For those of you in the beer world who keep tabs on the Brewers Association or the craft beer scene, you may have heard: Goose Island, a craft beer brewery, has just been bought by Anheuser-Busch (newly acquired by InBev). What this means is that Goose Island beer could turn into the same watered down piss that AB already brews and bottles. Typically the bigger company will sacrifice good ingredients like real hops, malt and barely to replace it with cost effective extracts and artificial flavors. Speaking of beer tasting like piss, the Brewmaster Greg Hall himself brewed his own concoction of beer the other night. Huffington Post reports:
It’s been a real up-and-down couple of weeks for Greg Hall.
The brewmaster at Goose Island announced in late March that he’d be leaving that role, as the Chicago-based craft brewer was bought up by Anheuser-Busch for a hefty $39 million. He’ll be leaving for an undisclosed new project, according to statements at the time.
And last Friday night, Hall celebrated his 45th birthday at Bangers and Lace, a self-described craft beer and sausage bar that Time Out Chicago recently named its Best New Bar.
Unfortunately, according to the Chicago Tribune, the celebration got a bit out of hand. In a conversation with the Tribune on Monday, Hall didn’t deny accusations made by the Bangers staff that he urinated in two beer glasses and left them at the bar.
Looks like someone partied a little too hard. The intoxicated Brewmaster made his father’s brewery (of 23 years) become known for more than just beer the other night while celebrating his 45th Birthday at Wicker Parks Bangers & Lace. Folks, this is quite the drunken tale.
Hall unveiled a brew all his own: pissing in two pint glasses. After throwing a few back Hall proceeded to go behind the counter of the bar and proceeded to urinate in two glasses, leaving them on the bar. At this point Hall probably should have discreetly left, but he had to be escorted from the premises by staff to his car (hopefully he wasn’t driving).
Yes we can all laugh at the silly over-the-top drunken escapades of a man threw one too many back, but there is a bitter note to this story. What beer lover might not realize is that Hall’s company has just sold out to a corporate giant which has a monopoly on almost half of the beer industry. As Huffington Post points out though, craft breweries like Goose Island are doing well, but I guess if I was offered that much money I would probably allow myself to be bought too.
John Hall, the head of Goose Island, said that the company was quickly outgrowing its capacities, having to limit production of some of its most popular beers, and that the deal with Anheuser-Busch would help the company continue to expand. “This agreement helps us achieve our goals with an ideal partner who helped fuel our growth, appreciates our products and supports their success,” Hall said, in a statement on the buyout.
Looking at the real numbers, small breweries are popping up all across the country, the BA lists 85 breweries just in Oregon. Understandably Goose Island was growing but as the rest of the HP article points out, small breweries are gaining attention while bigger companies are losing it.
As the Wall Street Journal points out, craft brewing has been an exceptionally solid performer in an otherwise unexceptional beer market in recent years. Craft beer sales were up 11 percent last year, while the broader industry was down one percent.
I do not disagree with smaller breweries expanding, but typically with these sorts of expansions in the beer industry, it leads to a more generic product using lower quality ingredients just to cut costs. It also moves the flow of money from within a state economy into the wider commercial economy, which results in states losing money to outside sources. Whether it is sourcing ingredients for the product from farther away or giving jobs to workers who are out-of-state, it hurts the local economy.
When a consumer buys beer from a small or local brewery they are more likely to receive a fresher, higher quality product because the ingredients used in the beer were sourced locally (fresh is good). Sourcing ingredients locally means that brewers are supporting local farmers, creating a co-op effect within the community. Radical thoughts: local people stimulating local economy by buying products that are made locally. I am sorry for the locavore commotion train, but the dollar signs make sense.
This installment of Oregon news briefs is all about nanny bills. Special thanks to the Oregon Legislature for plenty of fodder via their vaguely-sexualized obsession with getting involved in other people’s lives.
