In light of this year’s events involving the various branches of the ASUO, and the subsequent Emerald coverage and editorials, we feel that a response is more than necessary. It is our obligation to inform students of the facts, a duty that the Emerald has proven it is unwilling to fulfill.
The most recent ASUO event the Emerald has reduced to tabloid fodder was the Emerald’s PFC hearing. The student-elected Programs Finance Committee is independent from the ASUO Executive and is responsible for allocating student funds to more than 140 programs. The Emerald is partially funded through this process.
During their hearing, Mason Quiroz, one member of the PFC, made a motion to defund the Emerald based on what he said is an excess of papers being printed. The other members of the PFC, and the Executive, recoiled. Adam Petkun, ASUO President, immediately voiced his opposition and willingness to veto such a motion if it were to pass. Not surprisingly, the motion fell far short of the unanimous vote it would have needed to succeed. Instead, the Emerald was allocated $111,992, in accordance with the Executive recommendation.
The Executive recommendation, prepared by Finance Coordinator Mike Martell and Vice President Mena Ravassipour, was based on a readership survey the Emerald provided, which it is contractually obliged to conduct. The Emerald has since said they’re not satisfied with this survey and do not believe its results to be accurate. The Executive welcomes the Emerald to conduct another, more satisfactory, reader survey per their contract; they have had two years to do so, yet have done nothing.
The content of the Emerald was never addressed in the hearing. Coverage of the ASUO Finance retreat or any other matter was in no way introduced as an issue to be taken into consideration with regards to the budgetary process. To allege as much is a serious accusation that impugns the
integrity of everyone involved in
the process.
What’s more disturbing is the Emerald’s willingness to use this as a basis for further accusations of censorship. What seems more conceivable is that the Emerald believes that through such threatening editorials it can scare the PFC into giving it additional student dollars. Fortunately, we take the incidental fee more seriously than that.

2004-05 ASUO Executive