The Con Court has made a ruling and denied a motion for reconsideration that sets the precedent that ASUO candidates cannot advertisement with, specifically, the Oregon Daily Emerald, and by default, the Oregon Commentator.

A motion of clarification filed by Tony Mecum brings into question Election Rule 6-12, which states:

that no candidate “shall employ, for any purpose relating to such election or ballot measure, any University facility or resource to which other electors do not have equal access.” Election Rule 6-12.A.vi defines “University facilities and resources” as including “[p]ublications produced with University and/or student funds.”

Executive candidates Sam Dotters-Katz and Johnny Delashaw signed a contract with the Oregon Daily Emerald to run 10 half-page ads during this week and next week. Con Court ruled this breaks rule 6-12 because the Emerald can choose to not negotiate with a advertiser.

The Oregon Daily Emerald newspaper is a publication produced with student funds and as an independent paper has the right to run only the ads it wishes to, making it not necessarily accessible to all electorates. Therefore Election Rule 6.12 bars any electorates from employing the Oregon Daily Emerald newspaper.

A footnote in the opinion says:

This is just an interpretation of the Election Rule 6.12, not a determination of the validity of said rule.

This is absurd. First of all, ASUO President Emily McLain’s campaign ran an ad in the Emerald last year. Second of all, candidates have always ran ads in both the Emerald and the Oregon Commentator. We have several examples of this. Finally, both publications have advertising policies that clearly state both publications will not deny an advertiser based on political reasons, only if said advertisement is deemed offensive. (Actually, in the OC, pretty much anything goes as long as we get our dough.)

This is a preposterous precedent that the Con Court has set. It will deliberately take away much needed revenue from two students groups, both this year and possibly in the future unless this gets cleaned up.

CORRECTION: I originally said that Mecum filed a grievance. Mecum, a member of the Oregon Action Team, actually filed a motion of clarification.

The Oregon Commentator staff is hard at work on our ASUO Elections Issue. It will be distributed next Tuesday, the first day of voting.

Voting is taking place today and tomorrow on Duckweb for the amendment changes put forth by the Executive that would add two Senate seats [see below]. If passed, students have until the end of Friday to file papers to run for those spots in next week’s election. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that opening up filing for an position five days before an election is not standard government protocol. What would you expect, however, from an administration that has shown it knows how to take advantage of setting the agenda for its own benefit. For some reason, voting for next week’s election now starts on Tuesday, not the normal Monday start.

We at the Commentator wouldn’t give a hoot if it wasn’t for the fact we are trying to put together the next issue, which will have the most extensive voters guide on campus, a caring service to University students from Sudsy. It’s a little hard, however, to do so when we are not sure of all the candidates.

Luckily, Marty Leopard, General Manager of Western Oregon Web Press, Inc, was nice enough to pencil us into their busy printing schedule on Monday, so that we have the week-end to finish things up. Cheers, Marty!

The Oklahoma Senate decided yesterday to shelve a bill that would have allowed concealed carry of firearms on college campuses to military veterans and those with firearms training. The bill, introduced by Republican Jason Murphey, faced strong opposition from students, faculty and administration on Oklahoma campuses, who said that it would have decreased safety rather than improved it. From the AP article:

University of Oklahoma President David Boren had argued the bill would hurt recruitment of students and faculty. It also would pose a dilemma for police trying to determine whether a person wielding a weapon was a “deranged gunman or someone who thinks he is doing good vigilante work.

I’m not an expert on police tactics, but why wouldn’t it be the same way that they determine real threats in any other situation? Thousands of law-abiding people carry concealed weapons outside of college campuses, yet the news pages aren’t splashed with stories of police accidentally gunning them down.

But I don’t imagine this would be a problem anyways, since the police habitually show up after campus shootings, just in time to clean up the bodies.

For more on the issue, check out Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Also related are these stories about a Medford teacher who sued the school district for her right to carry. She lost but has since filed an appeal.