The Emerald, as the only news organization that regularly covers the ASUO, has a duty to students. Because we are often the only ones paying attention, the burden is on us to ensure that the ASUO follows the rules that provide checks and balances necessary to any government. It is this responsibility that drove me to file a grievance against the members of the Student Senate’s over-realized committee.
The Senate’s over-realized fund contains about $750,000 of student fees. Campus organizations submitted proposals, and the committee members met Tuesday at 7 p.m. to determine which of those they would recommend to the Senate. The problem is that most people probably didn’t know when or where the meeting was being held – or that it was happening at all. According to Oregon Public Meetings Law and the ASUO’s rulebook, the Green Tape Notebook, public notice of the meeting had to be given 24 hours before the meeting was to start. Instead, notice was sent out only five hours before the meeting.
Knowing that this was against public meetings law, I attended the meeting and tried to persuade the committee’s chairman, Sen. Patrick Boye, to postpone the meeting until adequate public notice could be given. No dice. Boye contended that he could continue to hold the meeting without giving public notice because he had told one Emerald reporter about the meeting more than 24 hours in advance. Both ASUO President Emily McLain and Senate President Athan Papailiou told the senators that what they were doing was illegal.
Committee members discussed whether to continue with the meeting and decided that they should. They did not decide that they had followed the law, but instead decided that it wasn’t a public meeting at all so they didn’t have to follow any of the rules. They did not follow parliamentary procedure or take minutes. When the senators voted, they showed approval for proposals by showing a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down.” Essentially this constitutes voting in secret, yet another blatant violation of the law.
Late notice of one meeting might not be the end of the world. Nevertheless, the meeting that there is no record of and was held outside of all normal rules decided the fate of three-quarters of a million dollars of student fees. Students deserved to have that meeting in the open, with proper notice so they could plan on attending to defend and discuss their projects. Instead of operating in good faith, the committee made a mockery of the system to avoid having to follow the law. As cute as it is that they really thought they could just declare it was no longer a public meeting, the law still applied.
The Clark Document in the Green Tape Notebook clearly states that public meetings law applies in cases when any two or more senators meet “to deliberate on an issue before or intended to come before the Student Senate for decision.” Determining which proposals to recommend obviously meets these criteria, and declaring otherwise doesn’t make it so.
Although committee members say they acted in the best interest of the student body, there is no doubt that their actions reflect only the lazy desire to not have to reschedule their meeting. It is unfortunate that they allowed such a stain to mar the process, which otherwise went remarkably well and showcased the best in all senators who took part.
In response to my grievance, the ASUO Constitution Court prohibited the “ASUO Student Senate Over-Realized Committee and the ASUO Student Senate from implementing any rule, policy or resolution currently under review” for 10 days or until the Court could rule on my grievance.
Despite this ruling, the Senate met and approved over-realized proposals Wednesday night. The over-realized committee found a way to violate the spirit of the Court’s prohibition while supposedly not violating its technical content. The committee did not make a formal recommendation, but it was obvious that the work done at the illegal meeting overwhelmingly decided what would be approved. There was very little discussion on most of the proposals. Senators on the committee were generally in agreement on which proposals they should fund and in what amount, and mentioned countless times a “consensus” that they came to. They would have us believe that the consensus they’re referring to came from previous meetings that were held legally, but we all know better. Beyond the dubious “consensus” references, Sens. Nate Gulley and Lee Warneke both referred directly to decisions made in the illegal meeting. When discussing a request for new windows from EMU Facilities, Warneke said “There might have been a consensus, it was a late night.” When withdrawing a motion to fund Sustainable Advantage’s request for $6,000 more than asked for, Gulley said, “Since I seem to have misunderstood the consensus from last night, I would like to rescind my motion.”
And so, I will file a new grievance this morning.
[email protected]