Let the record stand: Dead horses aren’t my thing, and beating them even less.
But this matters enough for the story to continue: While Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group Board Chair Charles Denson@@http://directory.uoregon.edu/telecom/directory.jsp?p=findpeople%2Ffind_results&m=student&d=person&b=name&s=Charles+Denson@@ was still in that role, ASUO Vice President Katie Taylor, his wife, cast the tiebreaking vote on the benchmark his group was in.
In our hours of research (translated, “minutes of consulting the ASUO voting records Google doc”), we found that after a motion to approve the Athletics and Contracts Finance Committee for a 5.14 percent increase failed, a motion to increase it by 7.02 percent passed, barely. 10-9 — and that was with a tie-breaking vote from Mrs. Taylor.
Let’s ignore for a second that the difference in the motions was entirely a difference of funding levels for OSPIRG. Let’s also ignore for a second that Taylor would have voted in favor of growth for this budget regardless of who she was married to, given that she was involved with the group before the marriage and approves of its mission on campus.
But Denson was still OSPIRG’s board chair at this point.
There is a simple level of common sense, public governance that was broken when Taylor did not recuse herself from this vote — when she was literally married to the result. Even if it had been public knowledge to the Senate body  — which we now know it wasn’t — there would be a case to say that she should not have voted.
I have seen Senators who created Senate special requests to fund Senate projects who abstained from the vote, for the sole reason that it creates the potential of a conflict of interest.@@boosh!@@
And, as it happens, the difference between those two motions, the difference between the 5.14 percent ACFC increase and the 7.02 percent increase? It’s all OSPIRG. And by this premise, when the vote came down to Taylor, the question came down to ethics.
Where are we now? Well, the damage has been done. It’s up to the student government — and ultimately@@kinda wanna take ultimately out@@ the potential involvement of the ASUO’s Constitution Court — to decide if this vote, without disclosure and with a complete conflict of interest, is worth removal from office.
On the one hand, the benchmarks were set in November, and according to the ASUO Constitution, those benchmarks are established by Nov. 30 for the following year. So, there’s not a whole lot that can be fixed as the benchmark can’t been changed.
On the other hand, any attempts by Taylor in the past week to argue that private and public work lives did not interact were categorically false.@@caught lyin’!@@
“If you look at the work I’ve done this year, it’s been very much separate from OSPIRG … and nothing to do with my job.” Wrong.@@oooo….frank — tell em’!@@
“I am not the person on ASUO that is charged with giving OSPIRG recommendations.” True, but in this case, her vote passed it.
Any variation on this argument is just flat wrong.
I don’t know what alternative to propose when a vice president is involved in an issue that brings Senate to a tie, but there should have been one used in this case. Option: Expand the tiebreaking vote provision from “when the Vice President shall cast the tiebreaking vote” by adding “and if the Vice President should abstain, the tiebreaking vote shall be cast by a select member of the executive.”
Simply put, wrongdoing was done here, and there are two courses of action that need to be taken: a change to the constitution that will help us avoid this awkward situation in the future, and a recognition that the ethical code — while unwritten — was broken.