ASUO Senator Ben Rudin has submitted an official complaint against the K&A campaign after he found this suspicious Duckweb link on their website. You will find a nice advisory banner to the left of that page, which tells students to:

4) Vote on the ballot measures!
Vote ‘Yes’ on all of them except the
advisory questions #1 and #2

Rudin asks that the candidates be ordered to cease campaigning for the remainder of the primary elections. The Oregon Commentaor seconds that request.

Here’s an excerpt from the official grievance.

Describe any steps that you have taken to resolve the conflict.  Include any official procedures that have been followed.

I texted Katie at 1:46 p.m. asking her to take it down before 5 p.m. She did not.

 

Are you aware of any laws, rules, etc. that you believe have been violated?  If so, please list them.  Please refer to University and State laws, if applicable.

 

“1.2.     Elections and campaigns must be carried out in the best interests of the student body, as determined by the ASUO Elections Board, and in compliance with §13 of the ASUO Constitution.”

 

By taking a neutral URL (asuo2012.com) and redirecting it to a partisan page, she is abusing the credibility of that URL. With Katie & Alex engaging in a fraudulent and deceptive practice, the election is not being carried out in the best interest of the student body

 

“6.4.     Egregious campaign violations shall consist of, but are not limited to: submitting votes for other students; tampering with the electronic election system; harassment, intimidation, bribery or fraud with the intent of affecting the outcome of the election; libelous or slanderous statements or conduct; tampering with another campaign’s materials with malicious intent; intentional actions to mislead or obstruct the duties of the Elections Board.

 

6.4.a.  Consequences for egregious violations may include suspension of campaigning, removal from ballot, and removal from office.”

 

The Katie & Alex campaign are taking a neutral URL and directing it to a partisan website. That is clearly fraud with intent of affecting the outcome of the election.

 

“5.1.    Candidates, tickets, campaign committees and affiliated individuals shall be held responsible for all election-related activities explicitly or implicitly authorized by the campaign.”

 

This Facebook event is put on by Andrew Rogers, a Katie & Alex volunteer. Katie Taylor, Alex Sylvester, Joanna Stewart, and Alexandra Flores-Quilty RSVP’d as attending this event, which demonstrates knowledge and implied authorization.

What is your desired outcome of the grievance/complaint?

I am asking that the Katie & Alex campaign be ordered to cease and desist all use of ASUO2012.com and be suspended from campaigning for the remainder of primary elections.

 

 

Mmmmmmm here it comes everybody! We’re at the climax of ASUO Elections Week. The corner of 13^th & University is an absolute no-fly zone, the Ol’ Dirty Emerald is gettin’ preachy, Eugene resembles a special, nippy kind of hell, and the Oregon Commentator is providing some real damp elections coverage this year. With all of this, we see that the cogent, student voter is met with immeasurable adversity, and we beckon him to transcend! Transcend all of this vain tumult and sign into Duckweb anyway. Vote. Pick your poison. Choose the lesser of the inherent evils that will govern you next year. But before you do, learn your candidates from the only publication to have a glass of beer for a mascot—a glass of beer that has arms and a fuckin’ cigar in one hand, and a beer in the other. That’s right, a beer holdin’ a beer! Here’s what none of you have been waiting for. We are proud to present the Official 2012 Oregon Commentator Voter’s Guide.

I.

Cimmeron Gillepsie (Abolish Capitalism)

WHO HE IS: That guy in the Civil War uniform crossing the lawn.

IN A NUTSHELL: He’d like to eliminate all hierarchical institutions, and promote “community liberation and revolution,” “transformative solidarity,” and “stewardship.”

AND MORE SPECIFICALLY: He wants to use the I-Fee “to purchase small arms for the entire student body in order to take over all of Cascadia.”

WHY HE’S ALRIGHT: The question, rather, is how isn’t he?

WHY HE’S NOT: Obviously this platform is seamless, but breaking ODE news tells us that HE HAS UNEXPECTEDLY ENDORSED KATIE & ALEX. Whatever, you still better fucking vote Abolish Capitalism 2012.

II.

Katie Taylor & Alex Sylvester (Katie & Alex)

WHO THEY ARE: The radical progressive choice. Katie’s current ASUO Vice President.  Alex is the Educational Director of the LGBTQA.

IN A NUTSHELL: They say they’re “committed” to making every student’s voice “heard, included, and respected.”

AND MORE SPECIFICALLY: They’re into providing intense advocacy for “underrepresented and “non-traditional” students, and aim to place these particular students in the ASUO as well. Priorities include “bringing back anonymous reporting forms to empower victims of sexual assault.”

WHY THEY’RE ALRIGHT: Dear God this is tough. I don’t know, they’re for keeping the DPS unarmed.

WHY THEY’RE NOT: In a moderate dissent, they’re promises to haggle administration for a lower the cost of the new EMU/SRC is a masked way of delaying the process, maybe even an attempt to table the whole idea. I know that if I call into question their efforts to “advocate marginalized students,” I’m earning myself a guaranteed BIGOT accusation, so I won’t go there. But in regards to Katie Taylor herself, as current ASUO Vice President, as a human being, I’m going to try and put the Commentator’s rampant disapproval of this person’s very existence as modestly as possible, but only because she’s literally been a campus publication piñata for an entire school year. How about this: In the Jazz Age, Katie Taylor would be what they may have called a shady lady bird.  Did the Commentator just try and insult somebody by calling them a shady lady bird? Look. If you’re into money laundering, secret matrimonies among political figures that help rob students of over 100k, and getting arrested in D.C. to make a statement, she’s your gal.

