News

Down But Not Out

OSPIRG suffers a surprising defeat in the student election and is now scrambling to find a way back on campus. The question is, how much harm have they done themselves?

So what is the "Public Interest"? It seems like an odd concept to define--the public (well, in a democracy at least) is made up of individuals, and in turn their beliefs and rights as individuals are held up as a sacred institution. An organization who endeavored to look out for each and every individual making up the public would appear to have their work cut out for them.

But then again, the Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG) has never shied away from telling the public what is best for them. As an organization they have cast a wide net, taking on a diverse platform of environmental and consumer rights issues. The work they have done has touched many, even when it has been unsuccessful, and OSPIRG has undoubtedly been one of the more active student groups during its 27-year tenure on campus. OSPIRG's position as voice for student concerns has been all but automatic since its inception. The organization's livelihood has historically been dependent on the outcome of student government elections. Low voter turnout and OSPIRG's extensive organizing capabilities insured that the short money in student elections was always on OSPIRG. Through the elections, OSPIRG was able to extract a portion of the incidental fees assessed to every student every term. This year OSPIRG was the second largest student group on campus, with a budget of $147,000 dollars, or approximately ten dollars a year from every student.

However, the recent student government elections yielded a surprising result. Having lost a student government election for the first time in 27 years, OSPIRG has decided to pack up and leave campus, a decision that has brought many involved with the organization literally to tears.

In a letter to the editor in the Oregon Daily Emerald, Glenda Marshall, State Chair for OSPIRG, and Jereme Gryzbowski, University Chapter Chair of OSPIRG, write, "It is both with sadness and gratitude that we write to you. The recent ASUO elections yielded a decision by the student body to close our chapter of OSPIRG." Many students, even those who voted against OSPIRG, are upset at the organization's decision to leave campus, citing the vote wasn't really about the existence of the organization.

Pre-engineering student Darren Walsh echoed the sentiments of many, when he wrote a letter to the editor in response to OSPIRG's decision to leave campus. "Excuse me," he writes, "but when did OSPIRG end? I only recall OSPIRG being denied the incredible sum of money they 'needed' for their budget. Since when does the existence of an organization that thrives on volunteer projects depend on whether or not they get their budget?"

Although many students saw the group as active in the campus community, the bulk of this activism seemed relegated to volunteer projects in the community, such as OSPIRG's highly successful stream walks. The group could offer little in the way of fiscal accountability, since the bulk of the money that the students allocate the group comes in one lump sum, which leaves campus and is pooled with other statewide resources. Nearly every other student group on campus has to submit an itemized budget, and their money is further controlled by the University's practice of forcing them to use purchase orders, making every expenditure involving student fees easier to track. OSPIRG claims that they can do more by pooling their money, while critics complain this slush fund makes it impossible to determine how much of UO students' money is being spent directly on activism related to student concerns versus less desirable costs, like unnecessary overhead and paid lobbyists.

This, however, is just the central debate surrounding the issue; the significance of OSPIRG's defeat is almost more important, symbolically and historically, than the irony of the voting public saying the organization no longer represents the "Public Interest." The national PIRG movement began at the UO in 1971 after Ralph Nader wrote a book suggesting that University students could tax themselves a small amount and use this money as a source to fund their activist causes. But critics complain that what started out as a noble attempt at activism, has now slipped carelessly into a money-driven lobby group which preys upon the political naivete of students, even alienating students who were once its core support group. Jenna Wasson, a Student Senator at the UO who describes herself as a liberal Democrat, tried to introduce a resolution to the Senate which would require the group to submit a line-item budget. After that failed, she felt she had no choice but to refuse to support the group when they came up for reelection. "It wasn't a question of whether or not you're for the environment," said Wasson. "It was whether or not you wanted to give money to a group that's not accountable."

This rapid turn of political tides has many fearing that the student population is becoming more conservative, particularly since the UO has a reputation for being left-wing. OSPIRG was also the flagship for a national movement many consider to be a stronghold of the liberal movement in the U.S. This is, at least, the concern of many who have been involved with the organization in the past.

Ron Eachus, ASUO President when OSPIRG was formed, was quoted in the Oregonian, bemoaning the defeat of OSPIRG. "It was a concrete way for students to put their idealism and activism to work." A former Student Senator for 1980-84, Michael Prothe, has also come forward in the pages of the Emerald supporting the group and urging a reconsideration of OSPIRG. But even 15-20 years ago, OSPIRG's budget was a tiny fraction of the $147,000 they received last year. As the group's budget spiraled upward, to the point where it became the largest student-funded group next to the student government itself, it only seemed like a matter of time until the group's peculiar budget drew a broad base of fiscal scrutiny from among UO voters.

