Hey kids, this isn’t a good idea.

At least the agenda makes it looks like its going to be the end before we get out of here. Follow along with Franklin Bains (Ol’ Dirty) and myself here.

I know somebody commented on this under Rockne’s post, but I feel that it deserves a little front page space. From yesterday’s Emerald, page 4, the continuation of the OSPIRG article:

ASUO President Amelie Rousseau told the Emerald, in response to the events of the Wednesday hearing, that she would veto any ACFC budget that did not include at least some funding for OSPIRG.

I can understand voicing one’s opinions on a matter and stating that one would be unlikely to vote in favor of a budget with no OSPIRG funding, but isn’t strict “we do things my way or else” behavior the sort of thing people tried to stamp out in, like, kindergarten? No room for compromise, no contingencies, just “if there’s no OSPIRG funding then I’m telling?”

The theory behind government is that it represents the interests of the governed, and we have Rousseau kissing OSPIRG’s boo-boos after a fairly obvious display of opinion from some senators. I’m not saying she has to mindlessly cow-tow to the majority opinion, but to completely disregard a 4-1 ruling of your peers is a little… yeah.

The killjoys in Yakima, Washington don’t like scantily clad women apparently. Perhaps what’s more entertaining is that the barista charged with indecent exposure was let off the hook, while her boss took the fall. All of this was responsibly decided on by a jury with no hard evidence. But I digress, those of you thinking about spring-breaking at this particularly popular destination might want to consider wearing more than a G-string in public and putting a sweater over anything remotely see-through.

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.

(more…)

Let’s start with a quick history lesson. Every term you pay the Incidental Fee. This fee goes to pay for all the insane programs, contracts, and other things your student government does. The amount of fee you pay is the amount of money the ASUO spends on its various ideas and projects divided by the number of students expected to attend UO. Since enrollment  seems to have a way of increasing fairly regularly, by the time enough I-fee has been collected Spring term to cover all of the budget, there’s some leftover. This is known as the Over-Realized Fund.

It is the responsibility of the Senate to allocate the Over-Realized Fund however they wish. This year, a committee has been formed to recommend different ways to allocate the funds back to the full Senate. This committee was appointed last week, based on a careful selection process consisting of asking for volunteers. The committee’s first meeting is today and one of the pressing items on its agenda is, in the words of Sen. Evan Thomas, “Discuss Over-Realized Project name/slogan.” Thomas elaborates:

“We looking for a slogan or means of advertising this extra student money to the student body without calling it ‘Over-Realized Funds.’ We’re looking for an exciting and intriguing project name, so input about this is fantastic.”

Will someone explain to me why we need to call it something else? Why do we need to advertise this to the student body at large, when the constellation of money pits that we kindly refer to as programs will come up with a myriad of ways to dispense with this cash? I understand the need for public relations in general, but sanitizing everything to sound pretty or hip is particularly annoying, especially when we’re dealing with a group of people (college students) who are supposed to be smarter than the general public? I know I’m probably wrong, but I’d like to hope that the populace could figure it out. Even if they can’t, they probably won’t be able to get whatever silly name the committee comes up with.

I will be unable to attend this stupid meeting, but I would implore someone, anyone to attend and say loudly and proudly, “Why don’t we call it the Over-Realized Fund?” Please, do it for me.

Photo courtesy Oregon Daily Emerald

[Author’s note: I have been employed by both the Assault Prevention Shuttle and the Designated Driver Shuttle during my tenure at the University of Oregon, but I am no longer employed by either organization (or the incidental fee at all).]

From Friday’s Ol’ Dirty:

Students and faculty members who have used the Assault Prevention Shuttle lately probably noted a recent change to the program: It’s [sic] name.

According to a press release from the program, students and faculty members will soon begin to see the name Safe Ride replace its former one on its e-mail address and Web site. The name change has already begun to take the form of new signs that are visibly marked on the program’s vans.