III.

Ben Bowman & Lamar Wise (Ben & Lamar)

WHO THEY ARE: The mildly progressive choice. Ben’s the Chair of the ACFC and an ASUO Senator. Lamar is ASUO Senate president.

IN A NUTSHELL:  Their trying to compel voters to “Create the Future” by helping them pursue big dreams like lowering the cost of education and engaging a wider-array of students in the ASUO.

AND MORE SPECIFICALLY:  Priorities include copious student voter registration and “consistent presence in the halls of decision making, on and off campus.”

WHY THEY’RE ALRIGHT: They’re adamant about passing a measure to start the EMU/SRC renovation. Ben acknowledges the “politicization” that plagues the ASUO, and said “we cannot sever relationships like our incumbent.” Most importantly, he took the time to interview with the Commentator on super short-notice.

WHY THEY’RE NOT: Earlier this year, the Con Court found Ben guilty of violating “viewpoint neutrality” as a key voter on OSPIRG’s %97 budget increase. Ben himself, when he was Ben & Katie’s elections coordinator last year, and Ben’s current elections coordinator, Sophie Luthin, have both been formally reprimanded for pre-campaigning. The Ben & Lamar slate is even accused of creating this, a fake website about the We are Oregon candidates.

IV.

Laura & Nick (We Are Oregon)

WHO THEY ARE: The conservative choice. Laura’s the Panhellenic President of the UO Greek System, an ASUO Senator, and a member of the PFC. Nick’s the president of the Residence Hall Association.

IN A NUTSHELL: They want to use the I-fee “to better the student experience.”

AND MORE SPECIFICALLY: Priorities for next year include hosting a “big-name concert” and a “big-name speaker.” Unlike the methods of the other candidates, they want to use Lariviere’s “new and creative” solution for reducing tuition called the “New Partnership.”

WHY THEY’RE ALRIGHT: Laura acknowledges the fact that millions of dollars were lost last winter when the EMU/SRC renovation measure wasn’t passed, and is also adamant about passing that shit RIGHT MEOW. Their commitment to keep funds on campus ensures the worried Commentator that no part of the I-fee will go to OSPIRG. Most importantly, they hosted dollar beers at Taylor’s last night.

WHY THEY’RE NOT: Vocal supporters of We Are Oregon include some of the Commentator’s biggest arch nemeses: Delta Gamma sorority, the Ol’ Dirty Emerald, LaMichael James, and that one frat douche.

Again, apparently the only (write-in) candidate gracious enough to give a girl an interview.

Name

Ben Schorr

Year in School

Freshman

Major
Undeclared

Hometown

Portland, Oregon

Tell us your slate, ever so briefly. And more importantly, provide a succinct yet compelling set of sentences that aim to rationally persuade us to adhere to it.

Boy, you Commentator girls and your vocabulary. After googling the term “slate,” I learned that it means a fine-grained gray, green, or bluish metamorphic rock easily split into smooth, flat plates. So, I can tell you that I have absolutely no slate in this election. After further research I discovered that succinct means short, not what happened to the dinosaurs. If only dinosaurs were still around today. A man can dream…

Which inadequacy or injustice at the UO keeps you up at night the most? How do you plan to remedy this?

I believe it’s outrageous that there is no room 420 in the residence halls. I expressed my concerns on this matter in an announcement that I submitted to the Oregon Commentator earlier this year. It is my goal that by the year 2014 EVERY room be #420.

Without listing experience, what’s so special about you anyway? Why are you doing this?

Oh, thank God you didn’t ask for experience. I’m special because I can represent the voice of the every man, and I will do this by not talking very much. Because really, most people don’t care about this stuff anyway.

Students have found that ASUO elections rouse a kind of futile discourse consisting of many “empty promises.” To quote Shakespeare, candidate promises truly sound like “much ado about nothing.” Obviously there’s a lot to be done at the UO, but let’s not forget how short an executive term is. Slates aside, what are your principal, feasible priorities?

That’s a great question. Though I will work my hardest in many different ways to keep the UO an alright place, mostly, I can absolutely promise you and my fellow students one thing. I will eat a tuna sandwich at least a couple times in the upcoming months. What does this have to do with the UO? Nothing. Will this help anyone? No, probably not. But is this the honest-to-God truth? You bet your ass it is. With Ben Schorr, what you hear is what you get. I like to set my goals low that way I don’t disappoint anyone. Ya know, I like the sound of that. Here’s the new slogan, “Ben Schorr: Expect to be Disappointed.”

Although the ASUO is one of the most established student governments in the country, a majority of the UO student body remains apathetic (and annoyed) during elections. If you could speak to these apathetic students in particular, what would you tell them?

I’d tell them to GO F&*K THEMSELVES, this is my life!

And now for the most pressing of inquiries: As you may or may not know, we’re all about the booze here at the Commentator. If you could have a drink with anyone, who would it be and what would you be drinking? Be very specific.

