Look what popped into the Commentator inbox today:

Were coming back this saturday!! Another concert in support of OSPIRG…11AM…same place as before…This is us calling out all the big talking students behind their computer screens, including ring leader CJ Ciaramella(that started the whole online blog battle by saying we were “Eugene’s crappiest metal band), all the people that said our fans were fat single mothers, anyone that was involved in the whole battle we went through last time we did this, anyone that made comments on my orange shorts, and my white pasty skin complexion?, that said we were eugene’s crappiest metal band and then back-peddled and said we were still better than 95% of the bands in Eugene, all the people that threatened us behind their computer screens, its on, lets battle global warming!!!

Just keep in mind, we never threatened anyone, we are just a happy heavy metal band, that has a severe dislike for uneducated public opinions, why don’t you come out and see for yourself?

The Athiarchists
[email protected]

Oh noes, we’ve been “called out!” Not only that, but we’ve been called out so much that “it’s on.” I’m not sure what this means, though. Pistol duel at ten paces? Scowly face contest? Furthermore, I’m not sure how calling The Athiarchists crappy is “threatening,” and I’m pretty sure I was in front of my computer screen. Oh, but I digress. My reply letter to The Athiarchists is after the jump. (more…)

OSPIRG continues its nasty little habit of claiming other people’s victories:

Stretching a bit? I’m not really sure what a lobbying group like OSPIRG has to do with student involvement in the civil rights movement, but there you go. By the way, I received this in an email titled “cultural appropriation at its worst.”

Well, OSPIRG has officially been cut from the ASUO budget, but don’t think those goons are giving up. Since they couldn’t sway the student government (even though they were given four opportunities to do so), OSPIRG is taking its message to “the people.”

You may notice (in fact, you will be forced to notice) the dweebs on campus trying to get you to sign a petition for something called the “student voice campaign.” OSPIRG, masquerading as the “coalition for student voice,” is trying to collect enough signatures to put a ballot measure up for vote. The measure reads:

Should the ASUO fund student-directed programs that address issues that affect both students and all Oregonians, using methods such as: research; press conferences; letter writing drives; demonstrations; public forums; advocating to the City Council, Legislature, Congress, and corporations; and hiring professional staff to work to amplify and empower student voice both on and off-campus in places like Salem and Washington DC?

I just wish for once in its insipid history OSPIRG could be honest with students. It’s pathetic that they have to couch their campaign in smarmy platitudes about “student voice” – worse that they can’t even bear to mention OSPIRG itself. If you get confronted by one of these clipboard-wielding mouth-breathers, write down your feelings on their signature sheet. That’s what I do.

Also, Eugene’s crappiest metal band, The Athiarchists, played a concert in support of OSPIRG. That should tell you enough.

There’s a delightfully nonsensical letter from wordsmith Jesse Hough after the jump. (more…)

It is my pleasure to report that OSPIRG may be no more. In a unanimous vote tonight, the Athletics and Contracts Finance Committee canceled OSPIRG’s contract, completely defunding the group.

The ACFC’s budget must still be unanimously approved by the ASUO Senate, but even if the Senate rejects the budget, it doesn’t have the power to write or modify contracts *. For the moment, it would appear that OSPIRG is dead in the water.

OSPIRG was given another opportunity to present its case tonight, and members said they were presenting new information. On further questioning, though, one OSPIRG member was forced to admit that their presentation was “a different perspective on the same information.”

One presenter claimed that the ASUO would see a 1,300 percent return on its “investment” of $120,000. It was a little redundant when he then started a sentence by saying, “Now, I’m no economist, but …”

The ACFC first motioned to approve OSPIRG for a $27,866 budget, but the committee could not get clear answers on how that would affect the group.

The ACFC continually pressed the group to explain exactly how their budget would be affected by the cut and what services they could still provide, but OSPIRG waffled every time. When ACFC member and Senate President Alex McCafferty asked for a “yes, no or maybe” answer on whether or not a campus organizer could still be provided for $27,000, one of the  presenters said they would have to talk to the OSPIRG board of directors.

This is what caused the committee to vote down its original proposal and later motion for a zero-percent budget.