Despite the fact that we already have anti-littering laws, cops are complaining of a lack of enforcement when it comes to flicking cigarette butts on the ground. Their plan: make a new crime, and classify “unlawful disposal of a tobacco product” as a separate littering offense that would carry a $90 fine. Current laws do cover cigarette butts, but are seldom enforced, possibly because “offensive littering” carries potential jail time, and is sometimes considered too harsh.
Too lazy / perpetually hung over to keep up with what’s going on in our wonderful state over spring break? Let the OC do it for you. Here’s the first installment of news briefs from around the state (that we haven’t covered already).
UO News
– GQ magazine named fans of the Oregon ducks basketball team as being some of the worst in the nation, citing “numerous violations of the ‘Code of ConDUCKt.'” The Ducks came in at number 14, ranked as just slightly more annoying than fans of the LA Lakers.
“With a firm dedication to taking taunts too far, the Oregon Duck faithful have a storied history of degeneracy that can be traced all the way back to the days when someone beaned legendary coach John Wooden with a half-eaten apple.”
Storied history of degeneracy, or promoting healthy dietary choices for our most esteemed visiting members? You decide.
– A group of UO students alerted local media and stormed the beaches of the Jaqua Center yesterday, asserting their right as UO students to use lavish but otherwise unexciting services reserved for student athletes. The end.
– The Oregon Ducks football team has been chosen as grand marshal of the 2011 Spirit Mountain Casino Grand Floral Parade. Organizers cited “has brought unprecedented pride, spirit, and enthusiasm to the state of Oregon and the Northwest.” (more…)
Oregon Concealed Handgun License holders may have further protections from public records requests, the Oregon State House of Representatives voted yesterday.
House Bill 2787, proposed by Reps. Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer, Newberg, St. Paul) and Jeff Barker (D-Aloha) by request of the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association, will only allow the names and registration information of CHL holders to be released for criminal justice purposes or pursuant to court order. The vote passed the Oregon House 42-18, with all but one of the nay votes from Democrats.
Under current law, a CHL holder’s application [link courtesy Oregonian] is open to public scrutiny. The application includes information on previous criminal activity, drug use and military history.
Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, voted against the bill, saying later that he thought it too restrictive. The proposal allows disclosure only by court order, license holder consent, or for criminal justice purposes.
“Handguns are what people use to kill people. I want to make sure citizens have a right to know if there is a threat,” Greenlick said.
According to a press release from Rep. Thatcher, however, the bill has support from the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association, the Oregon Firearms Federation and the National Rifle Association’s Oregon consultant. And, you know, 42 of the 60 members of the Oregon House of Representatives, including 13 Democrats.
From Rep. Thatcher’s press release:
“The Oregon House has just taken the first step in protecting the safety and privacy of the Oregon men and women who hold Concealed Handgun Licenses,” note Rod Harder, National Rifle Association Oregon Consultant. “We sincerely hope that the Oregon Senate and the Governor will make the same commitment to our law abiding citizens.
Kevin Starrett, Executive Director of the Oregon Firearms Federation added, “while this is just a step towards correcting a serious breach of privacy for Oregon’s most law abiding gun owners, it is an important advance in the process.”
From here, the bill moves on to the Oregon Senate, where, if passed, must be signed into law by Governor Kitzhaber.
Here’s how the Eugene/Springfield Representatives voted:
Terry Beyer (D-Springfield 12): YES
Val Hoyle (D-Eugene 14): YES
Nancy Nathanson (D-Eugene 13): YES
Phil Barnhart (D-Eugene 11): NO
Paul Holvey (D-Eugene 8): NO
Lt. Kelli Sheffer says the intruder told police he had just broken into a home Monday evening when the owner arrived – and the caller was worried the homeowner might have a gun.
Accompanied by his two German Shepherds, the homeowner found the intruder and asked what he was doing in the house. That’s when the stranger locked himself in a bathroom and phoned police.
The homeowner called police with his account.