As I have expressed earlier in this interview, I long to roam with the dinosaurs. Therefore, I would choose to drink with any kind of dinosaur, a drink of their choice. It could be anything; seriously, I’d drink my own piss to meet a dinosaur.
But let’s be more realistic. I would drink alone, as per usual. My drink would consist of the tears of my enemies, mixed with Jager. Followed inevitably by my own tears, but I’d rather not talk about that part. Then more Jager.

Well he’s the only one thus far to oblige the Commentator with an interview !

Name

Ben Bowman

Year in School

Sophomore

Major

Political Science

Hometown

Tualatin, Oregon

Tell us your slate, ever so briefly. And more importantly, provide a succinct yet compelling set of sentences that aim to rationally persuade us to adhere to it.

Succinctly, the Ben & Lamar slate represents students from all corners of campus and we’re running because we believe we can make the UO a better place.

Which inadequacy or injustice at the UO keeps you up at night the most? How do you plan to remedy this?

The single biggest problem facing students today is the cost of our education. From tuition to textbooks to housing, higher education is more expensive and exclusive today than it was for our parent’s generation. I believe that if students are not fighting for an affordable education then no one will – so it is the responsibility of the ASUO as the voice of 24,000 students to do so. I recognize that this is a problem that won’t be solved overnight and that one person cannot do much to change it alone. But a student body that is engaged and passionate about their education and consistently prioritizes affordability can. We can do that at the University of Oregon. And Lamar and I can help.

Without listing experience, what’s so special about you anyway?  Why are you doing this?

I’ve seen the good, the bad, and the ugly of the ASUO over the last two years.  Students deserve an ASUO Executive that is transparent, ethical, and will work hard for them every single day.  Lamar and I are running because we are committed to fighting for students and we believe we can do better.

Students have found that ASUO elections rouse a kind of futile discourse consisting of many “empty promises.” To quote Shakespeare, candidate promises truly sound like “much ado about nothing.” Obviously there’s a lot to be done at the UO, but let’s not forget how short an executive term is. Slates aside, what are your principal, feasible priorities?

The most important thing for students to keep in mind is that almost none of the changes that any candidate is discussing will happen overnight – and in fact most of these changes will take at least a year’s worth of work to make progress on – but that does not mean we shouldn’t work on them.  My number one priority while in office will always be fighting for an affordable education.  That doesn’t mean that I think I’ll be able to cut tuition in half in a year.  But by laying the groundwork with a successful voter registration drive and a consistent presence in the halls of decision making (on and off campus), we can start to make an impact.  I believe in the power of students, I believe in the power of the ASUO and I think for us to not work on critical issues like the cost of tuition is an underestimation of our power and a misunderstanding of the purpose of the ASUO.

Although the ASUO is one of the most established student governments in the country, a majority of the UO student body remains apathetic (and annoyed) during elections. If you could speak to these apathetic students in particular, what would you tell them?

Apathy is a problem in politics not unique to the ASUO.  I think it’s important to listen to apathetic students.  There are reasons why many students don’t vote and it’s important for us, as people seeking to represent all students, understand those reasons so we can work to do better.  Additionally, the ASUO needs to work to communicate better with students about the services that our student government provides and offer more opportunities for students to get involved.

And now for the most pressing of inquiries: As you may or may not know, we’re all about the booze here at the Commentator. If you could have a drink with anyone, who would it be and what would you be drinking? Be very specific.

I’d love to have a beer with John Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound in Hyannis Port.

The ODE’s Editorial Board (BAINS!) has officially endorsed Laura Hinman & Nick McCain’s ASUO Executive Candidacy.

We support Hinman and McCain, because what they are offering seems to be a way out of this year-in, year-out debate about campaign integrity.

The ODE gives a sound– and sassy– explanation for its endorsement. It cites Hinman’s leadership, but only briefly. What it really does is turn on the TUDE about the fact that this school year has been ridden with SHADY ASS ASUO BULLSHIT.

Students deserve to not have to deal with this kind of backroom dealing. And that doesn’t mean Senate shouldn’t talk about it when it happens. It doesn’t mean the Emerald shouldn’t report on it when it happens.

It means it shouldn’t happen.

You did good Ol’ Dirty, you did good. The Commentator’s right with ya and your reasoning, but quit your complaining! All this controversy gave y’all something important to write about this year, other than shit like, hmmm I don’t know, maybe that one wooden nightstand make-over article ?

 

Someone get this girl an award. Emily Schiola, former Commentator and professional skeleton-in-the-closet investigative journalist does it again, in her FRONT PAGE Ol’ Dirty Emerald article today.

Mapped out above in the screen shot, Emily demonstrates the fishy money laundering carried out by some of the COMMENTATOR’S MOST WANTED: Charles Denson, Sophie Luthin, and the Eckstein/Taylor Executive.

And Former ASUO Prez Sam Dotters-Katz files a grievance accordingly. Here are the specs he layed out for us:

1. On March 9, 2011, Charles Denson wrote a $100 check to Sophie Luthin, Ben & Katie’s campaign director.
2. On March 10, 2011, Sophie re-directed that $100 to Ben Eckstein, the top of the Ben & Katie ticket
3. On March 13, 2011, Charles Denson wrote a $573 check to Sophie Luthin
4. On March 13, 2011, Sophie Luthin re-directed that $573 to Ben Eckstein
5. The contributions from Charles Denson were hidden from the campaign financial disclosure form
6. Sophie Luthin confessed that the reason for the re-direction is Charles Denson didn’t want his name on the contributions form.

