Secret Agent Man

Old student politicians never die; they just re-enroll as undergraduates. Steve Masat, a.k.a. Tristan Masat is back. For those of you too drunk or too young to remember, Steve Masat was the source of much turmoil on the Student Senate and ASUO of three and four years ago. The story, now part of student government folklore, is enough to make any politically aware student cringe.

During the 1992-93 school year, Masat, regardless of first name, was chairman of the Incidental Fee Committee, the body that allocated the incidental fee to student groups, and a voting member of the EMU Board. That year, the IFC wanted more control over the budget allocations from student fees given to the EMU. The ASUO remained a third party to the discussion, but did express concern that the IFC seemed to want to control student activity through its control over student fees, as well. Many members of student government described Masat as a micro manager, and further described him as too interested in taking control and amassing power.

When then ASUO president Bobby Lee appointed Commentator Editor Ed Carson to the IFC, Masat and others on the committee accused him of being racist and homophobic, hardly a sentiment of political tolerance.

Due to conflict between the IFC and the EMU Board over power issues, UO President Myles Brand proposed taking away the IFC's authority to allocate money to the EMU in a move to reduce conflict between the two branches of student government.

Over the course of weeks, Emerald editorials went from praising the IFC as a haven of democracy to a waste of student time and money. It seemed that Masat was making no friends in student government and in student media, mostly due to power hungry grandstanding.

Masat and the IFC were criticized by Bobby Lee and the administration for canceled budget hearings, paperwork delays and other examples of dereliction of duty. Lee asked the IFC to disband. Masat ignored the request. Lee turned to the Constitution Court to check the IFC. The Court gave the committee a May 7, 1993 deadline to finish the budgets.

Bobby Lee resigned his post after the ASUO elections were over. President-elect Eric Bowen appointed Lee to the IFC. Masat was the only member of the IFC who was slated to return the next year as a member. Three IFC members asked Masat to resign and he refused.

In the May 20, 1993 issue of the ODE IFC Member Mehretab was quoted as saying, "[Masat's] impinged on the whole notion of student government...Everything he's done this year is to lessen the IFC's credibility."

A justice on the Constitution Court filed an injunction against the committee, stating that it was a violation of the rules to remove the chair with less than five votes. The committee voted to change the rules in light of only having six people on the committee, and the Constitution Court reconvened to rule in favor of the move. The IFC then voted to remove Masat from the Committee.

Masat attempted to run the following meeting of the IFC. A shouting match ensued and an OPS officer was called to remove Masat from the meeting. A few days later, Lee accused Masat of physically assaulting him by pushing him up against a wall and making racist statements. Masat denied the allegations. Lee filed an official physical and racial assault complaint with OPS.

The next year, the IFC went through a change of name and form. Now a subcommittee of the Student Senate, the Programs Finance Committee had only the preliminary say over program budgets; the Senate had secondary approval and the ASUO and administration had the final say.

The change brought a more conservative face to the fee-allocating body. Several of the student senators in both the senate and on the committee expressed concern about the allocation of fees. A zero percent benchmark was set to keep the incidental fee at the same level as the previous year. The problem facing programs was that for every program that would receive a budget increase, another program would have to eat the difference.

Early in the fee allocating hearings of last year, Students for Choice sat on the chopping block of the PFC, which felt that the group failed to show a clear goal statement that contributed to the "cultural, physical or educational development" of students. Students for Choice was later funded by the Student Senate, but the move of the PFC was indicative of a critical, belt-tightening mentality bred by the zero percent benchmark.

In contrast, this year's Student Senate and PFC encourages any anti-benchmark dialogue that students and student groups might come up with because of their reluctance to both commit to the benchmark and take the political fall for not using the benchmark. The bottom line to the PFC is that it is "too hard" and unpopular to deny groups budget increases. The bottom line to students will be an increasing incidental fee that is compulsory for all students at the UO.

Masat recently applauded the proposed move away from the benchmark on student taxes or "ASUO union dues." Aside from his general approval of an increasing incidental fee, he lambasted the Commentator as a primary agent in the battle against increasing incidental fees. The lambaste was hardly necessary. The Commentator does not approve of unnecessary taxation of students, particularly for groups that violate the law governing the allocation and use of public funds.

His efforts, however, went a step further. He charged the Commentator with bigotry and homophobia and quoted out of context a story from last year chronicling the battle against incidental fees at WOSC and PSU. While all of his quotations did appear in the article, Masat failed to properly attribute the remarks, insinuating that the views of Bill Hollingsworth and Matthew Montchalin were unilaterally supported by the paper.

His lack of basic writing skills aside, Masat misrepresents the fee by referring to it as our "ASUO union dues." The presumption of union dues-paying members is that each member benefits from the work of the union that they pay for. There are 17,000 members of this so-called union and yet, only twelve percent feel affected enough by the use of student fees and the work of student groups and government to vote year after year. Clearly, the use of the fee doesn't encourage student political power or control; rather, it encourages students to stay home.

The problem with written battles between Commentator and Insurgent staff, both with questionable psychological stability, is that it takes away from students the right to hear the whole story and to decide for themselves. Masat's propaganda climate is precisely why students don't vote for students and student issues. They lack all the information, they're disgusted by their options, and after a very short while, they just don't care.

Apathy from the student body, however, should not give the PFC the idea that they have license to increase budgets as much as they want. When those that ask for unlimited budget increases are those that receive the budgets directly, student government officials should recognize a definite lack of a mandate. When 88 percent of students don't vote, it's indicative of apathy due to disgust, even if it does keep the ASUO nicely inbred. Asking 100 percent of students to pay more for something that revolts them is foolish and arrogant.

Yes, Tristan, students do want more power over their money. They want the power not to spend it on useless, politically incestuous groups that haven't done anything for all students' cultural, physical or educational development. They want the power to say no, a right you and the PFC of 1995-96 would deny them. The revolution is coming, but it'll be in your faces, not ours.

Farrah L. Bostic wrote this for the Oregon Commentator