Sheffer says 24-year-old Timothy James Chapek, of Portland, was booked into jail for investigation of first-degree criminal trespass.
The former congressional candidate for Oregon’s fourth district is accusing Oregon State University of attempting to remove his three children from its graduate program in Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics as a response to his candidacy in the previous election and his impending candidacy in 2012. He believes the appropriations awarded to OSU under DeFazio’s tenure are influencing the decisions of how to handle his children in the program.
According to Robinson, two of his children, Joshua and Bethany, are slated for removal from the Ph.D program, and a professor who is trying to help them has become the target of a defamation campaign:
Democrat activist David Hamby and militant feminist and chairman of the nuclear engineering department Kathryn Higley are expelling four-year Ph.D. student Joshua Robinson from OSU at the end of the current academic quarter and turning over the prompt neutron activation analysis facility Joshua built for his thesis work and all of his work in progress to Higley’s husband, Steven Reese. Reese, an instructor in the department, has stated that he will use these things for his own professional gain. Joshua’s apparatus, which he built and added to the OSU nuclear reactor with the guidance and ideas of his mentor, Michael Hartman, earned Joshua the award for best Masters of Nuclear Engineering thesis at OSU and has been widely complimented by scientists at prominent U.S. nuclear facilities.
Meanwhile, faculty member Todd Palmer notified four-year Ph.D. student Bethany Robinson (OSU grade point average 3.89) that he was terminating her thesis work and taking all of her work in progress for himself. Some of Bethany’s graduate work has already been used, without credit to Bethany, in the thesis of another favored student now recently hired on the department faculty. […]
My children and I attempted to counter all these actions against us as they unfolded, but were initially uncertain as to their ultimate intent. All became clear, however, when OSU faculty administrators abruptly took a further and very serious prejudicial action toward Joshua. At that point, OSU Professor of Nuclear Engineering Jack Higginbotham, who was privy to all of the meetings and actions, warned us and came to our defense. […]
Professor Higginbotham warned us that faculty administrators at OSU were working to make certain that Joshua, his sister Bethany and, if possible, his brother Matthew never receive Ph.D. degrees in nuclear engineering from OSU, regardless of their examination, academic and research performance. Professor Higginbotham then reviewed with us the details of the plan to destroy the education of these students and advised me to do anything I could to protect my children. […]
Now nearing success is a disgraceful effort to strip Professor Higginbotham of his faculty position and his research grants. His career now potentially in ruins, he is fighting back in hopes of saving himself and the positions of the students and staff who depend upon him at OSU and who may also lose their careers as collateral damage in these astonishing events.
In response to these claims, OSU has released a statement vaguely refuting Robinson’s claims, but because of the limitations with FERPA, the university is not legally allowed to disclose information on the grades or academic status of individual students. The release does, however, state that the information regarding individual professors mentioned in his editorial was “baseless and unfounded”:
Federal law prohibits institutions of higher education from discussing matters concerning our students with anyone other than the student himself or herself without the express consent of the student involved. Given that, OSU will not comment on any allegation regarding the Robinson students or share any personal information concerning them other than the limited “directory information” allowed by law to be shared.
Robinson’s material singles out several individual faculty members for criticism. The university has found no factual basis for the accusations made against those faculty members. OSU is proud of its education and research programs and faculty in Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics and of department alumni, many of whom hold leadership positions in government and private sector organizations.
OSU will not comment on other allegations made in the Robinson posts other than to say the claims made therein are baseless and without merit.
Whether or not Robinson’s claims are true remains to be seen, but it does bring up an interesting question about the relationship between administrators and students. Charles Martin at Pajamas Media points out this paragraph of Robinson’s diatribe in particular:
OSU administrators think they can violate ethical academic standards of professional conduct, break formal OSU rules and regulations, and even violate U.S. laws with impunity because, in any resulting litigation, they would be defended by lawyers from the Oregon Department of Justice, assuring that only students with huge sums of money and many years to invest in litigation can oppose them. The Robinsons do not have those huge sums of money, and, moreover, they want to complete their education – not receive money in exchange for the destruction of their education and opportunities.
