OSPIRG Canvassing For Ballot Measure
Probably recognizing they will be unable to receive a contract for the 2011-12 fiscal year, the Oregon Students Public Interest Research Group is on campus collecting signatures for a ballot measure to appear during the ASUO election during weeks one and two of spring term. The text of the ballot measure is as follows:
Should the ASUO fund the Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG) at a level that allows OSPIRG to hire professional staff to advocate on behalf of students locally, statewide, and nationally in places like the State Legislature and Congress?
OSPIRG is a statewide, student-directed and funded organization that strives to fulfill the public service mission of the University by combining student activism and professional staff to do advocacy, organizing and research for the public interest on campus, statewide and nationally to lower healthcare costs, stop global warming, protect public health, make textbooks more affordable, and increase public transit. OSPIRG is controlled by an all-student Board of Directors.
A YES vote is a non-binding statement that the ASUO should fund OSPIRG at a level that allows OSPIRG to hire professional staff to advocate on behalf of students locally, statewide, and nationally in places like the State Legislature and Congress on issues such as those described above.
A NO vote is a non-binding statement that the ASUO should not fund an OSPIRG program, as described above.
First of all, this is the exact same ballot measure that was on the ballot last year. Word for word.
Regardless, another ballot measure is simultaneously shady and smart: shady because that description of OSPIRG doesn’t actually outline what OSPIRG does with their budget, and smart because ballot measures generally pass due to student apathy and ignorance when there is no organized opposition force, and there hasn’t been an organized opposition force for OSPIRG beside the Oregon Commentator in a while.* Additionally, if they keep the measure on the ballot every year and support increases, they have a case for “increased student support.” (More like increased student apathy, but whatever.)
See, ballot measures are tricky. According to the Clark Document (the document signed by the University president that gives the ASUO its authority) and the Southworth decision (which regards mandatory student fee funding), incidental fee decisions cannot be made by referendum, but referenda can “assess the level of student support for a program” and “serve to provide supplemental, non-binding guidance to the appropriate branch of student government, but in doing so may not establish or take measure of support for any specific funding level.” It’s basically a poll of student support.
Unfortunately, it’s an incredibly unscientific and inaccurate one. Voter turnout in ASUO elections — including those who have all but one under-vote — was about 20 percent last year, a much higher number than years previous but still a relatively small amount of students. Therefore, although support for the OSPIRG ballot measure was 51.69 percent of those who voted on the measure, those 2,121 people represent 9.22 percent of the student population.
Do the 4,103 students who bothered to pay attention to the OSPIRG ballot measure on Duckweb — about 18 percent of the entire student population — constitute a representative sample of the entire student population? Absolutely not. Ask any statistician and he or she will agree: a ballot measure that requires signing in and voting on a bunch of other races before making it to the measure deters a majority of students for a variety of reasons.
Are there other ways to gauge student opinion? Sure, but none as simple to implement as an online poll. And if it works for you, as it does for OSPIRG, then why rock the boat?
OSPIRG has tried to take advantage of the ballot measure situation before. During the 2008-09 school year, the PIRG kids, under the guise of a Coalition for Student Voice, tried to get a measure on the ballot that did not explicitly mention OSPIRG but cited support of student voice. Logical extension there, of course, leads that if a student is in support of “student voice,” he or she would be in support of OSPIRG, because OSPIRG represents student voice. The ballot measure was removed by the group due to the ensuing controversy, as student programs (and ASUO President Sam Dotters-Katz) were concerned of the implications if the measure did not pass.
OSPIRG has a relative advantage right now, because they are the ones defining what their group does. Here is my alternative, proposed description:
OSPIRG is a state-wide organization with a very close relationship to another organization with the same name: the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group. That OSPIRG is also a nonprofit, but with a different tax designation: The student PIRG (as a 510(c)(3) IRS tax designated nonprofit) can receive state (incidental fee) funds, but cannot lobby; the state PIRG (as a 501(c)(4) IRS tax designated nonprofit) can engage in lobbying, but is then exempt from receiving state funds (which include the incidental fee). The two organizations have the same executive director, share office space in Portland and pay for the same lobbyists in Salem to work on the same priority issues. Almost every Oregon university has defunded its OSPIRG chapter, save for Southern Oregon University and Lane Community College. OSPIRG has been defunded on the University of Oregon campus for two consecutive years, and was also defunded in 1998 for one year following an aggressive campaign spearheaded by the Oregon Commentator. The only campus-focused issue OSPIRG works on is lower textbook prices, and they have not been successful in reducing that burden on students. Instead, they want to take more money from you as one of the largest budgets the ASUO works with ($117,000).
According to Section 15 of the Green Tape Notebook (ASUO Constitution and governing documents), in order for the measure to appear on the ballot, the PIRG needs to collect signatures of 5 percent of the student population: around 1,200 students. I have no doubt that’ll happen; it’s easy enough to convince 1,200 students to do something, especially when you don’t give them the whole story.
Extra credit: OC Editor Emeritus CJ Ciaramella breaks down OSPIRG’s sordid UO history in “The Whole, Ugly Scoop On OSPIRG.” Similarly, the Oregon Daily Emerald ran a piece around the same time, titled “The OSPIRG You Can’t See,” by legend Ryan Knutson. Read the whole thing. It’s pretty fantastic.