Rachel Graham, Safe Ride’s co-director, said the program decided to change its name from the Assault Prevention Shuttle to Safe Ride amidst confused responses from students who did not know what the program’s purpose was.

“The name Safe Ride better exemplifies the mission of the program — to provide members of the University of Oregon community with a safe ride home,” Graham said in a prepared statement.

According to its Web site, Safe Ride currently uses four minivans and a 97-person staff base to provide an average of 70 people per night with a free ride to a destination near the University.

As I’m sure the APS co-directors know, the Assault Prevention Shuttle started as Project Saferide, a volunteer-based organization committed to preventing assault by employing female volunteers and staff members to give women free rides home. Indeed, Project Saferide stickers (which you can still see plastered in McKenzie Hall and EMU bathrooms) bear the motto, “Women Helping Women.”

(more…)

Most of us know that it’s not a good idea to refurbish food- mainly because food is not a computer, phone, or iPod. The folks at One Great Burger in New Jersey seem to be missing this insight.

During an investigation fueled by consumer complaints, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) found that “the establishment repackaged and recoded returned products and sent them out for further distribution to institutional customers.” Whereas the 20 lbs packages of “ONEGREAT HAMBURGERS” were produced between January and May of 2010, their “packed on” dates are labeled with dates between July and November of 2010. There have been no reported illnesses linked to the meat, which was distributed to institutions in Oregon and California. Nonetheless, FSIS recalled the meat as of January 10th, labeling it as a Class II recall. The USDA defines a Class II recall as a “health hazard situation where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the product.” (more…)

From the Oregonian:

House Bill 2228 introduced by Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland), would amend an Oregon statute that bans unlawful passengers on a bike by making it illegal to carry a child younger than 6 either on the bike or in a trailer. The bill includes a fine of $90. […]

A former director of public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Greenlick said the bill was prompted by an OHSU study on injuries among serious bikers.

“It indicated that about 30 percent on average had a traumatic injury each year and about 8 percent had one serious enough to get medical attention,” Greenlick said, “so it really got me thinking about what happens if there’s a 4-year-old on the back of that bike when a biker goes down.”

He knows of no studies about the risks of carrying children in cargo trailers or on the back of a bike. But he said he wants to fire up a conversation in the Legislature.

“This is how the process starts,” he said. “We have hearings. People start testifying. You start getting the information to find out whether there is a problem or not.”

But, of course, Portland loves its bicycles and bike-friendly residents. Naturally, people are pissed, including the good folks at BikePortland.org:

“The bill itself is just ridiculous,” said Jonathan Maus, editor of the popular blog, bikeportland.org.

Other avid bikers got more personal, calling Greenlick “an idiot” in angry emails.

“I’ve got about 100 emails this morning,” Greenlick said. […]

Maus said the bill is misguided.

“We have massive transportation safety problems,” Maus said. “Transporting a child on a bicycle is no where near the top of anyone’s priority.

“I think it is a terrible miscalculation to start a debate with something so one-sided that prohibits the use of a transportation option by a large segment of the population,” Maus said.

He and his wife have raised their two daughters — now 8 and 5 years old — on bikes, carting them around the city in baby slings when they were tiny and then putting them in a cargo trailer at 3 months.

“We never had a problem,” Maus said.

In fact, he says drivers take more care when they see a kid on a bike or trailer, giving the bicyclist extra room.

“Everybody’s really careful,” Maus said.

He worries that the bill could curtail family biking — a popular activity in Portland and elsewhere — and hurt businesses in the state.

Here’s the thing: every activity is associated with risks. Literally every single activity. It is the job of the general public to identify those risks and make decisions about how to proceed. If bicyclists feel uncomfortable biking with children knowing the risks of doing so, they shouldn’t. If they feel comfortable knowing the risks, it is up to them to decide if it’s something they want to do.

It’s that simple.

Extra credit: Mia Birk’s letter to Greenlick asking him to withdraw the bill, saying he misinterpreted the study.