With all this talk of restructuring, transparency, accountability and access to higher education in Oregon, it will be interesting to see how this manifests. As none of them have yet reported on the story, it seems the majority of Oregon media outlets are regarding Robinson’s claims as inane ramblings from a failed candidate trying to hang on to relevance. But if the claims prove to be true, it could mean a lot in regards to the state of Oregon’s higher education system.
Additionally, if any of our OSU readers know anything about the story, the professors or the Robinson kids, don’t hesitate to email: editor AT oregoncommentator DOT com.
UO Matters points us to this website in support of Robinson’s claims, and says the news will be all over it tomorrow. I suppose we’ll see what the Oregon media can uncover.
Peter Wong of the Statesman-Journal writes about possible amendments being made to the state constitution allowing law enforcement officials to set up roadblocks and the measure that would call checkpoints to a vote :
It was law enforcement against civil libertarians Monday on the issue of whether voters should be asked to change the Oregon Constitution to enable police to set up checkpoints to deter drunken drivers.
Along with Washington and Idaho, Oregon is among the dozen states that do not allow such roadblocks. The state Supreme Court, by a 5-2 vote in 1987, disallowed them as a violation of the state constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures without “probable cause.” The other 38 states do allow them.
House Joint Resolution 25, sponsored by Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany — a retired state police lieutenant — and others, would put the issue to the voters. Previous attempts to do so have not made it past the Legislature.
Drivers in Oregon wanting to drink on the road may have to become more clever than popping breath mints to evade DUII citation and arrest. State voters have not wanted checkpoints in the past, but the latest bill announcement of House Joint 25 not only calls personal liberty into question but also driver protection. Rep. Andy Olson is presenting the proposal along with House Bill 3133 (HJ’s sister bill), which would change Oregon constitution to allow sobriety checkpoints throughout the state.
As some of you may remember, Oregon home-brewers came underfire last summer following a DOJ decision regarding ORS 471.403(1). The law states:
No person shall brew, ferment, distill, blend or rectify any alcoholic liquor unless licensed so to do by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. However, the Liquor Control Act does not apply to the making or keeping of naturally fermented wines and fruit juices or beer in the home, for home consumption and not for sale.
The DOJ interpreted this to mean that once a home-brewer’s product is consumed outside the immediate home, the brewer loses his or her exemptions under the law and must be licensed by the OLCC. The effect of this and the reason for the initial inquiry were questions regarding the legality of home-brew competitions, such as those at the Oregon State Fair. As a result, the 23rd annual Amateur Beer Competition was canceled and Oregon legislators began searching for a way to continue the time-honored tradition of Oregon craft brew judging and consumption.
Enter Floyd Prozanski, the Democrat from Eugene and an avid home-brewer, who, back in August of 2010, stated he was set to propose a change in legislation during the next legislative session to allow for these competitions to occur legally. Introduced by Prozanski on January 10, 2011, and passed by the Oregon Senate on February 22, 2011, Senate Bill 444 seeks to “expand exemption of homemade beer, wine and fermented fruit juice from Liquor Control act,” as well as, “allow licensee to conduct organized judging, tasting, exhibition, contest or competition of unlicensed malt beverages and wine or homemade beer, wine or fermented fruit juice, or related events, at licensed premises subject to Oregon Liquor Control Commission restrictions.”
Prozanski was concerned when he learned of the existing law, prompting his jump into action:
“I was shocked,” Prozanski said about last year’s legal ruling. “My brew partner was extremely concerned because we brew at my house. Under current law, he would be subject to prosecution for transporting his portion home.”
