According to a Daily Emerald story today by Emily Gillespie, OSPIRG is seeking to refund themselves for the upcoming 2010-11 school year. This should come as no surprise to students, as the group’s entire motives as of late have been to get themselves some sweet student funding (think little yellow flyers).

Jeremy Blanchard, an ASUO senator, apparently has no idea why or how OSPIRG was defunded last year:

Blanchard, whose knowledge of OSPIRG was previously limited to second-hand knowledge, is simply advocating that OSPIRG get fair and unbiased consideration when it comes to refunding it next year.

“Viewpoint neutral. That’s the idea; everyone always strives for that and that’s where our power comes from,” he said.

Of course, OSPIRG wasn’t defunded for any ulterior political motives. Nay, last year’s ASUO executive was fiscally conservative, and in an effort to create effecient spending of student funds (and to lessen the loads on student wallets) they simply asked OSPIRG for transparency on how they spent their money.

When OSPIRG couldn’t prove that they returned all their money to campus (like other fee-funded institutions like the Rec Center, Health Center etc) they were defunded.

What is surprising, however, is the amound of money that OSPIRG is asking for and how they’ve gone about asking for it.

Senator Alex McCafferty summed it up:

“A lot of it has to do with the current budget — it’s tight and isn’t conducive to adding a budget of that magnitude,” McCafferty said.

He added that the group has asked for the exact same budget as last year, seemingly with “no new information.”

“So far what I see is the same argument, the same proposal — the exact same budget request,” McCafferty said. “It didn’t fly last year and I don’t think it’s going to fly this year.”

Of course, what OSPIRG has failed to do is prove, once again, is how their $117,000 budget returns to campus. Apparently they didn’t get the memo that they were defunded last year because of that little fact. Although you’ve got to admire them for submitting the same budget with no added transparency.

It takes some serious balls to be that stupid.

In October I blogged about attending an OSPIRG meeting, one where we were informed by the UO OSPIRG’s campus organizer (their paid employee) that the UO OSPIRG was being funded through the state of Oregon OSPIRG, which was in turn funded by the SOU and LCC OSPIRG chapters. I relayed these facts in my latest article titled “Lurking in the Shadows”.

A reporter from The Siskiyou, Southern Oregon University’s campus paper, wrote an article with this information–the same I was merely repeating from a paid employee of OSPIRG.

In the article, SOU OSPIRG’s chapter chair Sarah Westover was quoted as saying, “That is completely incorrect” and that “It’s simply not true.” She later added, “I think that it is unfortunate that a small group of individuals in espousing false claims.”

Of course, The Sikiyou‘s article failed to mention that I was not making any “claims” whatsoever. No, I was merely reporting what I had been told by a member of OSPIRG–just as The Siskiyou had asked a question of the SOU-OSPIRG chair, so had I asked a question of the UO OSPIRG representative.

Nevermind the fact that the article could have included a line of questioning with Westover about why students at the UO had been told this apparently “false” information about how the UO OSPIRG was being funded–by its own members, no less.

I relayed this information on to the author of the article, Becky Gilmore, and she had indeed told me that Westover had claimed the opposite of what I had been told by the UO chapter. I then proceeded to tell her that, “Well, one of the two OSPIRG people isn’t telling the truth. The question now becomes ‘why’ ?”

In any case, I’m glad that I could take the fall on this one. Instead of, you know, The Siskiyou actually doing their job by asking Westover the proper questions (since the reporter had been provided with the requisite information). Great work.

As for Westover, she should be aware that I am not making any “false claims”. I’m merely repeating what a paid member of your organization told me, verbatim.

You two might want to get together and get your own facts straight.

Need I elaborate?

The Ol’ Dirty is reporting that OSPIRG has finally been kicked out of the space in the EMU that they’ve been using since being sent packing last year. Not only that, but ASUO Executive Emma Kallaway pointed out that OSPIRG shouldn’t have been there in the first place, since they haven’t been a student group in years:

The Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group was dealt another blow Tuesday when the EMU Board of Directors delivered notice that OSPIRG’s file cabinets have to be cleared from its spot in the east side of the EMU, its professional staff can no longer use incidental fee-funded resources and a recognized student group would soon move in to share quarters with the Survival Center and the Student Insurgent.