So it turns out that the noble Sophie Luthin took this to Emily out of her own volition. She told the ODE, “I am bringing this to the attention of the student body because the same people who orchestrated this last year are involved in elections again. I want students to know the truth.”

In response to the allegations, Denson claimed that he made a “personal contribution to Sophie as a private citizen.” And VP Taylor told the ODE: “I did my own fundraising and this is news to me.”

Let’s not get our hopes up, but a grievance has indeed been filed. If the Con Court acts– which it won’t– current ASUO Senate Prez Lamar Wise will assume the presidency! In a Facebook message (that’s right folks) Sam Dotters-Katz gave us this quote, copied and pasted from the ODE article posted tonight online.

“I filed this petition because the student body deserves more than a president who believes he is above the rules and whose year in office has been bankrupt of integrity or honesty,” Dotters-Katz said. “We cannot send the message that you can get away with blatant corruption simply if you are good enough at hiding it.”

Dotters-Katz reiterates this sentiment to sum up his grievance:

In conclusion, I would like to address the timing of this petition. The respondents, Ben and Katie, have two months left in office, and the alleged actions took place over a year ago. I understand why some might have the initial inclination to simply let these two finish our their term and move beyond the issue. I believe that it would be a great miscarriage of justice to set a precedent that no matter how egregious your misconduct may be, if you are good enough at hiding it you won’t be punished. There is no statute of limitations on this claim, and the rules clearly state that the Court has the power to remove elected officers post-elections.

If nothing is done about this “egregious misconduct,” it will be a “great miscarriage of justice” you say?

No no no no. Ben & Katie themselves are the great miscarriage of justice.

 

The Petition for Review/Motion for Consideration submitted by Senator Ben Rudin and Former ASUO Prez Sam Dotters-Katz that called for the ASUO Constitution Court to simply look-over an approved ballot measure– has been denied!

Thus, come elections, THIS RIDICULOUS MEASURE shall be voted on: Should students be allowed to vote directly on funding levels for certain incidental-fee funded programs?

In their decision to simply do nothing as per usual, the Con Court upheld…

Only claims relating

to factual errors, procedural errors, the designation of

the prevailing party, or subsequent changes to the

applicable rules or law may give rise to an opportunity

for the Court to reconsider a previous decision. A Motion

for Reconsideration cannot be based on claims that the

Court erroneously construed or applied the applicable

rules or law.

Rudin and Dotters-Katz were trying to question the constitutionality of  a previous decision! No wonder it was denied. They really should have gone after the Court and its decision on more compelling grounds, with more “permissible justifications,” like “procedural errors,” perhaps — rather than a daft questioning of constitutionality. For according to the Con Court,

 None of Co-Petitioners’ claims are

permissible justifications for the Court to reconsider its

previous ruling in 29 C.C. (2011/12). Co-Petitioners

argue that the Court erroneously interpreted the ASUO

Constitution when it approved these ballot measures.

These are exactly the types of claims prohibited under

Constitution Court Rule 10.3.1.

Here are those Constitution Court Rules they’re referring to, (thank you Ben Rudin, I’m a terrible journalist):

10.3.1 A Motion for Reconsideration shall not be based on a contention that the Court erred in construing or applying the law, but shall only be based on one or more of these contentions:

10.3.1.1 A claim of factual error in the order or opinion;

10.3.1.2 A claim of error in the procedural disposition of the case requiring correction or clarification to make the disposition consistent with the holding or rationale of the opinion;

10.3.1.3 A claim of error in the designation of the prevailing party; and

10.3.1.4 A claim that there has been a change in the Constitution, rules, statutes, or case law since the Court’s decision.

ASUO Con Court, I get it now. You’re in a bind. You’re bound by the Constitution. There ain’t nothin’ you can do. Well with that in mind, could you go ahead and elucidate 1) how this ballot measure was passed in the first place, considering its unconstitutionality combined with your being bound to the Constitution and everything 2)  your utility 3) how exactly you serve students, the University in general 4) the reason for your existence, etc. ?

And P.S., the ASUO Senate body talks mad shit about you! And the Ol’ Dirty Emerald has called y’all mole people before. Off the record.

To readers, I say unto you– vote DOWN the possibility of giving students the ability to choose the funding for I-Fee programs. Denying students this ability isn’t elitist or anti-democratic, it’s just (cringe, wince) standing by the ASUO’s entire purpose.

To the ASUO Senate and respective finance committees, I say unto you the same thing. If students have this ability, your fundamental justification for existence (budgeting, allocating the I-Fee throughout the whole goddamn school year) will be undermined immeasurably. So think about it. C’mon, do you really want any of your authority undermined immeasurably, any of your ego deflated indefinately?

Lastly, long live The ASUO Constitution Court: Ineffectual Mole People 4 Lyfe. Keep up the good work guys. What would we ever do without you?

As you all know, the shit show that is ASUO Elections will take place immediately following our return from Spring Break. What you don’t know is that the shit has already hit the fan.

On the ballot, you will be asked if students should be able to vote directly on the funding– or defunding– of incidental fee programs.

You can imagine the subsequent upheaval among, well, us. And among the ASUO themselves.