*During the last ASUO election, the Reality Check slate held one anti-OSPIRG demonstration that was at least partly responsible for an almost 50-50 split on OSPIRG’s last ballot measure.
But who cares, anyways, about the ballot itself? The language states that, in either outcome, that its a non-binding show of support either for or against. Either way, its non-binding, so it doesn’t really matter if they dupe enough students to vote the thing as passing, or if enough students wisen up and reject it.
Its up to the ASUO / budget committee on whether or not to fund OSPIRG, and those – the hearings that actually matter – have always ruled that OSPIRG should be defunded. And the calls to defund them are not based on student support – they are based on the fact that OSPIRG is not clear with what exactly it does with student money, and refuses to address the very likely and possible concern that it is violating state law via its tax coding by sharing funds with the STATE PIRG. As far as I know, OSPIRG still hasn’t addressed either of these, so I don’t see why they wouldn’t get zero-funded again if such a hearing were brought in today.
May I point out that the voting on last year’s ballot measure was the only measure with a margin of less than ~1800 votes?
George said: “. . . not enough students vote in the election and therefore its not an accurate gauge of student support. The trouble is, that’s how democracy works.”
You’re right, that’s how democracy works. But does that mean we can’t lament its pitfalls?
OSPIRG, like any political entity run by non-morons, knows how the system works (or fails to work) and uses that knowledge to maximize its potential for success without breaking any of the rules. Is that wrong? No. Is it honorable? I’m not too sure. . . .
George said: “The Con Court is charged with ensuring that ballot measures have unbiased and fair language, not the Oregon Commentator.”
Ever hear of something called the Fourth Estate? It’s this wild idea that it’s the media’s duty to inform the public on governmental/political issues, the notion being that an informed public will make more responsible choices when it comes time to vote. That’s ALSO how democracy works.
George said: “In fact, OSPIRG received more votes than any other measure or candidate on the ballot last year.”
Conversely, they had more votes against them than any other candidate or measure.
Finally, George said: “There’s no other contract or program wherein the entire student body is invited to weigh in democratically. OSPIRG does this voluntarily.”
True, but do you think OSPIRG is motivated by a love of the democratic process or the $100,000+ contract dangling in front of its nose?
Do you want me to keep going?
George said: “But more importantly than how I read this is how the Con Court read it when the ballot language came to their desk not just once, but twice. The Con Court is charged with ensuring that ballot measures have unbiased and fair language, not the Oregon Commentator. We have a due process.”
Is this satire?
It’s interesting. The one argument I see here is essentially that OSPIRG is trying to trick the ASUO into convincing them that students support the program/contract/whatever by placing a question for students on the ballot for the campuswide election. And doing this two years running is another back door approach to establishing funding for OSPIRG at U of O. The problem being that not enough students vote in the election and therefore its not an accurate gauge of student support.
The trouble is, that’s how democracy works. Decisions are made by those who show up. OSPIRG was initially defunded by students elected by their peers running on a platform of, amongst other things, defunding OSPIRG. Those students received less votes than OSPIRG did last year on the ballot. In fact, OSPIRG received more votes than any other measure or candidate on the ballot last year.
Second, the concept of placing the question on the ballot two years running seems a rather honest move by OSPIRG than anything else. Sure, more students want OSPIRG than any other candidate *last year* but by returning to the ballot OSPIRG is again forced to prove students support it. No other contract or program has had the same bare scrutiny. There’s no other contract or program wherein the entire student body is invited to weigh in democratically. OSPIRG does this voluntarily.
Finally, the ballot the language is accused of being biased. I don’t see it. This seems to me to be a very straightforward approach, clearly stating the money goes to pay for off campus staff to work on issues that exist off campus. But more importantly than how I read this is how the Con Court read it when the ballot language came to their desk not just once, but twice. The Con Court is charged with ensuring that ballot measures have unbiased and fair language, not the Oregon Commentator. We have a due process. And, just like when you don’t find the outcome of, say, an election to your satisfaction, you are more than free to appeal. Also, you can’t defunded two years in a row. You have to have funding to get defunded. You were probably looking to say that OSPIRG was “zero-funded” two years in a row. I’m a stickler for accuracy.
Kill it with fire. Shoot it with an elephant gun. Behead it.
The people need to kill this thing. No I-Fee money to Lawyers in Portland.
Surely, the word “program” can be extended to things that are not provided for by the Programs Finance Committee, such as Microsoft Word, Masterpiece Theater, and Social Security.
Without the swift, courageous leadership of former Senate President Athan Papailiou, OSPIRG would be in a more powerful, money-draining position than it is today. Strong leadership is needed in the ASUO.
OSPIRG was a program. Then they got moved to a contract. But both contracts and programs are programs in the spirit of Southworth, so yeah.
And how about this bias-free sentence describing the funds:
“to hire professional staff to advocate on behalf of students locally, statewide, and nationally in places like the State Legislature and Congress on issues such as those described above.”
“A NO vote is a non-binding statement that the ASUO should not fund an OSPIRG program, as described above.”
This is misleading in and of itself. OSPIRG was never a program; they were a contract. I don’t think this wording change was an accident.