The explanation provided was that OSPIRG is no longer a recognized student group and therefore cannot occupy space in the EMU. The inconsistency, as ASUO President Emma Kallaway noted, is that OSPIRG has not been a student group for years. Until July, the ASUO had a contract for membership in the statewide organization. No one ever bothered to mention contracted services should not have been allowed space in the EMU.

Along with OSPIRG’s illegal occupation of the EMU, it seems they’ve been using other University resources such as phone lines and computers that they had no particular right to. That, of course, hasn’t stopped them from being a bunch of ingrates:

The EMU Board says OSPIRG staffers cannot use the phones paid for by the incidental fee. OSPIRG students say they use cell phones because the land line was cut in July. The board says OSPIRG can’t use the computer provided in its former office space; OSPIRG Chair Charles Denson said it was slow anyway.

Sorry the misappropriated computer in question wasn’t up to your standards, Chuck.

Subject: EMU Board Question
From: “Elise Presicci” <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:55:20 -0700

Hello,

My name is Elise Presicci and I am the Chair of the House Committee for the EMU Board of Directors. I am sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to your question. I got your email from Max Boomer, whom you talked to at the EMU Board office. I was emailing you to answer a question that you had about OSPIRG’s office space in the EMU. OSPIRG is no longer a student recognized group at the University of Oregon and therefore by holding an office space in the EMU they are going against the EMU by laws. The House Committee has had a few discussions about this and we are currently in the process of informing OSPIRG of this problem. Hopefully we will meet with OSPIRG next week, I am currently setting up a meeting, and we they will begin the process of vacating the office if all goes well.

I hope I answered your question, I am not positive exactly what is was, but please don’t hesitate to email me back with any further questions or concerns.

Thank you,
Elise Presicci

The image found on a brochure given to us by OSPIRG

We were in the office yesterday, sifting through piles of random papers when out dropped a brochure from our recent trip to an OSPIRG meeting. On the front of this brochure was the image above, the windmill being one of OSPIRG’s main branding images.

Taking a page from PETA,  OSPIRG obviously wants the viewer of the image to associate their cause with the greatness of those who raised the flag at Iwo Jima.

Let’s put this into perspective though, shall we?

At the Battle of Iwo Jima almost 7,000 American soldiers lost their lives. A massive part of the struggle in the Pacific during WWII, including wounded it was the only battle during the war in which American casualties outnumbered Japanese casualties. A sculpture of “Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima” stands at the U.S. Marine Corps Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery.

Conversely, OSPIRG is a lobbyist organization whose practices and transparency are shady at best.

Using the “Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima” imagery as promotional for anything, much less propaganda for a lobbyist organization, is absolutely shameful. The “raising the turbine” image shows disrespect for the Americans who fought and died at Iwo Jima (and possibly even for the entire war as the image is the most powerful and well known from WWII).

Disrespecting our veterans (and for many of us, our own kin) in this way shows OSPIRG’s true lack of taste. Whatever your opinion is on OSPIRG, there can be no disagreement that their use of this image for their own self-promotion is absolutely depraved, disgusting and immoral.

We were forwarded an e-mail (and the subsequent OSPIRG response) from a concerned reader of our blog and the response he got from the Southern Oregon University OSPIRG Chair. During our visit to our very own UO OSPIRG meeting, the campus organizer (paid employee) told us how the UO OSPIRG was able to continue their endeavors despite being de-funded on this campus last year, “We’re being paid by the State of Oregon OSPIRG, which is funded by all the other university chapters in the state of Oregon… so LCC has one and SOU has one.”

As an alum and parent of a current student I’m concerned about a statement made by U of O OSPIRG representatives that funds from other Oregon Universities are being used to keep the U of O chapter afloat after being defunded by the student government. Is this in fact true? My son was approached by an OSPIRG representative on campus yesterday before this news was available so could not ask directly. Thanks for your prompt response.

