ADFC could have made that excuse about football tickets, but they haven’t. In a “democracy” where voter turnout is 10-15% in the good years, I think Senators should be less afraid of making unpopular choices, when it is in the interest of the greater student body… If costs are unavoidably going up, and there are no obvious places to make cuts, doesn’t it make sense to take a few controversial measures and see which ones actually get students riled up? The worst that could happen would be more students becoming involved in the process…

There was some more good news from the PFC report (well, what passes for good news at PFC anyway). PFC Chairman Oscar Guerra anounced that the committee would be taking a look at the stipend model in between hearings. He singled out the lower portions of the model for particular criticism, pointing out the idiocy in mandating a $1000/year stipend for any group director who oversees a budget of $1,000 or more. Senator Guerra was absoloutly right to question the wisdom in automatically doubling a budget, simply because it hits the $1,000 mark, which is why it was unfortunate to see him agree with Senator Anderson, who complained that targeting group stipends would be “unfair.” Anderson suggested that looking at the wisdom of the current stipend model would only be justified when accompanied by equal cuts to contracts and services… surely Anderson was not suggesting that stipends are comparable to a professional salary, or a workers wage. Stipends are not compensation for hours worked (I did not know this before this meeting), but are intended as reimbursement for out of pocket expenses incurred in the course of running a group. Not that students who receive stipends are asked to provide receipts, or any kind of documentation for these supposed expenses…

Speaking of stipends, Constitutional Court Chief Justice Matt Greene came by to request a stipend increase for Con Court Justices. He was brutally shot down, despite his pointing out that Senate and the Exec all got stipend increases last year, but Con Court didn’t. He was also accused of sidestepping the stipend model, although Con Court is one of the few exceptions to the model. Hey Matt, didn’t your Mom tell you that no one ever got any respect for being the Chief Justice of anything?

Rec Sports came by, to ask for about $5,000 in surplus funds to allow spring leagues to hire a full compliment of officials. When asked what the effects of not getting the money would be, the Rec Sports representative mentioned that a further increase in participation fees would be necessary, and that cutting a spring sport such as softball or soccer might be unavoidable. A great deal of discussion followed, with little consequence. One exchange, near the end of the discussion when it seemed clear that the Senate wouldn’t give the entire sum, was particularly informative. Senator Lleras, calculator in hand, stated that she was considering giving Rec Sports half the sum that they had requested. Senator Anderson, nodded in agreement, adding that she was thinking more like one-half to one-third the amount. It took Senators Kinsey and Daniels, those old sages of the Senate, to chasten the meat-cleaver conservativism of their fraction-minded colleagues. “Arbitrary cuts,” said Daniels “are not necessarily responsible.” The Senate blessedly agreed that the number Rec Sports had brought was probably based on realities that might not easily divide in half or thirds, so they sent it back and asked Rec Sports to try again with a lower number.

Our pals at the Oregon Daily Emerald put on a fancy powerpoint presentation, asking for about $8,500 for three video cameras, teleprompters, microphones, editing software, etc. to build their online video content capabilities. The Senate was treated to video clips featuring the ODE’s Michael Calcagno, Jared Axelrod, and the ditch that some guy got dumped in, to introduce Senators to the brave new world of online video. ODE Editor Ryan Knudtson spoke eloquently of the new wave of online media, how the Emerald was getting left behind, and how students at the Journalism School had nowhere to go to learn about video production. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter (including what some Senators expressed) …

1- ODE is a contracted service. The terms of the contract state that students provide a subscription fee, and the Emerald provides a newspaper. period.

2-Giving a contract surplus money, with which to alter it’s basic mandate virtually ensures an increased cost to students when the contract is renegotiated. Equipment needs maintenance, more staff will need to be paid, etc. Giving the ODE more money for a new service that is outside the terms of the contract will inevitably change the terms of the contract.

3- Why should students pay for the Emerald to do a job the J-School won’t. The ODE presentation decried the fact that students who are interested in video production have to be 4th year Journalism students. Cry me a river. If students are really interested in video production, they’ll go to a school that has it’s shit together in that regard. Students should not be asked to foot the bill for something the Journalism school should be doing.

4-Online video is just one “new media” format that is attracting attention. About a year ago, the ODE introduced blogs and audio podcasts as “the wave of the future.” I don’t know that the Emerald has made a single audio podcast, and their blogs were completely ignored untill this last term. Emerald journalism is already significantly more sizzle than steak, and asking for more student-funded sizzle is a bad idea.

5-Calcagno’s videos just aren’t that good. Imagine your local TV news only a little younger. Same cheesy intro, same bland yet sensationalist style, same overdramatic presentation. Boo. Online video may be the wave of the future, but this stuff is firmly stuck in the past.

The request failed.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 1st, 2007 at 11:37 by Niedermeyer and is filed under ASUO. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.