But the bill passed the Senate without debate, and assuming it goes through the House, it should be in place in time for summer and fall home-brew competitions. It seems, for the moment, Prozanski and the approximated 20,000 home-manufacturers in the state are in the clear regarding transporting their goods.
As an aside, here’s some interesting info regarding the law and how it compares to other states:
Gary Glass, director of the American Homebrewers Association, said Oregon has one of the oldest laws in the nation, dating to the Prohibition era.
Even though it’s been a tough time for Oregon home brewers, he suggests it could be worse. Two states, Alabama and Mississippi, have laws that prohibit home brewing altogether.
On Wednesday February 16th, 2011, University President Richard Lariviere did an interview with Professor Laufer’s J483: Journalistic Interview class. The Commentator‘s very own Melissa Haskin was in attendance and, like a good reporter, asked him why he has refused to do an interview with the Oregon Commentator.
The conversation:
Melissa Haskin: How come you turned down a face to face interview with the Oregon Commentator? Richard Lariviere: I don’t see that that’s going to be of any use to the university in any way. MH: How so? RL: Well, I make my decisions about how to spend my time on the basis, almost all my time, on the basis of whether or not it’s going to be contributing in some manner to the fundamental mission of the university and that can take a whole range of activities with a whole range of groups, but I have to be able to take the group seriously. MH: And why do you not take the group seriously? Mr. Eddy (another student): Why not the Commentator, why this particular publication? RL: Because when they asked me, I went and looked at their previous issue. Mr. Eddy: And? RL: And it was sophomoric and an embarrassment. MH: How was it an embarrassment when the majority of the articles where academic? For instance, there was a several page article on why we need net neutrality. So, how is that sophomoric? Would you like to see it? RL: You asked me why I didn’t do it, that’s why I didn’t do it.
The audio of the full interview can be downloaded here. The part above occurs around 27:20. (The conversation continues to some ridiculousness, as I will mention in a moment.)
The best part about Lariviere’s explanation of his interview refusal is that there was no warrant. He gave no specific reasons as to why the Commentator is not worth his time. The president of the University of Oregon told a group of students involved in an extracurricular activity that their time was not only worthless, but an embarrassment, and seemingly didn’t think it was important to explain why, or how, or to empower these students in any way.
One problem here is how the Unviersity president is treating student programs. Could you imagine if he were to call any other student group an embarrassment? The LGBTQA? The Women’s Center? I love Jennifer Busby, but she walks around in a giant vagina costume and sings a medley of pop songs on behalf of the ASUO Women’s Center. As compared to the Commentator, is that not sophomoric? (Editor’s note: For the record, in my opinion, neither the vagina costume nor the Commentator is an embarrassment. Just illustrating a point.) If Lariviere had made this sort of comment about almost any other student group, the whole campus would be up in arms.
There are ~24,000 students at the University of Oregon, and only around 1 percent of them are involved with student programs. What business does the University president have demonizing those who care about their collegiate experience enough to try at something, anything?
Additionally, Lariviere is refusing to communicate with a student publication, a very clear way to communicate with the greater student population. (Yes, believe it or not, people actually read the Oregon Commentator.) Later in the interview, when asked how he intended to communicate with students, Lariviere mentioned how he was impressed with the Oregon Daily Emerald, how Higher Education Reporter Stefan Verbano is doing a great job, and how he would be happy to speak with him.
When I talked to Stefan later that evening, he mentioned the fact that he had been trying to interview President Lariviere in person for about a month regarding the Riverfront Research Project, and had that day received this email from UO Media Relations Director Julie Brown:
Hi Stefan,
I checked with the president about talking with you for the Riverfront Research Park story. He’s unavailable and recommended that Rich Linton can provide the administration’s point of view on the project. Rich is traveling quite a bit and would prefer if you contact him by email. You can reach him directly at [email protected].
Let me know if you don’t hear back from him promptly and I will follow up on your behalf.