Steven Plunk
Class of ’84

Dear Mr. Plunk,
In response to your question, it is not in fact true that the other student chapters are/will be funding the U of O chapter.
Thank you for your interest in the SOU chapter of OSPIRG. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Thanks,
Sarah Westover
OSPIRG SOU Chapter Chair

The SOU OSPIRG does not send direct payments to our UO OSPIRG chapter. What the SOU OSPIRG does is send their money to the administrators for the State of Oregon OSPIRG. At that point, State of Oregon OSPIRG executives divvy up that money to be able to “do the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people”.

Technically, the SOU OSPIRG chair did not lie to our concerned SOU parent. The SOU OSPIRG does not write a check out to the UO OSPIRG chapter. But the funding the UO OSPIRG chapter gets from the State of Oregon OSPIRG comes from the SOU OSPIRG.

Ms. Westover answered Mr. Plunk’s question “straightforward” and without frills. What she failed to mention, however, was how OSPIRG’s funding really works. Without explaining the funding to our concerned parent, I can only assume that Westover was being intentionally deceitful. It’s rather obvious what Mr. Plunk was asking and answering in the way she did doesn’t accurately describe the answer Mr. Plunk was looking for.

Of course, doing that would require a modicum of transparency. That’s not really OSPIRG’s bag.

OSPIRG apparently made an appearance in a PPM 201 class last week and their claims about the organization were less than trustworthy.

When asked why they were defunded the OSPIRG representative replied, “A group of students said we shouldn’t be able to support things that were not entirely on campus, but now the ASUO supports reinstating OSPIRG.”

Let’s start with the obvious fact that the “group of students” that wasn’t in support of OSPIRG last year was the ASUO, the elected representatives of the student body. The Geology Club can be called a “group of students”. The ASUO is arguably the most important, if not the most powerful, student organization on campus. To downplay their opinion from last year by qualifying them with the nondescript term “group of students” is intentionally misleading.

Second, the fact that the OSPIRG rep admits that the money is “not entirely on campus” says it all. The entire contention against OSPIRG is not the fact that they may or may not be doing good things. It’s merely a question of whether or not mandatory tuition fees should go towards things that do not benefit you as a student. It’s not that opponents of OSPIRG “hate environmentalism” (or whatever propaganda they tell you), we simply hate paying for office space in Portland and paying for gas for trips to Salem.

Last, I find it entirely too telling that the OSPIRG rep said that “the ASUO supports reinstating OSPIRG”. While there very well may be some support for the group within the ASUO, there is just as much (if not more) opposition to the group. In any case, saying that the entire ASUO supports OSPIRG is an outright lie.

Further, the effect that lie has on students who may not be quite informed gives them the perception that OSPIRG is a normal, incorporated piece of the University of Oregon. Like their lawless usage of the famous “O” symbol, OSPIRG is trying to use the ASUO to brand themselves as “part of the team”.

If I was a member of the ASUO I’d be pissed the group was using my name as an endorsement of their product. As a student, I’m angry they’re spewing propaganda at my peers without batting an eye.

(The student responsible for this information wished to remain anonymous)

“We’ve got to save the Alaskan Moose habitat!”

Earlier this morning I was reflecting upon my meeting with OSPIRG (and subsequent blog post) with a few friends when we came across a stunning realization.

OSPIRG is run by Reaganites.

Think about it. Every time you speak with one of these “campus organizers” they tell you that the money you spend spent on OSPIRG goes towards lobbyists, who in turn “try to lower textbook costs, tuition and work on environmental issues”. Of course this is a very roundabout way of doing things, as the direct correlation between money spent and money returned cannot be mapped out on paper.

It hit us like a ton of bricks… OSPIRG is a fan of trickle-down economics. Needless to say, we never thought the shady organization would be associated with policies popularized by Ronald Reagan.

Congratulations on your entry to the Republican party, OSPIRG. You’re right at home with all the other dirty thieves.

The OSPIRG “Activist Toolkit”.

