Reflecting on last year’s process of funding student groups through the Programs Finance Committee, one quality characterizes the ordeal: ineptitude.
The proceedings were delayed for several weeks after the committee overspent its budget and the PFC failed to keep proper meeting minutes. PFC members also generated intense controversy after they rejected the Oregon Commentator’s mission and goals statement.
Throughout the process, the ASUO Executive, bound by the separation of powers dictated by the ASUO Constitution, played a background role. Following tradition, the Executive’s power was limited to making budget recommendations for groups and vetoing the PFC’s final budget.
This year, the Executive is taking on a more active role – a move we cautiously support.
In short, the Executive has found an end-run around the PFC process that will allow it to determine whether student groups get funding. With a goal of confirming that groups are “advantageous to the cultural or physical development of students” and that groups do not duplicate services, the Executive has created the Recognition Review Committee. The five-member board, headed by ASUO Programs Administrator David Goward, aims to review 30 groups before budget season.
The RRC initially garnered criticism, and rightly so. Goward announced the committee at a Programs Council meeting last week without warning. Because the Executive has the power to disband groups – not merely defund them – some group leaders expressed concerns that RRC members hold too much power.
The RRC indeed holds great power, and it must use that power responsibly. The very stability and success of student groups hinges on the virtue of this committee.
During his bid for ASUO vice president last year, Goward vowed to bring integrity to student government. The RRC should adopt this philosophy and work fairly with all student groups.
Some groups have historically duplicated services, such as when Night Ride and Project Saferide were ordered by the federal Office of Civil Rights to merge into the Assault Prevention Shuttle. If clear duplications exist, they should be addressed by the RRC.
However, the Commentator debacle of last year clearly demonstrates what can happen if committee members who hold grudges against another student organization use their power for personal retribution.
Based on these factors, here’s one example to watch closely: What will happen to the Designated Driver Shuttle, which was recently placed on probation for an alcohol-related incident? How closely does its services mimic those of APS? Without a thorough study of both groups, we can’t make that judgment. But the RRC could, if it so chooses.
The lack of a formal process to elect members to RRC was startling. Group leaders present at a recent Programs Council meeting were asked to elect two RRC members via e-mail. The other two RRC members are appointed by Goward.
Thankfully, students may appeal RRC decisions to the Constitution Court. We believe the court, which showed exemplary logic and objectivity last year, will be fit to review any grievances against the RRC.
As this new process unfolds, we will watch closely to discover whether it is a hindrance or a help to the budget process. To ensure it is the latter, we charge Goward and ASUO President Adam Walsh to keep promises to infuse this student government with viewpoint-neutrality and integrity.