As the handsome Alex Tomchak Scott already mentioned, President Lariviere stood before Senate today and explained his veto on the Riverfront Resolution. Or rather, he offered as little substance as possible and said ‘Well that covers that, LOL’ (paraphrased).

Lariviere spent a fair bit of time talking up the University’s presence at the BCS game, calling the pep rally and general student involvement “astonishing”. After smiling and expressing how proud he was of the school, he delivered a curt performance on the subject of the Riverfront Resolution. Lariviere said there has been no change since he last discussed the topic, that the IGA was addressed thoroughly by both the city and UO, and ended by saying he was puzzled by this situation. Of the 12 questions he was presented with, albeit on rather short notice, he said he had no answers to any of them because that is not the sort of relationship he wants with the Senate. He hopes we can engage in a relationship that will “move [things] forward”. After spending three entire minutes on the controversial topic he went back to how much he enjoyed the enthusiasm showed during the football game, and quickly ended his speech with a jovial, “That’s the news from Lake Wobegon!”

(more…)

Here is Altman’s resignation letter, being all ballsy and shit:

Dear Senators and ASUO,

Having the opportunity to work with such bright and motivated people in the ASUO has been a highlight of my time at the University. Unfortunately, I must conclude my service for the ASUO Senate and Programming Finance Committee.
After much thought and internal struggle, resignation from Senate Seat 3 has become unavoidable. As a financially independent student, there is a necessity to maintain a job other than my Senate seat. Working a minimum of 25 hours a week for Senate and PFC has made it impossible for me to work enough hours at my other job to meet my financial needs.
My commitment to the ASUO has grown since I was elected last Spring, but it would be unfair for me to maintain my Senate Seat when I know that I cannot give more of my time to the position. I hope that whomever is appointed to Senate Seat 3 can dedicate themselves to Senate and PFC for the amazing amount of time that is demanded.

I would like to mention, also, that I do not approve of increasing stipends to better compensate ASUO members. Serving the University should not be encouraged monetarily, as students are not yet professionals. Because we are initially students, I also think that the hours necessary for being a part of the ASUO could be decreased through furthered efficiency in meetings, and a reevaluation of committee responsibilities.
From the perspective of PFC, for example, I feel that the Controllers do most of the budgeting work for the Programs, and the executive recommendations are commonly the best option for Program i-fee allocations. Because of this, I feel that Executive Recommendations could be the initially allocated amount, which would create necessity for Budget Hearings only when the PFC recalls a group, or when the group would like to appeal the Executive Recommendation. This would eliminate Budget Hearings that are unnecessary (inefficient).

Thank you for the educational experience, and I wish you the best of luck through Budget Hearings, and in to Spring term.

Respectfully,
Erin Altman

What you’re saying, Erin, is that as elected officials you should shirk your responsibilities and let the ASUO Executive — nay, the ASUO Finance Coordinator (the one who sets the executive recommendation), an APPOINTED INDIVIDUAL — make budgetary decisions. You are saying the finance committees should bend to the will of the ASUO executive and not make any of their own decisions based on individual research.

From what I’ve seen thus far, the PFC hasn’t done any individual research. As such, I can see why you would say the exec recs are the way to go — it seems you don’t know any better.

Every budget hearing is necessary because you, as PFC members, are supposed to know the ins and outs of every budget. If you didn’t have hearings, you wouldn’t have a chance to talk to programs about what they’re spending and why they’re spending it. You wouldn’t be the safeguard between my money and people spending it poorly. Honestly, you haven’t been doing much of that yet anyway (save for the Insurgent and I applaud you for that), but regardless. You are supposed to know more about the budgets of these programs than the programs themselves — that’s why you are assigned tags. You’re supposed to talk to the representatives, get a feel for what they want to do, and help them do it. The one making the executive recommendations (Finance Coordinator Colleen Soles*) is one person who can’t possibly get to know every program individually, and allocates based on a model.

