Alex Bjorvik
Age: 20
Major: Pre-business
Hometown: Prineville, Oregon
Year: Sophomore
Emerald: What qualifies you for the position of PFC Senator?
Bjorvik: I have high school experience in leadership and in finance, I served on a district-wide finance committee to cut $500,000 out of the budget so I have some experience looking for pennies in tight places and even though we aren’t cutting our budget it’s still important to keep very close track of every dollar so that we are accountable to the students.
In college I consider my business and accounting background and the experience that I will receive over the next two years to help me greatly with the financial operations of the student government.
Emerald: Why do you want the job?
Bjorvik: I thought it would be a good way to serve the students of the University. I watched a few of the PFC meetings this year and was somewhat dismayed. It was more like a political forum than a finance body. I’d like to see more focus on the bottom line, like the big picture of the bulk amount of money that we have and how to properly allocate that to students so that it’s fair and that we remain under the limit.
Emerald: In light of the ASUO retreat to Sunriver last October what do you think is the best way to ensure proper accountability from student leaders next year?
Bjorvik: It seems to me that in all retreats such as that we should have an officer of the press there. The press historically has been responsible for tracking such things and by bringing them along with the ASUO not only would there be a record of anything official that happened there but also to be an intermediary source to make sure everything was within the guidelines.
Emerald: In light of the actions taken with the Oregon Commentator this year by the PFC, what aspects of a student group would you take into consideration when considering the approval of a mission and goals statement?
Bjorvik: I think the whole issue of mission and goals is kind of up in the air because it is dictated by the Clark Document that the PFC is responsible for approving that but given the Supreme Court rulings and what not it makes me wonder whether it’s the purpose of the PFC to approve that or maybe the Senate as a whole. So I would say that perhaps the PFC should just make sure that groups are making sure, or rather the PFC is making sure groups remain fiscally responsible while the senate body as a whole is responsible for approving the goals and mission statements of groups.
Emerald: What areas of the budget do you plan to target to bring PFC spending within its benchmark?
Bjorvik: Well, every year by default from previous year, if we take exactly the same numbers we can be relatively confident that we’ll be within the bracket. So mostly it’s just going to be looking out for where we, like the three percent upgrade for just like the normal costs, we have to keep our eyes on that. But also it’d be nice to work with the groups and have more of a dialogue with them to find where in the budget they think they could possibly sacrifice dollars. So it’s not the PFC dictating where money needs to come from but rather a collaborative effort between all the groups and the PFC to make sure the benchmark is met.