Thanks,
Julie
Just to point out, this is going from an in-person interview with the president of the university to an email Q & A with the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies — a significant step down. Stefan came back to Ms. Brown to clarify that he still wished to speak with Lariviere in person, and asked if there was another time he would have time to talk to the Emerald (he also scheduled an interview to talk to VP for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke, just to explain the top part of the email). Brown’s response [emphasis mine]:
Hi Stefan,
I have you scheduled to interview Frances Dyke next Friday, Feb. 25 at 1 p.m. She has up to 30 minutes available in her office.
For the Riverfront Research Park story, the president isn’t available and doesn’t have additional information to provide. Because the RRP is within Rich Linton’s research portfolio, he is the most appropriate source for you from administration.
Thanks,
Julie
First of all, the administration should not be directing traffic for journalists. But the problem, here, is that if the president doesn’t talk to us, he is not accountable to us. President Lariviere’s constant reluctance to be accountable to the body that he was made representative of is nauseating and makes us consider what it is that he is hiding.
This is basically what I wrote to him in my interview request later that day, which I also sent to Senior Assistant to the President Dave Hubin and Vice President of Student Affairs Robin Holmes:
From: Lyzi Diamond To: Richard Lariviere CC: Dave Hubin , Robin Holmes Date: Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:10 PM Subject: Oregon Commentator Interview Request
Dear President Lariviere,
I have just spoken with one of my staff writers, Melissa Haskin, about an interview you did with her journalism class this afternoon. She told me that when she asked about you declining an interview with the Oregon Commentator, you called our magazine a “sophomoric publication” that wasn’t worth your time.
As I wrote in my last letter to you, it is my opinion (and, I believe, your opinion) that every student in the University community benefits from being involved in extracurricular activities. I feel it was unprofessional of you to speak about a group of students who are involved in an extracurricular activity in such a flippant manner, especially when that activity has been continuously recognized and funded by the ASUO throughout its decades-long existence.
As I mentioned before, the Oregon Commentator exists to provide an alternative viewpoint to campus politics and discussion, and has done so for nigh on 28 years. Our blog has won multiple awards, and being involved in the magazine has provided amazing opportunities both for current students and OC alumni. To speak of an activity that is so important to so many students in such a negative manner is shocking, especially coming from a university president.
I would like to sit down with you and talk about the state of student affairs in the University of Oregon community. I am available at any time that is convenient for your schedule. We believe an interview with you is definitely worth our time, and that of our readers — and that talking with students should be worth your time, too.
Sincerely,
Lyzi Diamond
Editor-in-Chief, Oregon Commentator
As of 3:00pm on Friday, February 18th, I have heard no response from Hubin, Holmes or Lariviere. As I said in my email, his conduct was incredibly unprofessional, and to speak of a student group in such a manner is abhorrent. It’s outrageous. It should outrage you. Any university administrator that does not even put up the veil of trying to communicate with students is probably not a student administrator you can trust.
Editor’s note: Melissa Haskin will be posting a longer piece on the full range of answers Lariviere gave during his interview in a few days.
The University of Oregon may ban the sale of bottled water on campus, due to its environmental effects, a growing trend on campuses nationwide.
The movement is part of a national campaign called “Take Back the Tap,” which was adopted and promoted by the Climate Justice League, a superhero cape-wearing environment-advocating student group at the U of O.
“Bottled water is not necessary because we already have perfectly good tap water, and it’s terrible for the environment. It’s better just to get it out of our economy, and out of our ecosystems,” said freshman Manny Garcia, co-coordinator of UO’s Take Back the Tap.
“If you were to take, in 2009, all the bottled water, and you stacked them on top of each other, you would go to the moon and back 65 times,” he said, adding that only 5 percent of those are recycled worldwide.
There is no official data yet on how many bottles are sold on campus. Officials have collected data on the dining halls, but do not yet have figures from the food vendors in the student union or the athletics department, which they expect to be a substantial percentage of the total.