This year, the PFC decided, instead of doing the due diligence and creating a model for themselves, to adopt the Executive’s funding model without fully understanding what it meant and its implications. You, as PFC, can allocate money however you see fit. I would hope that would come in the form of making rational decisions based on fundraising and amount spent, but even if not, it is important that you, as elected officials, are making the decisions.

Don’t bend to the will of the Executive. Do your due diligence and give programs the money they deserve and can actually use.

*Although, let’s be honest, it’s more likely Amelie herself.

In today’s Ol’ Dirty:

Cheap Kelly stopped at a favorite local pizza shop on Christmas Eve. He was served two of the freshest possible slices. It is a small town, Chip. In your moment of luck and fame and good fortune (and obscene contract money), it seems like you might have enough class to leave a tip.

Until then, your name is Cheap Kelly. Go Ducks.

Editor’s note: It may have been Chip’s doppelganger.

The dramatic story of the 2010 elections up until election day was that of the “Tea Party,” a group that grew from anti-tax protestors to a national political front, albeit a somewhat disorganized and unusual one. They were noteworthy in their anger and their disregard for political establishments, which combined to create their throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater treatment of incumbent moderate Republicans. In the end, they had a few victories, such as putting Pat Toomey and Rand Paul in the US Senate, and a whole host of defeats, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller and Christine O’Donnell leading the pack. Particularly entertaining is that Miller was bested by a write-in candidate, the incumbent, Sen. Lisa Murkowski. As a whole, the Tea Party revolution was pretty meek. Furthermore, ultra conservative Tea Party nominees were the direct cause of a number of Republican losses in races that should have been slam dunks, Angle and O’Donnell again topping that list.

After the fact, Congress utilized the lame duck session to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” ratified an arms control treaty, passed a bill extending health-care benefits for those who worked on the cleanup of the World Trade Center site and cut a bi-partisan deal with President Barack Obama to extend some tax cuts but not others. Naturally, the Tea Party was pissed.

As the New York Times explained, “Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, a social-networking Web site, declared after the approval of the arms-control treaty that ‘the G.O.P. has caved.’” Of course, Tea Partiers claimed next-to sole credit for all of the lame duck session’s products which met with Tea Party approval. Again from the Times, “’The Republicans, frankly, have been a disaster,’ [Mark] Meckler (co-founder of a noted “Tea Party” group) said. ‘They stood strong on some things, but the only reason they stood strong is because we stood behind them with a big stick.’”

The election, its results, the resulting lame duck session, and right-wing reaction to it demonstrate, to me at least, that the Tea Party is only a major political force in the minds of Tea Party members, candidates who receive their political life or lifeblood (read: cash) from Tea Party groups, and Fox News. Their actual impact on real lawmaking, not to mention lawmakers other than their own bunch, would appear to be fairly minimal and often procedural, rather than substantive. Sure, Republicans will read the Constitution at the beginning of the 112^th Congress and force its reference in new justifications for prospective laws, but I don’t anticipate a vast change in the workings of Congress as a result of the Tea Party. Thank God. On the downside, this will only serve to fuel the fires of Tea Party politics, so I’m sure we’re not done with them yet.

Recently, students at Stanford had a novel idea: they petitioned to be excused from classes during the Orange Bowl. Of course, that went down in flames- glorious flames. Their commendable effort leaves me wondering “why UO hasn’t asked the same?”

The petition, signed by over 1,600 Stanford students did not ask for a shift in the academic calendar, but merely the excusal of those students traveling with the team. The petition argued that Stanford was known as a team that didn’t travel well and students wanted to change their reputation but were worried about missing valuable class time:

Stanford has been ruthlessly defamed across the country as being a school that doesn’t “travel well”, a highly contestable assertion given our presence at last year’s Sun Bowl. We believe that Stanford students should have the chance to attend the Orange Bowl without fearing that a professor will drop them from a course.

Therefore, President Hennessy, we petition you, Provost Etchemendy, and Vice Provost Elam to excuse the absences of those students who will be traveling to Miami, so we may witness a piece of Cardinal history while once and for all putting to rest the notion that Stanford fans do not support their world-class sports teams.