The room was split between OSPIRG supporters and detractors (left to right, coincidentally). ASUO Executive Sam Dotters-Katz spoke out against the group several times throughout the hearing.

“The issue that I have is not the good things they do for the world,” Dotters-Katz said. “But the purpose of the Incidental fee is not to save the world. It’s to improve the experience of students on campus.”

Department Finance Committee member Brendan Good had strong words for OSPIRG as well, saying “a pig is still a pig, anyway you look out.” (He handed out flyers earlier that said OSPIRG wasn’t kosher. Get it?)

Several ASUO Senators spoke against the group also, such as Derek Nix and Demic Tipitino. Tipitino recommended that OSPIRG be completely defunded and return next year to apply as an ASUO program. (Programs are required to have strict, line-item budget.)

On the other side, Jesse Hough, who ran for ASUO vice-president last year, said that defunding OSPIRG would silence students. Actually, his exact words were, “You’re tearing out my larynx here!”

Former ASUO Senator Diego Hernandez, displaying his trademark wit and tact, also told Dotters-Katz to “shut up” at one point and later went on to accuse several in the room of sexism (for disagreeing with a female OSPIRG supporter, presumably).

All the cries of “student empowerment” and sexism were for naught, though. After about an hour and a half of hearing speakers, the ACFC called the vote to question. ACFC member Tina Snodgrass, after a moment of deliberation, gave the final “aye” for a vote of 4-0-0.

It’s unclear how this will all play out, but kudos to the ACFC for taking a firm stand against the unethical practices of OSPIRG. We’ve been for fighting for this for a long time, and I hope this is truly the end of OSPIRG at the University of Oregon. Until that last nail is finally in the coffin, though, you can count on the Oregon Commentator to keep you updated.

*Senate President and ACFC member Alex McCafferty, in a comment below, says this isn’t the case. I’m assuming then that the ACFC budget must only pass a majority vote by Senate.

Tonight is the second and hopefully last budget hearing for OSPIRG. It will be held at 7:10 p.m. in Lillis 112. I’d encourage all students who care about fiscal responsibility and transparency to come out and voice their opinion.

I will be twittering during the hearing. If you’re into that kind of thing, you can also follow @atomchak, the Emerald’s ASUO reporter, and @KWVAnews.

As Editor Emeritus Ossie “Spiderweb” Bladine noted in a comment thread below, we’ve actually been sticking it to OSPIRG since our very first issue. This is from the inaugural edition, October 24, 1983:

[Editor Richard] Burr argued that OSPIRG’s political activities such as lobbying for state legislation violates a principle Thomas Jefferson voiced in 1777: “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

To put it in context, the article was about the ASUO Constitution Court striking down OSPIRG’s request to have its budget reviewed every two years instead of one. The decision was largely due to the protest of Burr.

As you can see, OSPIRG always has and always will try to shield itself from actual scrutiny. That’s why it tried to have a bi-annual budget, and that’s why it recently moved to be an ASUO contracted service. Contracted services aren’t required to have a line-item budget, meaning OSPIRG doesn’t have to show exactly how it spends its money.

Last week OSPIRG had it’s annual budget hearing, and students packed into the room to speak out for and against the group. After nearly three hours of listening to presenters, the ACFC (which controls OSPIRG’s budget) adjourned the meeting without a vote. There will be a second budget hearing sometime next week.

As I mentioned earlier, the Commentator has opposed OSPIRG for most of our history, so I thought it might be useful to dig through the archive and give some context to the whole thing. You see, this has been going on for a long, long time.

But before I move on: Last year, the Daily Emerald ran a very good article, “The OSPIRG you can’t see,” that goes over much of the same material as this blog post. If you think we’re distorting or twisting facts, I would advise reading it. Many OSPIRG supporters accuse us of opposing the organization’s goals and trying to stop campus activism, but, as the aforementioned article says, “it’s all about money, visibility and tangible results.”

