Student government’s Recognition Review Committee, which ensures student programs meet ASUO and University standards, is facing a review by the Constitution Court that will decide whether the new committee is constitutional.
The new committee is generating praise from some student groups while also raising questions about the committee’s power and legality from others.
RRC will decide whether student groups’ mission and goal statements meet standards and whether those groups are following those statements. Approved groups are allowed entrance into the Programs Finance Committee hearings, where incidental fees are allocated.
Charlotte Nisser, general manager of campus radio station KWVA and Constitution Court justice, said last week that the court is reviewing and discussing the duties and procedures of the Recognition Review Committee. The court has the authority to review the committee because the Green Tape Notebook, a book of rules and guidelines for student government, requires that it approves new policies, she said.
The committee must be approved before it can make a decision.
“I can tell you there will be a decision in the next week,” she said.
David Goward, programs administrator and chairman of the ASUO’s RRC, circulated a memo at Friday’s Programs Council meeting with “important clarifications and explanations” about the new committee. The memo was mainly in response to student groups’ concerns about losing funding through the RRC process.
Last year, PFC, which will continue to review mission and goals statements after RRC, twice attempted to defund the Oregon Commentator, a libertarian opinion journal, by denying its mission and goals. Some PFC members felt the journal propagated hate speech and wasn’t advantageous to students or University diversity.
Goward’s memo stated that RRC does not decide which programs are “worthy of funding”; it only decides whether a program is “worthy of ASUO recognition.”
Programs that aren’t recognized can’t receive funding.
“We can unrecognize a group, which means they aren’t eligible to go through the PFC process, and if they cannot go through the PFC process, they cannot receive funds,” he said.
In the memo, it states that “The only instance that a program might not qualify for continuation of recognition is if its Mission and Goals statements have drastically changed since the previous year.” Last year, every program was reviewed by the PFC before receiving funding.
However, Goward said in an interview Thursday that recognition is also contingent on group membership, fulfillment of mission and goals statements, and whether the group is consistent with regulations.
Goward said it is likely the RRC will recognize all current groups.
But he later said that Designated Driver Shuttle, which is on probation for having alcohol in its office for the second time in five months, could lose funding.
Goward said that in 98.9 percent of cases, programs lose recognition after somebody files a grievance – a formal complaint – with the ASUO Executive or the Constitution Court. Nobody has filed a grievance against DDS.
Community Internship Program liaison Richard Malena said after the meeting he’s glad the RRC will be streamlining the PFC process and making it faster and easier in the future.
“I think it’s a great idea if it eliminates mistakes,” he said.
Student Senate President Stephanie Erickson questioned during the meeting whether the committee does or will have any bylaws. Goward told her that officials will create the committee based on a memo from former ASUO President Adam Petkun, who established the basis for the RRC near the end of his presidency in May.
“If they’re going to be making decisions that affect the incidental fee, they should have bylaws,” Erickson said after the meeting. “I don’t think a memo can be bylaws.”
“I think it would be a more transparent process if they didn’t just stick with the memo,” Erickson added.
Members of the new committee will have to abide by the ASUO’s rule of viewpoint neutrality, a policy that requires political and religious affilition not be taken into account when allocating monies to student groups.
“Viewpoint neutrality, that is going to be the crux of the RRC,” Goward said.
If students on the RRC are members, or have an “overwhelming” investment in a program, they will abstain from voting to recognize that group.
“That is our duty to you,” Goward told a crowd of program leaders at the meeting. As a former member of Assault Prevention Shuttle, Goward said he will not be voting during its hearing. Also, Senator Mike Filippelli, who is sitting on the RRC, will not be able to vote on Amnesty International.
The first “meet and greet” RRC meeting will be held today at 6 p.m. Goward said he will post the location outside the ASUO office, EMU Suite 4, sometime today. It is open to the public. RRC members will discuss how to conduct meetings and will create a list of member conflicts of interest.
This year, RRC will review the first 30 programs alphabetically and 15 to 20 new programs. The hearings should be complete by Nov. 10., Goward said.

Contact the campus and federal politics reporter at [email protected]