The request was both logical and reasonable, in fact, too reasonable. Why should campus only close for traveling students and students affiliated with the team? All of these students take up a significant portion of the student population, at UO it’s estimated at about 2,000 students (out of the university’s 23,389). With all of these students absent from classes, it would make more sense to shift the academic calendar.Yeah, it would be slightly inconvenient, but less of a mess than the disaster no-show drops are going to cause. In addition, when too many individuals are absent, the whole class suffers as they try to catch up.

Furthermore, traveling students are not the only ones affected by Bowl games. It’s not an excuse, but it’s a fact that for many students, watching their team on TV and getting smashed are simultaneous. Presumably, faculty also partakes in the football watching, though  the after game tradition of celebrating by drinking or drinking ones sorrows away seem to include the whole community. The day after a bowl game is a day needed for necessary recovery. Therefore, when a bowl game conflicts with an academic calendar, it is in the best interest of that school to readjust its schedule. But I digress; students from Stanford were met with a somewhat pointed letter from the Provost (emphasis mine): (more…)

As families come together for the holiday season, it’s important for us to remember the less fortunate among us. Even as we share in the joy and love of this time of year, there are still those poor souls who quite obviously don’t have two brain cells to rub together to warm themselves during these cold winter nights. So let us pause to remember those who, but for the grace of common sense, we could easily be this December. Like these idiots:

Airport security officers in Lafayette, Louisiana who, after seeing an “odd and not readily identifiable” package in a scanning machine, evacuated the terminal and closed the airport while they figured out what it was. It turned out to be a headlamp and some frozen chicken. Bonus points available if Homeland Security bans meat products in checked baggage. (Thanks for this one to The Daily Advertiser)

Administrators at a high school in Haymarket, Virginia who couldn’t give the same reason twice for why they slapped ten unsuspecting bros with detention and other punishments for giving candy canes to their fellow students. Their stated motivations varied from preventing litter to student safety (administrators alleged that the candy could be fashioned into a weapon.) Furthermore, one official seemed to thing that the “Christmas cheer” the students were spreading could cause other students to commit suicide. (Thanks to WUSA-TV)

The editorial board of The New York Times who proclaimed President Obama’s legislative agenda during the 111^th Congress to be a rousing success. Except for the part where Congress, driven by a heavily marginalized Republican Party, basically held him at gunpoint to massively rewrite his health-care proposal, refused to pass the Dream Act, forced him into extending the vast majority of the tax cuts he campaigned against, and repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” not because they wanted to, but because the Federal Judiciary was about to do so for them. Yeah, guys… quite the grand achievement on the national political scene.

St. Paul, Minnesota school officials who are apparently banning not only the sale of, but the possession and consumption of candy and other sweets during the school day. As told by The Star Tribune: “’All my friends say, ‘This really sucks,’’ said Misky Salad, a 10-year-old fifth-grader at Chelsea Heights Elementary. ‘A lot of us feel it should be up to us to determine what we should do with our bodies.’” Look forward to kids in St. Paul ducking into bathrooms to “hit some M’s (M&Ms)” and sitting out back drinking Coca-Cola from a brown paper bag.

Everyone involved in the arrest of a 13 year old who was caught writing on a piece of paper with a permanent marker in class one day in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The boy’s teacher, thinking the marker would bleed through the paper and stain the desk, and citing an obscure ordnance against the possession of such markers, promptly called the police who transported the suspect to a juvenile detention facility, while taking the marker into evidence. It pains me to decide who is more absurd in this instance: the teacher who called the cops, the officer who actually arrested this kid, the police chief who had not fired that officer yet, or the local lawmakers who voted to ban Sharpies. Stories like these make me feel better about covering the ASUO because it really could, in all reality, be a lot worse. Ok, maybe just a little worse. (Thanks to The Smoking Gun)