Earlier this summer, the ASUO Executive made a policy change that has since become the first controversial issue surrounding the new administration.
The new policy eliminates free tickets for students’ spouses or partners on the grounds that the Executive is bringing consistency to the ASUO and “is looking out for students” by allowing free tickets to fee-paying students only, ASUO President Adam Walsh said.
The decision was made quickly during the summer, and Walsh said he knew non-traditional students, graduate and law-school students would be more significantly affected by the policy change than traditional undergraduates, who represent the majority of the student body.
After meeting with Athletic Department Finance Committee senators, administration advisers and the Athletics Department, who all supported the new policy, Walsh went ahead with the change.
“We all thought we were coming to the right decision, and I still feel that we made the best decision for students,” he said.
ADFC Senator Spencer Crum, however, did not approve of the decision. Crum said that a letter he received from Walsh gave him the impression that student spouses would have another option and would not be left with nothing. Crum said it was unfair to take away an allowance that was previously included in the incidental fee without a way of getting tickets some other way.
In a letter posted outside the ASUO office, Walsh wrote: “We want to maintain fairness through the process and programs of the incidental fee. In order to maintain fairness – only incidental fee paying students should receive the benefits of the incidental fee.”
Walsh did not contact either a law-school representative or the graduate school when reconfiguring the Spousal Equivalency Card program allowances, and it was after the decision was made that notifications were posted.
Law school responds
Law School Student Bar Association President James (Ed) Wilson and Law School representative Rob Craig of the Student Senate both expressed concern regarding the lack of consultation.
Because law-school students are older and therefore more likely to have a spouse or partner, they are disproportionately affected by the policy change, Wilson said.
“It’s problematic that there wasn’t more student input,” Wilson said. “Adam told me personally that he wanted to include everyone, but he neglected to contact me or anyone at the law school.”
Initially, Walsh said he did not know why he did not contact the law school. He later said he forgot to contact Wilson, although he was “on the list.”
Senator Craig agreed with
Wilson that the decision itself is not unreasonable.
“We don’t disagree with the reasoning, the only problem is that he got rid of the policy right before (the law) school year started, and because he discontinued the policy, people aren’t getting tickets. You can go, but your spouse can’t go,” Craig said, and for many people “that means you can’t go.”
The senator said the decision would not have met so much opposition had Walsh announced it or notified graduate students in advance so they could plan ahead.
“His actions seem like a blatant stab in the back to the law students after campaigning here so hard,” he said. “To make a decision this large is really unprofessional.”
President Walsh said that because the policy change was not affecting a significant portion of the student body, less effort went into notifying students.
“If it were a change that had an impact on the whole student body and had a broad impact instead of a specific one, we would have increased efforts to notify the students of the change in policy, whatever it was,” Walsh said.
“Most people find out as they come into the (ASUO) office, and there were letters handed out to anyone who came in,” Walsh added.
“When I heard about it, the policy was already in effect,” Craig said. “He should have notified people ahead of time; that’s the big complaint.”
Craig said that when he found out, it was not from the ASUO but from angry students.
Although Craig does not expect the Executive to reverse the policy, as Walsh has not been receptive to his suggestions so far, Craig will pursue the issue throughout the year and make a motion in Senate.
Graduate school responds
Walsh also neglected to contact the University Graduate School either during the decision-making process or afterward. Associate Dean Marian Friestad explained that the graduate school oversees the University’s graduate students, “all 4,000 of them.”
Friestad noted that, nationally, 35 percent of graduate students are married or have partners. Because graduate students are more likely to have partners, they are more likely to be affected by the policy change than undergraduates, Friestad said. She did not have an exact number of married undergraduates.
“No one from the ASUO contacted us,” Friestad said.
Friestad added that she is unsure whether the policy change will have a drastic effect on graduate students because they are known to spend less time on recreational activities.
“We do know that they spend a very large amount of time on campus and significantly less time on recreation, which might mean they are less likely affected,” she said.
Friestad pointed out the irony of the ASUO’s frequent criticism of the University for making changes without consultation.
“If we get calls and complaints we’ll be reporting back to the powers that be. We will certainly address it,” she said, speculating the there might be a “flare up of interest” when students return for school.
Ticket scarcity
Despite complaints from the graduate and law school, the members of the Executive have said they will not reverse the policy this year.
Both the ASUO president and Finance Coordinator Nicholas Hudson said they are willing to negotiate the policy for next year, but in the interest of fee-paying students, “the decision stands as it is for this contract year.”
The only option as far as the Executive is concerned is to wait until next year’s negotiations session with the Athletics Department and ask for more tickets.
For the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, the Athletics Department/ASUO agreement yielded 5,700 tickets for each of the three home football games during the school year and 2,550 for each of the three home games before school starts. Both of these agreements include 50 tickets allocated specifically for children of students.
That is 400 fewer tickets for the regular school year games than last year. Declines in the number of tickets provided usually depend on student attendance, but another factor is that the student section has been changed this season and fewer seats are available.
The 2005-06 University of Oregon Student Tickets Agreement states that “Student involvement is crucial, as the number of tickets purchased each year depends on student use,” and student use is judged from previous years’ attendance to events.
The agreement also states that in order to achieve the objective of high student attendance, “the Athletic Department offers and the ASUO agrees to provide incidental fees which will account for 50 percent of the Fair Market Value (FMV) of tickets.”
Contact Adam Walsh at [email protected] or 346-0624 and Senator Rob Craig at [email protected] to voice concerns.

[email protected]