However, many involved with OSPIRG blame the organization's defeat not on objective fiscal consideration but rather on a well-funded right-wing conspiracy. For the first time in recent memory, someone actually ran a campaign against OSPIRG during the election season. The campaign was spearheaded by two well-known College Republicans, Jonathan Collegio and Peter Enslow. In a press release written by ASUO President Bill Miner during the campaign, entitled "University of Oregon Leaders Warn Student Body of Corporate Special Interest Money in Campus Elections," Miner quotes himself as saying, "The College Republicans at the U of O don't normally have significant resources nor a history of participating in campus ballot measure debates. Now all of a sudden they have the resources to produce thousands of dollars worth of anti-OSPIRG propaganda materials. The math is just not adding up here."

And indeed it isn't. Collegio claims that he spent no more than $177 on his entire campaign. One large expense--printing--was donated by the father of a friend of his, but according to Collegio, even if he had paid retail costs for the printing, this would still put his campaign expenditures at less than one-half of what OSPIRG spent on their campaign, which was funded by at least two off-campus PIRG-related groups. Senator Wasson, who worked on the campaign with Collegio despite her liberal Democratic beliefs, stands by the integrity of Collegio's figures. "If we got thousands of dollars from right-wingers, where was it spent?" said Wasson, referring to the fact that the group's campaign consisted of printing up only a few hundred posters and handbills.

But Miner not only publicly questioned the veracity of Collegio's expenditure forms, he also accused Collegio of soliciting State Senator Randy Miller and David Moss, a lobbyist for Associated Oregon Industries, for funds during the Dorchester state Republican conference. However, though these men were "two prominent attendees," according to the press release, they never actually attended the Dorchester conference. This fact could have easily been verified, but Miner never gets more specific in his press release than vague statements like "several sources were cited."

This is not the only part of the press release that has been questioned. The press release reports that "House Majority Leader Lynn Snodgrass pledged at the recent Dorchester conference that she would not introduce a bill attacking student fee-funded organizations in the next legislative session if College Republican efforts were successful." During a recent phone conversation with Snodgrass, she flatly denied ever saying anything of the sort. She says that she was completely unaware of the OSPIRG election until after it was over, and a Register-Guard reporter asked her about the press release. "I had no idea that this was going on and that my name was linked to it," said Snodgrass. "The fact that my name was linked to an incidental fee bill issue last session is the only reason I can think of that would make them think I was behind that sort of thing." She also denies having any knowledge that Collegio received funds from state Republican and right-wing sources. "As I understand it, [the campaign] was not a conservative group, but a wide range of students." Snodgrass also says that "I was quick to note that [OSPIRG] can still be on campus. The election didn't stop them from participating on campus or revoke their membership in the campus."

However, for the record, Snodgrass says she is concerned about any organization that sends their money off of campus--a practice that she wants to put an end to. She also remains critical of the student fee process in general. "Students want a tuition freeze, yet they're the ones making tuition cost more by raising their incidental fees." Furthermore, she is concerned that administrators are exploiting student fees to pay for things that they should be paying for out of their own budgets. When the house considered a bill to reform student fees last session, she was approached by many university administrators concerned that the changes would negatively affect their own budgets, something that troubled Snodgrass. "I kept saying, these are supposed to be student fees," she said.

If these issues are brought up again in the next legislative session, they are likely to be challenged by the Oregon Students Association and other student government leaders around the state. However, it's too early to speculate whether that challenge would be successful or not. Nonetheless, prominent student leaders haphazardly putting words in the mouth of one of the most powerful politicians in the state is unlikely to endear the legislature to this brand of student activism. If any restrictions regarding student fees do manage to make it through the next legislative session, this could be the real legacy of this year's OSPIRG campaign. Student government leaders like Miner may have to ask themselves whether this bullet was worth jumping in front of.

Still, OSPIRG is down but not out. The UO's student body president-elect, Geneva Wortman, has been heavily involved with OSPIRG in the past, and her clout could help the organization back on its feet in no time. OSPIRG could potentially gather signatures in order to have a special election, which could happen as early as this fall. OSPIRG might be desperate to regain that guarantee of money from students, since the money from the UO chapter amounted to two-thirds of their entire budget. OSPIRG would still be unable to receive any funding until the next fiscal year, but the low voter turnout that would likely accompany a special election and OSPIRG's extensive organizing capabilities could provide them with more favorable circumstances.

Mark Hemingway, a senior majoring in Journalism, is Associate Editor for the Oregon Commentator