Welcome to the Jungle

In the theater of life, this year's Prez and Veep stole the show, shining with Nixonian arrogance. The Oregon Commentator ably played the Washington Post to Tamir Kriegel's Woodward and Bernstein, and Taylor Sturges' revisionist turn at G. Gordon Liddy introduced a new generation to the world of corruption and incompetence. The ASUO Constitution Court gave the production rave reviews, while those in the ASUO Kremlin found it cold and unrewarding. Or something like that. This article was first published January 30, 1999.

Establishing content policy for the upcoming 1998-99 publishing year, the Commentator's first editorial announced: "This year the Commentator will not focus on student government issues. If the ASUO does 'something really stupid,' it will be duly noted in these pages. But we are not going to go out of our way."

Using the power of precedent, under the guise of creating a smoother, more accessible election process, and in the hopes of clarifying the incidental budget fee recommendation to the Oregon University System (OUS), the Executive Office of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO) has called a Special Election. At best a cry for attention, and at worst a Machiavellian master plan to refund OSPIRG, the 1999 Special Election offers the casual observer a study into the very thin line that separates naiveti from evil, insecurity from overconfidence.

Old friends and new readers, welcome to "something really stupid." Look, we at the Commentator know that a great deal of reporting on student government can be boring, irrelevant, and tiresome-that's why we've shifted our focus away from it. But when a financially powerful group-one that allocates, approves, and manages six million dollars worth of events and programs-sees fit to fiddle with the very element of the democratic process that mandates its power and authority-elections-it is the responsibility of even the most apathetic student to sit up and take heed. The 1999 Special Election is corruption at its finest. Its depravity ranges from special interest control to egregious misuse of power, and when all the dust settles, the student body of this University may find itself taken for over $200,000. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the Oregon Commentator's triumphant return to the ASUO, as we use interviews, analysis, and research to expose the 1999 Special Election, a.k.a. "something really stupid." CHOOSE I. OR II. to begin...

I. Machiavellian Master Plan The Conspiracy- Possible OSPIRG Involvement

Upon winning the ASUO Presidency last year, Geneva Wortman said, "It's a bittersweet victory, a lot of people lost their jobs today." The bitterness was in reference to the students' denial of OSPIRG's request for funding. Geneva had been an active member of OSPIRG, and had in many ways piggy-backed on its consistently strong and influential campus presence. In electing Geneva but defunding OSPIRG (the great paradox), the students had purchased the bullets, but decided that the gun was unethical. For the first time in her collegiate career, Geneva was OSPIRG-less. Right off the bat, speculation arose that Geneva would somehow get OSPIRG their money back or at least ensure that they would not lose again the following year. But what would she do? Fund them under the ASUO Executive umbrella? Challenge the binding Constitutionality of the students' vote? Call a Special Election?

Citing a precedent that does not exist, and justifying their action with two ballot measures that don't require a special election, Geneva and the ASUO Executive office chose to call a grossly underfunded one. What must be noted here is that the OSPIRG conspiracy theory does not emerge from a vacuum. There has been a general sentiment on campus, since the advent of the great paradox, that OSPIRG would exploit its incestuous relationships in the ASUO Executive office to return to campus. Commentator Publisher Jonathan Collegio wrote about their shifty tactics in late October. Even the Elections Board was inundated with rumors and speculation concerning the ASUO Executive office and OSPIRG.

"I was hesitant about the whole OSPIRG issue," Elections Coordinator Taylor Sturges said. " I was worried about people saying that the ASUO is doing a special election because they are in bed with OSPIRG."

The following list details the entire conspiracy:

1. Geneva and Morgan hired Taylor, their Elections Coordinator, in September. "Usually Elections Coordinators' salaries go from November to June," Sturges said. "I started in September-[I got] an extra $150, a poster that says 'We Love Taylor,' and some candy from Geneva." Why would Geneva and Morgan hire an Elections Coordinator a full two months early, unless they anticipated extra work, such as an extra election? Also, at the time of her hiring, Taylor had not yet contacted the Computing Center, so voting by Duck Web was not an issue. Furthermore, Taylor had not spoken with Joel Corcoran, chief justice of the Constitution Court, about streamlining the election grievance process, so that was also a non-issue. Being that voting via Duck Web and streamlining the Elections Grievance process are driving forces behind the Special Election, it's clear that the ASUO Executive knew they were going to have a Special Election before they had any issues to justify one. What, then, could possibly be the ASUO Executive Office's justification for hiring the Elections Coordinator? OSPIRG? Yes!