Here’s what Former ASUO President Sam Dotters-Katz has to say about this:

The constitutional amendment about students voting for direct fee allocations is potentially the most damaging attack on the constitution I have seen. It would mean the budget process means nothing. They would literally be able to have a vote to defund the daily emerald.

Yeah, or students could defund The Commentator. Let’s not hold them to it..

Sen. Rudin has already submitted a “Petition For Review” to the ASUO Constitution Court. He says:

If this ballot measure is allowed to stay on the ballot and gets passed, it will be a disaster of epic proportions for the ASUO. It would mark the end of viewpoint neutrality and the end of separation of powers.

Well here it is y’all, Sen. Ben Rudin’s petition. Pay close attention to #4 !!!!

1. Name of person against whom grievance is filed: N/A. Petition for review, not a grievance

 

2. Question presented for review: Whether the direct-funding ballot measure that proposes amending ASUO Constitution §15.5.2 to allow initiative funding complies with the ASUO Constitution

 

3. Constitutional provision relevent to the controversy:

ASUO Constitution §15.5.5: The proposed ballot measure must be consistent with the ASUO Constitution

 

ASUO Constitution §2.3: No agency or program shall make any rule or take any action abridging the privileges and immunities of any person or program under the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Oregon, or the rules of the University of Oregon, or the ASUO Constitution

 

Viewpoint neutrality, as handed down by the Supreme Court in the Southworth decision as an interpretation to U.S. Constitution Amendment I: When a university requires its students to pay fees to support the extracurricular speech of other students, all in the interest of open discussion, it may not prefer some viewpoints to others.[1]

 

“To the extent the referendum substitutes majority determinations for viewpoint neutrality, it would undermine the constitutional protection the program requires. The whole theory of viewpoint neutrality is that minority views are treated with the same respect as are majority views. Access to a public forum, for instance, does not depend upon majoritarian consent. That principle is controlling here”[2]

 

[A] university’s student association “violated the First Amendment by using an advisory student referendum to determine how to allocate funds from a mandatory student activity fee among student organizations.” According to the Amidon court, use of a student referendum reflecting the student body’s majority opinion has “no place in the funding allocation process, which requires that `minority views [be] treated with the same respect as majority views.'” Amidon, 508 F.3d at 102 (quoting Southworth I, 529 U.S. at 235).[3]

 

4. Statement of Facts:

1. On March 19, 2012, President Eckstein submitted a ballot measure to the Constitution Court that asks, “Should students be allowed to vote directly on funding levels for certain incidental-fee funded programs?“

 

2. On March 19, 2012, the ballot measure was approved by Con Court, without prejudice

 

The courts have been clear ever since Southworth that funding decisions for recognized student groups and advocacy organizations cannot be determined by a vote of the student body because it allows the majority of students to engage in viewpoint discrimination against minority views. The initiative by President Eckstein, if approved by the voters, will result in funding decisions being based on just that.

 

Furthermore, if this initiative is approve and implemented, it will force the elected branches to fund whatever the majority of voting students think should be funded and make impossible the elected branches ability to make funding decisions in a viewpoint neutral way. Funding an organization because the majority agrees with its viewpoint is viewpoint discrimination. If this initiative is approved, the elected branches will be force take actions that abridge the privileges and immunities of students at the University of Oregon, in violation of §2.3.

 

5. Remedy requested: Because this ballot measure enables viewpoint discrimination, it does not comply with the ASUO Constitution, so I am asking the Constitution Court order it removed from the ballot.

 

6. Exigent circumstances: Spring Break is coming up at the end of the week and elections are right after. This needs to be decided before elections.

---

[1] Bd. of Regents v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 233 (U.S. 2000)

[2] Id. at 235.

[3] Christian Legal Society v. Eck, 625 F. Supp. 2d 1026, 1040 (D. Mont. 2008)

 

And for the record, the OC loves Senator Ben Rudin.

 

On the crisp night that was Thursday the first of March, the University of Oregon Student Coalition on Reprioritizing Education embarked on its maiden voyage towards what’s written up there on ASUO Senator Molly Bacon’s sign. Athletic Department Accountability.

While it was certainly–but not exclusively– an ASUO affair, students came together to protest the UO Athletic Department’s lack of transparency and cooperation. The Commentator was there to show its support, like it damn well should have been. I mean c’mon, after all the harping we do about athletics. Well, let me be more specific. I was there to show my support, like I damn well should have been– after all the harping I do about athletics.

Along with a substantial smattering of normal student participants, it should be noted that many ASUO Senators and Executive Staff were present, including President Ben Eckstein and VP Katie Taylor. Oh, and President Eckstein was adamant that I relay the fact that he went “casual-yet-political” at this event, donning a gray Obama crewneck sweatshirt and jeans. As for VP Taylor, I couldn’t tell ya what she was wearing. Members of the ODE whom I will keep unnamed and myself acknowledged and lauded her decision to steer clear of us, the press.

Before their march on MATT Court, rally participants gathered at the EMU amphitheater, where they were provided with picket signs without pickets, and were roused with a few words from the SCORE campaign coordinators. I was able to get a hold of the hard copies of their little speeches, and have quoted parts of each below. Cedar Cosner, a SCORE coordinator and ASUO elections coordinator alike, spoke first:

Rob Mullens, we are calling on you today to consider your successes, to consider what all of that would be without us. Give it Back. All of you now are here because you appreciate that sentiment. It is said that it never rains in Autzen. Well, it may be raining here and now [it wasn’t…], but that does not erase our conviction. That does not soften our resolve. We shall be heard. We shall be seen. We shall make those in charge quake with the implications of our stand. We are the University of Oregon, we are Ducks, we are students, and we deserve better!