(more…)

In case you missed it, the Daily Emerald issued an editorial yesterday calling for OSPIRG to be defunded:

This week, the ASUO Executive made for the first time in a long time a very clear recommendation on the ongoing saga of OSPIRG and the funding it receives from the ASUO incidental fee that all students pay. It recommended that OSPIRG be completely defunded. The Emerald has called for increased scrutiny of OSPIRG and its use of our student dollars several times in the past. In 2007, the Emerald called for OSPIRG to be defunded, citing transparency and accountability concerns. In light of the proposal by ASUO President Sam Dotters-Katz to end OSPIRG’s contract with the ASUO, we would like to now reiterate this opinion.

See? It’s not just us “crazy conservatives” who don’t like OSPIRG. There are people all across the board who have problems with it, and not just because of its political stances. Yet weepy, outraged OSPIRG supporters try and spin this as some sort of campaign to squash campus activism. For example, here’s part of an overwrought letter in today’s ODE by Jesse Hough:

As I witnessed egos and tempers flair at the ACFC meeting Wednesday night, a deep sadness overcame me. A sadness that felt like the death of a dear friend. That friend isn’t OSPIRG, it is students’ power and voice in the world.

All we’re really asking for is that our student money be spent transparently and effectively.

OSPIRG’s budget hearing is today, and a lot of people are calling for its head. (I’ve always been partial to a good ol’ “draw and quarter,” but that’s besides the point.)

OSPIRG, for those not in the know, is a “public interest group” that funnels money from college campuses into statewide lobbying efforts. For example, the OSPIRG chapter at the University of Oregon gets more than $100,000 in student money each year. Once again, that’s 100k of student money forcefully taken and spent off campus for lobbying purposes. (OSPIRG also has the gall to send volunteers to campus to shake down students for even more cash.)

Portland State and Oregon State have already defunded their respective OSPIRG chapters citing the aforementioned money-funneling. Even some ODE columnists have gotten into the act.

We here at the Commentator have been railing against OSPIRG and its nefarious ways for nigh on 25 years now. In fact, we spearheaded a campaign that got it defunded back in 1998, but the ASUO brought the group back through dark, political magick. I, for one, eagerly await tasting the yummy, sweet tears of its supporters.

The hearing is at 3:30 p.m in Straub 154, for all those interested. I will be twittering the proceedings.

Eugene Weekly special investigator Alan Pittman has a great, definitely-not-socialist article in this week’s EW titled “Spread the wealth in Oregon.” Here’s the lede:

With Barack Obama popular in Oregon while calling for a tax increase on those earning more than $250,000, could such a tax plan work here?

Tell me, Alan Pittman! I certainly can’t guess what your answer will be.

If Oregon state income taxes were raised 10 percent on those earning more than $250,000 adjusted gross income, taxes on everyone else could be cut about 4 percent, according to an EW analysis of state tax return data. That’s an average savings of $86.

Why, what a novel idea! It’s practically foolproof. For example, if I was an evil, evil rich person, I certainly wouldn’t move to a different state to avoid getting raped by taxes. Nope, I would sit tight and make less money. All that stuff about people being “rational actors” is just plain phooey. In fact, I’m sure the wealthy would flock to Oregon! Nothing drives entrepreneurs and business into a state like a draconian state income tax. Hold on, I’m going to quote something else silly Pittman said:

Oregon’s wealthiest could easily afford a tax increase. In the last three decades the income of the wealthiest 1 percent of Oregonians has doubled while the wage of the typical Oregon worker has dropped slightly after adjusting for inflation, according to the Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP).

Oh yes, easily. But who cares if they can afford it? It’s their fault for being so inconsiderately wealthy in the first place. Pittman is right; the rich are a resource to be harvested, like timber or zinc.

By the way, this isn’t Pittman’s first call to action against the landed gentry. I’m going to go out on a limb and venture that he is not in the $250,000 income bracket. Just a guess.

ODE columnist Matt Petryni had a column yesterday laying into OSPIRG, probably one of the harshest criticisms of the group I’ve ever seen run in the Ol’ Dirty. To wit:

In the past, I have volunteered with OSPIRG. While there was some good work done, the program’s incredible overhead and fundraising operation clearly consumed most of its resources. It should come as no surprise, then, that more than two-thirds of its ASUO stipend goes not to on-campus work, but to staffers in Portland, Ore.

