Emerald endorses ‘fiscally responsible’ Cortez
Eden Cortez is running unopposed for the ASUO Programs Finance Committee, Seat 1.
Cortez’s standard of judging whether groups that send money off campus should get money is refreshing; he says the group in question should benefit “every aspect of the (University) community.”
As long as Cortez demonstrates that kind of fiscally responsible thinking, we urge students to vote for him.

Sunder wants to keep student money on campus
Koushi Sunder would be a fresh voice on the ASUO Programs Finance Committee. Not only has she never been associated with ASUO, but she vehemently expressed her goal of keeping students in the loop with the budgeting of incidental fees.
We believe that the fewer ASUO and general student-group affiliations a PFC member has, the better. Why? Such candidates can often better avoid the specter of potential biases and petty loyalties, letting them focus just on the numbers. That, and only that, should be the PFC’s job.
Sunder also appears more critical of sending student money off-campus than her opponent, Khanh Le. She said funds should only be used for off-campus purposes if “students feel (the program) is something that they need or that affects them greatly.”
For these reasons, we urge students to vote Koushi Sunder for PFC, Seat 2.

Emerald cannot endorse one-year PFC candidate
Unfortunately, the Editorial Board could not endorse either of the two candidates for the ASUO Programs Finance Committee one-year At-large position.
The first candidate, Leslie Ankney, referred to Project Saferide as a program “used by a lot of women on campus and is valuable to them.” But Project Saferide doesn’t exist anymore. It merged last year with Night Ride after the women-only service was ruled discriminatory, and the two joined programs now comprise the “Assault Prevention Shuttle.”
Héctor Miramontes, on the other hand, has a clouded view of off-campus spending. He demonstrated awkward thinking when he said “I believe they do really good things” in reference to the United States Student Association, the Oregon Student Association and OSPIRG — not exactly a viewpoint-neutral stance. Miramontes goes further to say that sending student money off campus is worth it if “… the students believe they’re going to come back with some good leadership skills, good cultural experiences and bring that back to the University…” But some random student spending our money to learn more about a culture or leadership at some random conference is not what we call fiscally responsible. What, exactly, does the student body as a whole get out of it?

Hendryx would bring more neutral viewpoint to PFC
The Editorial Board had a little trouble with the ASUO Programs Finance Committee two-year At-large position. Both candidates, Jeff Hendryx and Mason Quiroz, have similar ideas and levels of competence.
However, one element of Quiroz’s platform troubled us. When responding about where he stands on sending money off campus for environmental and student advocacy groups, Quiroz said, “I want to make sure that they’re not doing anything that’s contrary to the ideas of the University, anything that’s even too controversial or too radical. Not that I’m conservative, but I don’t want them to just go out there and blow a bunch of money on stuff that’s just not going to have a positive effect or reflect good on the University.”
We believe that a PFC member should not think of funding in terms of whether it will “reflect good on the University,” but instead whether student money is being used in a fiscally responsible way. Also, a PFC member should not express himself or herself as liberal, moderate or conservative, but instead step outside political labels and simply focus on the numbers.
For these reasons we strongly urge students to vote Jeff Hendryx for PFC At-large, two-year term. Hendryx will better maintain a viewpoint-neutral funding process.