The ASUO Programs Finance Committee on Tuesday will make its final decision on the Commentator’s resubmitted mission and goals statement — and then its budget for 2002-03.
The Commentator will reappear before PFC in the EMU Board Room at 6 p.m.
On Jan. 21, PFC tabled the budget, requesting that the terms “left wing,” “political” and “conservatism” be removed from the magazine’s mission and goals statement. The Commentator filed a grievance with the ASUO Constitution Court, and Jan. 29, the Constitution Court dismissed the case because PFC had not made a formal decision concerning the budget or the mission statement.
“They had no basis to file a grievance because we simply tabled the issue for further discussion,” PFC chairwoman Mary Elizabeth Madden said.
Commentator publisher Bret Jacobson said the court may have dismissed his grievance, but he did achieve part of his goal.
“They did what I wanted, which was to give the PFC an advisory on how to approach these mission statements,” Jacobson said.
In its decision, the court provided PFC with an advisory outlining the guidelines established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 2000 decision on Southworth v. the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
The Southworth decision changed the allocation of student incidental fees in universities across the country. Although the case did not directly affect the University of Oregon, the administration found it in its best interest to change some budgetary policies in the ASUO Clark Document to comply with the Southworth decision, EMU Director of Student Activities Gregg Lobisser said.
Southworth requires universities to allocate fees in a viewpoint-neutral manner, which means respecting minority views and funding programs that may be unpopular and contrary to majority opinion. Also, the finance committee’s members at the University can not make budgetary decisions based on their own personal value systems.
“The ASUO must use viewpoint neutrality when making decisions, but that does not mean they can’t look at the number of students participating and impacted by the program or the value of the program on campus,” Lobisser said. “There is criteria, but not all requests must be approved.”
But Madden and PFC disagree with the Commentator over what viewpoint neutrality means. Jacobson said every group has a political bias and their magazine’s mission statement is simply expressing their opinion. Madden said all PFC members respect the Commentator’s right to have an opinion, but believe the inclusion of political phrases in its mission statement violates the Green Tape Notebook, which contains the rules governing the ASUO.
“We simply tabled the Commentator to look at in more detail. Nothing has changed. We have a strong fee system and we still do,” Madden said.
Lobisser said the ASUO does not have the delegated authority to interpret U.S. laws, but it does have a responsibility to make decisions in a viewpoint-neutral manner.
PFC has been seeking advice from the administration on how to rule on the Commentator’s mission and goals statement. The Commentator has resubmitted the same statement because it believes it is an expression of the magazine’s opinion, Jacobson said.
“We feel we are basically correct in our interpretation of the law and our mission statement has been intact for 18 years,” Jacobson said.