The Programs Finance Committee finally approved the Oregon Commentator’s mission statement and budget
after a two-week break in the action to clear up the issue of “viewpoint neutrality” in programs’ mission statements. Commentator staff members came to the rescheduled hearing ready for a fight and equipped with case law. Television station KEZI even had a camera and reporter in the EMU Board Room ready to capture the action. The meeting started, and the PFC members approved the mission statement unanimously in one of the quickest, most anti-climactic and confusing moments student government has seen this year.
PFC seemingly laid down and played dead on the issue, giving no specific reasons on the public record as to what changed since they tabled the budget the first time. PFC chairwoman Mary Elizabeth Madden declined to comment on the passing of the mission statement.
Other PFC members acknowledged that the committee had sought advice from University administrators, and logic seems to hold that they would ask University General Counsel Melinda Grier for legal interpretation of the Southworth case, cited frequently by both sides as to why the Commentator should or shouldn’t get its funding.
The Southworth decision stated that the manner in which student fees are allocated should remain viewpoint neutral to avoid discrimination against fee-funded student groups.
Grier said through a spokeswoman that she could not confirm whether or not she counseled PFC because it would violate client
confidentiality.
Both PFC and Grier have a responsibility to students that must be upheld. Grier ought to help student leaders make an informed decision. She handles legal issues for the University a whole, but “University General Counsel” should encompass every part of the University, including student leaders.
PFC needs to state the reasons for its decisions on the public record, especially major decisions that have legal and economic ramifications. The public deserves to know the logic the PFC uses to allocate student fees. When discussions and decisions of this magnitude seemingly happen outside the board room, more questions arise than answers.