This piece reflects the views of the author, Ravi Cullop, and not those of Emerald Media Group. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to [email protected].
——-
The ability for non-UO-affiliated contracted services to utilize referendum and ballot initiatives to secure student Incidental Fee funding is deeply problematic. I strongly urge students to vote “yes” on Ballot Measure 2 during the ASUO winter special election to ensure fairness and accountability in the ASUO budget process.
While intended to empower students in financial decision-making, referendum funding has sparked valid concerns about equity, transparency, and its impact on ASUO-funded student organizations and departments.
Referendum funding allows only contracted services that aren’t affiliated with UO, like OSPIRG, to be guaranteed I-Fee funding by putting a ballot measure on the ASUO spring elections ballot instead of engaging in the annual budget process.
This impacts the budgets of student organizations and all programs reliant on the I-Fee by directly cutting into the pool of funds capped by state law. This renders student organizations powerless to secure adequate funding, and ASUO powerless to provide it to them.
Ending referendum funding often raises concerns about student autonomy in the ASUO budget process. The students who make decisions in the typical budget process are democratically elected specifically to decide the budget. UO students already have the power to shape budget decisions through voting for their representatives in annual elections and running for those positions themselves.
OSPIRG is the only contracted service to ever receive funding through referendum. In the 2022 ASUO election, OSPIRG was able to secure $178,671 in additional funding for 2024-26. This 113% budget increase was voted on by only 1,754 students. This highlights the challenges of referendum funding, which extends beyond OSPIRG’s usage of it — if every contracted service successfully sought that much money through referendum, it would cause an unprecedented financial disaster for every ASUO-funded student organization and department.
Additionally, referendum funding lacks the essential checks and balances of the typical budget process, enabling off-campus groups to exploit ballot measures for student funds without accountability. Referendum funding bypasses the budget process, stripping oversight mechanisms and rendering services that utilize it immune to accountability.
ASUO is obligated to ensure responsible stewardship of student funding and hold contracted services to their promises to students, an impossible task when the contract itself is rendered obsolete by guaranteed funding.
For example, OSPIRG’s current contract requires them to do a racial justice campaign. They have not upheld this obligation and repeatedly evade the issue in ASUO Senate hearings, as documented in Senate minutes. However, due to their funding being guaranteed, ASUO can’t hold them to that promise they made to students.
A contract is not a blank check, and referendum funding creates a “get out of jail free” card for contracted services who don’t follow their contract and misuse student funds.
Voting “yes” on Ballot Measure 2 supports an ASUO budget process that upholds the principles of fairness, equity, and accountability which benefits student organizations and all I-Fee paying students.
[Editor’s note: Ravi Cullop is a UO junior and currently occupies ASUO Academic Senate Seat 16.]