Yesterday Guy Simmons and I made an appearance at the OSPIRG meeting down in Suite 1. We introduced ourselves with our real names with no intention of hiding from who we are. We received a plethora of materials, including an “Activist Toolkit” that, among other things, included instructions on how to “rap” with kids about OSPIRG. (Because it’s still 1968 and the word “rap” is culturally relevant in that context)

The question I was asking myself as we sat down with these people was, “How are these people still here?” OSPIRG is not a funded or ASUO recognized group, yet they still have office space, computers, an internet connection, a phone and electricity (lights, etc) given to them at the cost of the EMU (and presumably the students).

(more…)

Apparently OSPIRG has been using the University of Oregon’s “O” symbol to help brand themselves among University of Oregon students.

The use of the symbol is undoubtedly an infringement upon the University of Oregon’s trademark, especially if OSPIRG is using it to solicit donations.

More importantly, the “O” is equated, especially in the malleable minds of young freshmen, with everything that is part of the University of Oregon. An outside group using the symbol for recruitment purposes immediately garners the respect and weight that symbol brings to the table. Since OSPIRG is not part of this university, OSPIRG’s usage of the “O” is incredibly deceptive.

This is just another offense in the long line of morally-vague decisions made by OSPIRG and its constituents. One wonders if the University will step up and stop the group’s marketing plan by mandating a cease-and-desist regarding the “O”.

Anything else should be considered an indirect endorsement of OSPIRG by the University.

OSPIRG tabling outside of the EMU

Just when you thought you’d never see the annoying succubus we call OSPIRG, here they are once again getting in the way of your path to lunch at the EMU.

Although last year’s executive succeeded in pushing the group off campus for the 2009-10 school year, the lobbyist group remains here on campus. As Robert D’Andrea from the Daily Emerald pointed out a few days ago, the group remains in its office down in Suite 1 of the EMU. Its employees are being paid by the state of Oregon PIRG to continue to do their “good work”.

So far their “work” consists of bothering people on their way to Subway and handing out little yellow fliers during classes the first week of school.

What people need to remember is that OSPIRG is off campus for a reason. They have, for years, failed to prove that they return anything to the University of Oregon campus. Whether or not your opinion of the group’s “work” is good or bad, you need to realize that making OSPIRG part of the mandatory I-Fee for every student is ludicrous. Do you want tuition to go to pay for things outside the University of Oregon, or worse, Eugene? The answer is no, and we should make it clear that their organization is not wanted on this campus.

Let’s not forget the greed involved with this group as well, shall we? Last year the ACFC proposed a new budget for OSPIRG for this upcoming year at around $30,000 (give or take). OSPIRG balked at the idea, presumably because they thought they could get back their full $120,000 instead.

OSPIRG is preying on the fact that every year, kids graduate from this university and there is a fresh new crop of people who have no idea who they are and what they do. They are able to set up tables like the one above and brainwash kids into thinking the group is necessary. The next time you see someone talking to the guys at the OSPIRG table or holding one of those yellow fliers, stop them and tell them the real deal.

Tell them OSPIRG doesn’t belong on this campus.

As some of you may know, I’m in D.C. this summer interning at The Weekly Standard. Anyway, I’m working on a story about the recent revelation that the Fund for the Public Interest, the fundraising arm of the U.S. PIRG (of which our beloved OSPIRGs are a part), settled a $2.15 million class-action lawsuit for underpaying its canvassers and organizers.

Well, today I called both the Fund and the PIRG offices, and I was pleasantly unsurprised when, on the second call, the receptionist said, “Didn’t we just talk?”

“Wait, isn’t this the U.S. PIRG?” I asked.

“Both numbers redirect here.”

Oh, but of course they do. Just like how the Oregon Students Public Interest Research Group and the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group share the same office and phone number. Bigger pond, same damn fish.

(It’s probably pertinent to point out that the Fund doesn’t mention the U.S. PIRG anywhere on its website. It mainly touts itself as a partner with the Sierra Club and the Human Rights Campaign.)