[…]

Now, let me be clear. If you want to donate to the harassment squad that trolls our campus on a near-daily basis, that’s perfectly fine with me. Should students be forced to pay a portion of their incidental fee to a program some do not agree with, few actually understand, and almost no one can account for? The answer is clearly no.

Yeah, get some! This is what the ODE opinion page needs more of: strongly worded columns about concrete campus issues. Petryni wins a beer next time I see him at the bar. Don’t get me wrong; I love reading Anastasia STRGAR’s sex columns, but …

This is a bit old but still pretty awesome. A professor at University of Wisconsin, Madison wrote an essay over at Minding the Campus about the nature of mandatory fees. He outlines some of the criticisms and problems with mandatory fees – violation of conscience, using the money for overt political action, potential for excess and corruption. He concludes:

As I stressed above, I know of no evidence that indicates such abuse of mandatory fees. Empirical inquiry is called for to ascertain what is actually going on in the trenches of student organization politics. And more formal supervision is needed to ensure that such abuse does not occur. Such supervision is needed because, as I remark above, political motivation is intense, and where large amounts of money exist to be spent, temptation is often just around the corner. Perhaps the best solution would be to to make fees supporting student expressive groups voluntary rather than mandatory. But few institutions have the gumption to consider this principled alternative that would remedy both the lingering compelled association problem and the problem of potential political abuse.

I have a post up at the CAMPUS Magazine Online blog about the essay. Read it.

Need I say more?

Edit: I was very drunk when I made this post originally. Apparently some peoples’ idea of cleaning out Suite One doesn’t involve boxes, several hand-trucks, and a U-Haul, but merely some Simple Green and a recycling tub. To each his own, I suppose.

If you’re interested in assisting with the Suite One clean-up, considering it is “filthy, filthy”, click the link above, or just join the group and encourage my idea of cleaning-up!

P.S. Drew, are you circumcised I’ll ask this at a more appropriate time.

I was recently invited to the Free Speech Parade Facebook group, hosted by the one and only UO Survival Center. What struck me as interesting was the description of the group:

We support free expression, be that: verbally, musically, poetically, artistically, physically, nutritionally, literarily, meditatively, economically (barter) or otherwise.

A perfect example of this “free expression” they support is Cimmeron Gillespie’s (coincidentally the group’s founder) drumming/musical performances that, I’m sure, we’ve all had the pleasure of encountering.

Perhaps a further buried example would be a student’s right to smoke–the act of smoking as an expression. I am hesitant to jump on the freedom of expression bandwagon here, but perhaps we, as a campus, could broaden our freedom horizons a bit and accept smoking as a tool to unite students, similar to say, a FIG class, or Week of Welcome.

Even better, if we can get the environmental lovin’ kids to support smoking on campus. Can you imagine OSPIRG collecting signatures to save your right to smoke? Student dollars at work on campus? Dare to dream, people, dare to dream!

As for me, I’ll see you at the Smoke-in on Monday, May 12th, sporting a large cigar.

‘Ol Dirty columnist Nik Antovich gives OSPIRG more bad press in today’s Emerald:

Lately OSPIRG has been under considerable public examination; I want to keep it that way, considering that the problems with this organization don’t deserve just lip service but action. This fiscal year we will be handing OSPIRG a check for more than $117,000- a ridiculous amount of money, none of which will be publicly accounted for by the corporation. However, we do know that more than two-thirds of that budget is used to pay the salaries of about eight researches and activists who work in Portland.

Antovich goes on to stump for CFACT, which is kind of the conservative version of OSPIRG, sans off-campus money dumping (allegedly). I have my reservations about CFACT; besides disagreeing with them on some key issues, I’m opposed on principle to increasing the incidental fee. However, it’s good to finally start hearing some substantial OSPIRG criticism on campus.

Is the recent bad press, as well as the election of Dotters-katz and Delashaw, whose platform included decreasing OSPIRG funding, a sign that the Great Hope might finally be realized? Holding your breath is probably inadvisable, although crossing your fingers couldn’t hurt.