Cosner was followed by SCORE coordinator Andrew Rodgers, who is also the ASUO Communications Director:

Student Athletes deserve to be treated as students first. They deserve the support of an Athletics Department and a school administration that places the highest emphasis on our Academic mission. We all deserve this…Why are donors actively incentivized to contribute to Athletics over Academics? Why isn’t the admistration excersizing oversight in the affairs of Rob Mullens and all of the administrators of the Athletics Department? They owe it to each and every one of us to do so but they have failed in that charge.

And then they were off. They sauntered over to MATT, did a little chanting, and complied with all event security requests. The rally went absolutely swimmingly, and met only minor adversity– adversity that included some douches yelling “Go home” and “Why don’t you just enjoy the game like normal people” and “Wow, you’re really making a difference.” If you’re into that sort of discourse, I encourage you to explore the comments section of the rally’s Ol’ Dirty article for more tactless bro-interjections– each complete with its own futile rebuttal written by an anonymous (or identifed!) member (or former member) of the ASUO.

Although I lost my pen sometime during the excitement and tumult of it all, SCORE campaign coordinator Andrew Rodgers obliged me with a brief debriefing after the rally had come to a close. With my bare thumbs in the 30 degree weather, I typed his words frantically into a text message. Here is what I managed to transcribe and save as a draft:

great start in our mission to make a more account able coommunity lac of inst control disinvesment when we put so much emph on athletic

That isn’t completely unintelligible is it? All the key words are there. You get it. It’s not like there’s much to be said about the motivations, or the implications, of SCORE’s campaign that isn’t evident anyway. (Although there’s always this if you need some solid, angry Anti-Oregon-Athletics closing arguments) . Because as for me, and as for those involved with the campaign, the idea is basic and clear. The University of Oregon is an institution of higher education, and our athletics have proven to be an important, successful part of that whole. But that’s just it– athletics is a contributing part of a bigger entity than itself– no matter how much revenue it generates, no matter how much national attention it brings.  The Athletic Department needs to get better at remembering that it’s just a part among many, not an independent whole. It needs to get better at channeling its success, and the fruits of its success, towards the the university’s fundamental and foremost purpose. I understand that by picketing an important basketball game– messages can get muddled. Nonetheless, it’s a shame, because I know that most of the students who strode past the protest and into the arena weren’t able recognize that the small noisy crowd who stood outside of the arena– stood outside, cold and noisy, for THEM–and for their money, and for their well being.

To close, I’m gonna use some imagery, so bear with me here. Behold below, the second photograph I’ve so gratefully borrowed from the ODE’s Tess Freeman.

Now look closely. I don’t spend much time in MATT Court, nor do I have a blueprint or a seating chart of the place. With that, I cannot tell you what it means, nor what it takes, to be able to wheel around on the top floor of the arena. But if you look up there, beyond the clamor and high above, you can see amongst that artsy wood paneling and that fucking ambient lighting, a few shadowy figures gazing ominously upon our little student protest. Like I said, it was a big game that night. So I wonder who those figures are, and what inflated role they play in the athletic department. I wonder what they were thinking when they saw this. I contemplate this and it gives me hope.

 

 

 

While I trust that any reader of the OC blog is in-tune with the OSPIRG controversy, last night ASUO Senator Ben Rudin delivered an eloquent dissent before the final ACFC budget was passed by a splintered ASUO Senate body. It wasn’t humanly possible to transcribe Senator Rudin’s statement in real time on CoverItLive– so we’ve got the transcription here just for you, concerned reader. He relays the OSPIRG plight quite nicely:

 

Direct question to anyone supporting OSPIRG and wants to answer: why do you think OSPIRG is so controversial? [get answers]

I’ll say right now, I’ll leave the arguments against the insane 97% increase to my colleagues, because to me the issue isn’t the amount, it’s the principle. The reason it is so controversial, and the reason I’m adamantly against this budget, is it flies in the face of people’s freedom to contribute to the political causes they support and refrain from supporting political causes they oppose. You wanna talk student autonomy? It’s the autonomy of every individual student. Freedom of association a fundamental right every individual has and it should remain that way for their time at this University. Anything else is slap in the face to student autonomy.

At this point I usually hear something like “I might not agree with funding athletics, or LTD, or Campus Recycling, but you’re suggesting I should still have to pay for those. How is it different?” It’s fundamentally different. Governments make public policy choices all the time, and funding decisions that reflect them. For example, take the war in Iraq. You may oppose it, as I did for most of its duration, but it’s a legitimate public policy decision. To start the process of correcting such mistakes, we have the First Amendment, which ensures we can protest, petition, lobby, advocate, the list goes on, and government cannot dictate, control, encourage, or prohibit that process. It is to ensure we have the ability to raise awareness of injustices going on, and government is unable to do anything about it.

So government can tax me to pay for its wars, even if I disagree with them, but I’ll be damned if government uses even a penny of my money to manipulate the processes protected by the First Amendment, processes that are specifically meant to protect individuals’ rights to persuade government to change course, or voters to change course in the ballot box.