As improbable as it may sound, the PIRG system is actually slimier and more corrupt than previously believed. From the Daily Beast:

The nation’s largest fundraiser for progressive causes issued checks to thousands of former workers in the last several weeks after settling a $2.15 million class-action suit alleging it subjected workers to grueling hours without overtime pay.

The nonprofit Fund for Public Interest Inc. was set up in 1982 as the fundraising arm of the network of Public Interest Research Groups, which was founded by Ralph Nader. It deploys legions of door-to-door and street canvassers—and once counted a young Barack Obama as one of its New York City organizers—to solicit contributions for the Human Rights Campaign, the Sierra Club, Environment America, and other groups that together spend millions of dollars each year lobbying Congress.

[…]

Managers pushed employees to work long hours by repeatedly stressing that they were taking part in a campaign to better the world, not a traditional job. Federal and state labor laws do not recognize the distinction. Some said their experiences led them to give up on activism altogether, which troubled those behind the lawsuit. “I was getting tired of seeing people leave the movement,” Miller said.

In the summer of 2005, the activists tried to unionize their Los Angeles office. The canvassers voted to organize with the Teamsters, Miller said.

“Management basically started changing office policies to try to systematically fire all union employees, while stalling the contract,” he added. Eventually, Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.), now Labor secretary, wrote the Fund pressing it to negotiate with workers, to no avail.

Then suddenly, Miller said, “they changed the locks on the doors and they were gone. We were shut down overnight.”

In a separate case in 2006, the office of the Labor Commissioner of the State of California determined that the Fund had denied rest breaks to a worker, awarding a cash payment. The Fund subsequently changed its policies to provide overtime pay. In 2009, it agreed to settle the class-action suit.

But remember: It’s all about “student voice” and “empowering people.” These criticisms are just a vast, right-wing conspiracy to silence progressive voices on campus. Just keep telling yourself that. Seriously, though, this is the group that we so desperately need on campus? The group that is so vital to student activism? Remember this when the OSPIRG neophytes come crawling back to the ASUO next year, begging to be reinstated as a student group.

Hat tip to Reason.

In the latest issue of the Student Insurgent (at least I think it’s the latest… aside from a calendar advertising events in May at the “Eugene Free School”, I can’t find a date anywhere on this thing), noted advocates for fiscal responsibility, Joey Beats and Cimmeron Gillespie fire a devastating broadside against the Student Rec Center, admonishing the Rec Center for its profligate ways.

We couldn’t agree more! In fact, former OC Editor-in-Chief Ted Niedermeyer scooped the Insurgent on this story about two years ago (story begins on page 20). Still, it’s nice to see the Insurgent kids finally take notice of the massive misallocation of student dollars at the University of Oregon:

This problem of funding as [sic] been a constant issues [sic] for the Rec. Center, as they have gone before student government asking for more money, year after year and received in full, [sic] their requested funding… Such waste is intolerable given the national financial state and our own Fat-Katz administration’s promises of ‘fiscal responsibility’.

No doubt it’s only a matter of time before these newly minted fiscal conservatives at the Insurgent join the Oregon Commentator in demanding higher standards of accountability and less wasteful spending of student money across the board in the ASUO.

Will they reverse their support of that notorious money sink known as OSPIRG? Hope springs eternal.

Then again, one of their letters to the editor in the latest issue describes how the Insurgent gang gave some random anarchist a ride to the Bay Area in a “state-owned” van and proceeded to go “to the co-ops in Berkeley for a naked, neon good time,” so I’m not getting my hopes up.

One can only wonder if that trip was paid for by student money and, if it was, how the Insurgent staff squares that with their sudden commitment to prudent fiscal management.

[EDIT]

The next column in the Insurgent, attributed to “Greenwash Guerillas”, lambasts the U of O for it’s attempts at “greenwashing” through the use of carbon offsets. It begins with the paragraph:

Carbon offsets follow the same logic as indulgences did for the Catholic Church centuries ago. Offsetting argues that if you do something “bad” you can mitigate that by paying someone to do something “good” in your name.

Did we buy up the Insurgent with some of that blog contest money and someone just forgot to tell me, or something?