Yesterday’s town hall meeting regarding the new partnership proposal — which some people know as the “OMG I hear Phil Knight is gonna buy UO” proposal — featured President Lariviere, Professor John Chalmers (from the college of business, finance is his deal), as well as a veritable mob of students and other faculty. The meeting began with an overview of the proposal, what it hoped to accomplish and what changes would be made, aided by many pretty graphs.
Lariviere stated that this proposal has three main goals: governance reform, increased accountability, and a new funding agreement with the state. The governance reform would come in the form of a new board that would feature government-appointed members as well as a student and a faculty seat, all with voting powers. This is also alleged to be at least as accountable as the current system, with hopes it will improve accountability.
While those aspects will have some impact, I am willing to bet the key question here that the majority of people who care are asking is, “How will the change in funding affect the UO?” I have heard a good deal of speculation on the subject, although most of it has been from people who heard the words “private funding” and began screeching about how some company will bankroll the UO on the condition it becomes, “Phil Knight’s Football-Tossing Learnatorium” and all non-athletes will be forced to study in the rain while they bulldoze the residence halls to make room for more stadiums. While I suppose that is technically possible, come on; it’s not like that sort of thing can’t kind of happen now, especially if the school receives less and less funding from the state due to budget cuts. According to the figures presented at the meeting, UO has about the same level of funding as it did 20 years ago, which adjusting for inflation means roughly 43% less. Allegedly the tuition hikes as of late are because of this level of state funding, and if this trend continues, similar increases are on the way.
The new proposal would have the state take the money they would normally give as funding to the University and instead use it to fund bonds that the University would match with private donations, and all of these proceeds would go to an endowment estimated at $1.6 billion. The University would use the interest on this endowment to fund its operations in addition to further state funding, the end goal being reduced reliance on state funding. The state would not hand its money over until the University produced matching funds from private donors, and there would be no impact on state funds until 2013 at the very earliest.
The main reasoning behind this is aside from private donations, what the University does not receive from the state it must gain through tuition costs. This proposal would, in theory, alleviate what Lariviere called, “an unfair burden on our students and their families,” and allow the University to more accurately predict its funding each year. Based on fancy presentations from aforementioned finance professor, predictions show that with this proposal, even a good amount from the expected mean would be slightly above expected state contributions. Basically, if this goes as planned, it would almost certainly be at least a minor improvement, with the expectation being roughly twice the state funding UO would receive.
The proposal going as planned will involve two bills passing — Senate Bill 559 and Senate Joint Resolution 20 — as well as fundraising going well. The one concern that surfaces repeatedly is that private fundraising would indenture the UO to some corporation, and indeed, our beloved Cimmeron Gillespie raised this question during Q&A, asking if there had been, “any thought put to the ethics [of fundraising]?” Lariviere pointed out that many public institutions, even without proposals such as these, are presented deals that are not in their best interests, and so they simply turn them down.
Seriously, guys, think about this for a minute: if the University was going to sell itself into some faceless corporation’s arms it probably would have done so by now. The whole reason for this partnership is to generate more funds. The school has had to jack up tuition to pay for things, and if there had been an unscrupulous way to get tons of funding before they would have taken it. They haven’t before, it’s not like the proposal presents some new opportunity to do so. The only question is how much more will the new partnership would generate compared to staying with the current method of funding, and all of the numbers seem hopeful.
TL;DR: This is probably a kinda good to really good thing to happen, and tuition will get really shitty if things stay the way they are. Unless somebody really screws something up, we can probably put faith in the fact that if Lariviere is telling us things rather than clamming up, he’s telling the truth.
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.
ABC is reporting the arrest of former UO Adjunct Professor Bill Hillar in Millersville, Maryland. Hillar was under investigation for defrauding students into believing he was a member of the US Army Special Forces and that the movie “Taken” was based on his life.
You can read the story here. According to the site, it will be updated as the story unfolds.