At this point I usually hear, “Rudin, you’re at a loss. We have viewpoint neutrality. We fund advocacy groups all the time, as it’s part of our mission of fostering a dynamic discussion on political, religious, social, and cultural issues.” You’re right about that. I am all about providing students the tools to engage in such dynamic discussions, and we do that very well by funding our programs, including but not limited to Students for Choice, Students for Life, and the Commentator. Furthermore, if a group of students came before us saying “We’re very passionate about [this issue]. We’ve gotten a group of students together who really want to make a difference on this issue! We want to go advocate about this in Salem, and we just need some money to get there and back and take care of any other logistics.” My response would be, “done, I’m voting for this.”

You can argue it all you want, but that is not what funding OSPIRG is. Funding OSPIRG would be like a group of students coming before us saying “We’re very passionate about [this issue]. We’ve got a group of students together who really want to make a difference on this issue. We really want to see something done about this, so we need some money to pay the salary of someone to advocate in Salem full-time and year-round on [this issue].” And my response would be, “I love your passion, I admire the hard work you do, and while you don’t have a claim to other people’s money to pay someone to advocate on your issue, the door is always open if you are wanting to go to Salem yourself and need some financial help to do it.” That’s the key difference. I’ll say it again, I am all about having a student body engaged, informed, and acting on issues, and I’m all about spending the money so students can do that. No matter how much you say otherwise, paying professional advocates is not doing that. It’s like making your own outline versus buying a commercial. Most of the value is in creating the outline, not the finished product. That is lost when someone just buys a commercial outline, and that is analogous to hiring professional advocates. Professional advocates are where the bulk of the money for OSPIRG goes, and why I’m against it. If you are willing to vote for such a thing in all situations, ok, you’re being viewpoint neutral and I just completely disagree, but if you are voting for OSPIRG’s because you think they provide a service based on the issues they advocate, you are suggesting those who advocate a different or contrary issue are performing a disservice. That is viewpoint discrimination.

Another thing I hear is, “You’re not going after OSA and USSA and they’re just like OSPIRG!” No they’re not. From the perspective of a student service, they are opposites. OSA and USSA like an organization coming before us saying “We’ve got a great training program. We’re all about training students how to effectively lobby and then giving the experience to go lobby in Salem! This is a valuable service for students and an important skill to have, and we just need some money so we can provide this training and experience to your students!” My response would be “done! You got my vote.” That is completely different from students saying they’re passionate about an issue so they have a right to use a mandatory fee to pay someone to advance their political agenda. I don’t care how many students agree with the viewpoint, the advancement of a political agenda is not a student service.

That brings me to a final point. Unlike OSA and USSA, OSPIRG is a 501(c)(3). I assume most of you don’t speak tax law, so a 501(c)(3) simply means a charitable cause. You donate to them, you get a tax deduction for donating to charity. That’s all well and good, except Senate Rule 12.5(a)(M) says “at no time may incidental fee monies be donated to charitable causes.”  You might be thinking “this isn’t a donation, it’s a contract.” I hate to break it to you, but donations are contracts. For example, if someone donates to the UO Foundation for a specific project, that is a donation. It’s also a contract because if the UO Foundation misuses the money, the donor has recourse. The way a contract is not a donation is if a quid pro quo (this for that) is involved. For example, we contract with the Emerald, and they publish us newspapers. We contract with SASS, and they provide us free sexual assault support services. We contract with OSPIRG, and most of the money goes to professional advocates trying to create what some people consider a “better world.” Giving an organization money in exchange for bettering the world, THAT IS A DONATION. Not only do I find this expenditure fundamentally wrong for it amounts to coerced speech, but it potentially violates the Senate rules. I urge a no vote in the strongest possible terms.

Former ASUO Senator Chris Bocchicchio has filed a grievance with the ASUO Constitution Court requesting the removal of ASUO Vice President Katie Taylor from office.

If this comes as a surprise to you– please, just crawl back under your rock, and emerge only after you’ve read this.

In his formal complaint, Bocchicchio states:

“The rules are simple, disclose conflicts of interest. Even if Vice President Taylor never had to vote on the 97% budget increase recommendation for OSPIRG, she still would be in violation for failure to disclose. The fact that she knowingly hid her conflict of interest, and then actually voted on that same conflict, and for a 97% funding increase of over $100,000, is one of the greatest injustices of any ASUO elected official in the institution’s history.”

According to the ASUO Green Tape Notebook, VP Taylor has a week to respond to the grievance. She was quick, however, to talk to the Ol’ Dirty, and quick to attack those who have called for her removal– because Bocchicchio isn’t the first.

ASUO Senator Kaitlyn Lange called for VP Taylor’s removal last month to no avail.

“I think it is disturbing and enlightening that both of the people asking for my recall are former or current employees of Division of Student Affairs,” Taylor told the ODE. “I also think it is sad these people are wasting Con Court’s time for personal or political gain.”

In light of your marriage to former OSPIRG chair Charles Denson, VP Taylor, do you really want to go callin’ shit “disturbing and enlightening?”

“I would like to know what either of these people have done for students,” Taylor continued. “I am working for students’ best interests.”

By “working for students’ best interests” you mean refusing to disclose a blatant conflict of interest, then providing a tie-breaking vote that allocates over $100,000 of students’ money to this same conflict of interest—- right?

Well, just so we’re clear, Bocchicchio’s complaint is NOT A CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT, but a request for Con. Court to do their job:

“The ASUO Constitution is clear, non-fulfillment of duties for a period over three weeks will result in that office being declared vacant. This is not an impeachment. The process for removal of the ASUO President is clear, and nowhere does it mention that removal of a Vice President occurs through the impeachment process. The ASUO Constitution mandates that the Vice President carry out certain tasks, therefore the Constitution Court should mandate that the ASUO President appoint any student for that position other than Katie Taylor.”

 

For now, we’ll just have to wait and see. Like Bocchicchio, the Oregon Commentator looks forward to the day when the ASUO will actually fulfill its purpose.

In a shocking and heartening turn of events, someone out there doesn’t want to throw money at OSPIRG’s feet, and the right people decided to listen: on February 26th, the Con Court ruled in favor of Rudin on his viewpoint neutrality grievance against Bowman, according to the ODE. The stage is now set for the ACFC to vote again on the matter of OSPIRG’s funding.

The necessary majority within the court found Bowman’s pro-OSPIRG statements violated viewpoint neutrality, a precedent set by the Supreme Court which the ASUO is obligated to follow. The ACFC will now be required to hold another vote on whether OSPIRG will receive that whopping 97% increase, which will be held Wednesday.

In response to the decision, Rudin noted, “I was pleased that Con Court agreed with what I have been saying all along, that we must allocate student fee money based on services provided, not viewpoint of the organization.”

Opposition to the decision seems to already be pouring into the inbox of the ODE Opinion office, with people gnashing their teeth over the fact that OSPIRG isn’t going to have their $86k budget nearly doubled without a little oversight. We here at the Commentator, however, congratulate Senator Rudin for taking away the ACFC’s rubber stamp for the time being. We might be able to put the money we would’ve otherwise had to pay OSPIRG into some hot stripper’s thong, yet.

For a full breakdown of the of the Ben v. Ben extravaganza, look no further.

Last Wednesday, deep in the depths of the labyrinth that is McKenzie Hall, free pizza was served and debate over athletic department transparency was had.

In a comforting demonstration of student and faculty concern, SCORE, the UO’s very own Student Coalition on Reprioritizing Education, held a Discussion Panel on UO Athletic Department Transparency. The discussion was a part of SCORE’s “campaign to secure a yearly financial contribution from the Athletics department back to the university to help students.”

The Oregon Commentator wasn’t there of course, but the Ol’ Dirty Emerald tells us that the discussion panel included a few “special guests:” Nathan Tublitz and Bill Harbaugh — both on the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee of University Senate — and Laurel Hess of the women’s club rugby team and Lena Macomson of the women’s varsity tennis team.

Harbaugh called the UO’s predicament “a nightmare.”

Tublitz declared that “We are an academic institution, not a business.”

Speaking on the UO Athletic Department’s disregard for Club Sports, Hess said: “They don’t want a relationship with us on any level.”

And Macomson vowed to meet with athletic director Rob Mullens to “discuss issues surrounding transparency in order to get the student-athlete opinion heard.”

SCORE coordinator Andrew Rodgers was pleased with the discussion, calling it an “open and intricate dialogue on the issue.”

Look, there’s nothing intricate about it. All I got from that is the University of Oregon Athletic Department is an, unaccountable, conniving pain in the ass–which it isn’t.

It’s a an expensive, unaccountable, conniving pain in the ass.

And speaking of expensive, unaccountable, conniving pains in the ass, the ACFC and ASUO met with Garrett Klassy– Executive Director of the Duck Athletic Fund– to discuss student ticket fees on Tuesday.

Klassy requested a 3% budget increase. The Athletic Department already receives $1.5 million from student fees for tickets, and the %3 increase would have amounted to an additional $48,000.

Did you know that the UO Athletic Department generated $88 million in 2011?

Let’s go over that again: THE UO ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT GENERATED 88 MILLION DOLLARS IN 2011 AND ASKED THE ACFC FOR AN ADDITIONAL $48,000.

Well, as reported in the ODE by the lovely, the luxurious, Emily Schiola: ACFC decided in a 4-0-0 vote on a zero percent increase. [ACFC Chair and ASUO Senator Ben] Bowman mentioned that since they have to turn in their budget to ASUO Senate by Thursday, Klassy will have to come back before then and explain if athletics is willing to agree with this decision.

“We don’t have more funds to allocate to the student-ticket program,” ASUO President Ben Eckstein said. “$48,000 is a big deal to the ASUO. I don’t think we can accept a deal that doesn’t reconcile this difference.”

So there you have it, Athletics. Through ACFC and ASUO we’re denying you $48,000. Through SCORE we’re congregating and talkin’ shit.

Baby steps, maybe. But steps nonetheless.

So watch yourself. With that bible reference up there I think I’ve earned us the support of the Christian Deity. And even if He doesn’t exist– we’ve got a whole lotta’ morality.

Good ol’ secular morality. Something that you will never have.

P.S.

SCORE is holding a Rally next Thursday, March 1 at 7pm at the Matt Knight Arena to bring attention to the issue of Athletics’ lack of financial accountability and transparency. People will be in line for the game which starts at 7:30.