2. In explaining a benefit of the Special Election, Morgan Cowling pointed out that the Oregon University System (OUS) deadline for submitting the incidental fee budget was moved up to April 1 from May 15. She pointed out that she and Geneva would have to estimate the maximum amount of money that could be allocated the following year. "I think it is a good time for [the special election] to come up because we are going to have to look at what type of funding could go," Cowling said. She is arguing that preliminary knowledge of what will be on the budget will significantly help the ASUO Executive office set a cap on the incidental fee budget for the OUS. This argument is faulty on two fronts: first, setting a cap on a budget really is not that hard-just aim absurdly high; second, there are very few programs on campus that have budgets substantial enough to affect budget cap estimation, and of the programs that receive enough money to affect a cap estimate, only OSPIRG is presently unfunded. In saying that the Special Election will help the ASUO Executive Office establish a cap on the Incidental Fee Budget for OUS, Morgan all but announced OSPIRG's appearance on the special election ballot.

3. When asked about OSPIRG's potential appearance on the ballot, Taylor Sturges said, "OSPIRG has not turned in any language, they've done nothing. One of them was in the office and I asked if they were going to do the special election, because if they were, they should have turned in their language two weeks ago. They were like,'we don't have that power.'" This seems to show that OSPIRG will not utilize the special election to get refunded, but deeper analysis suggests that this incident is extremely disparaging. By saying that they don't have the power to put themselves on the ballot, OSPIRG indicates that someone else does. OSPIRG have resigned themselves to being placed on the ballot by another party, and measures can be placed on the ballot in only three ways: recommendation of the Student Senate, recommendation of the ASUO President, and petitioning. By saying that they do not have the power to place themselves on the ballot, OSPIRG has indicated that they are not going to petition. The Student Senate would be an unlikely locale to find a sympathetic ear to anything concerning the Special Election, since they were not consulted prior to its announcement. The only option left is Geneva. Conspiracy? Yes!

4. With voter turnout predictions ranging around 2% to 3% (based on the 1994 ASUO Special Election), the minimal budget ($1400 as opposed to $9000), lack of candidates, lack of publicity, and lack of relevant and interesting ballot measures, this election should be dominated by government hacks, weirdos, groupies, and extremists. "Whoever can get the most groupies of their group will win," Sturges predicted. When it comes to active groupies that can jump on an issue and dedicate their lives to its destruction or fruition, nobody beats the Anti-Defamation League. Oh yeah, OSPIRG is pretty good, too. This election is perfect for OSPIRG. Without proper publicity, the only people who will be aware of the election are those spoken to by OSPIRG in their massive take-it-to-the-streets campaigning technique. As a result, the voting booths will be packed with OSPIRG groupies and converts-hardly representative of the community. If the ASUO Executive Office really wanted to harness a representative slice of the campus, they would have raised money for a better-publicized election.

5. "OSPIRG crumbles in the face of opposition; they proved it last year when there were 8 people in the middle of the streets and got the message out to defund OSPIRG," explained Jason Gathercole, chair of the College Republicans and head of the Honesty Campaign-the group widely attributed for defunding OSPIRG last year. "If they are not on the ballot, what that would say to me is that they see the opposition coming from more than one source, and they are going to wait until spring elections. Maybe they'll call for more money from the state PIRG before they take up the campaign." The scenario that Gathercole does not address is the potential for OSPIRG to run in both elections. OSPIRG may be able to insert itself into campus life again by merely outlasting and out-muscling their opponents. This election gives OSPIRG two cracks at being refunded. If they fail in the special election, they can try again a month later. Two elections in two months will deplete much of the energy and funding of their opposition, which is already preparing for an all out assault.

Some of you may be wary of this conspiracy theory, and that is perfectly acceptable. Conspiracy theories carry with them many negative connotations, as much for the accuser as for the accused. But make sure your skepticism is for the right reasons. If you think the conspiracy theory is too well thought out for a couple of dim-witted student government hacks, then your skepticism may be justified. This plan nears on brilliance, and these two girls don't. Just remember that at no point has this ASUO Executive possessed independent thought, do not discount the possibility that OSPIRG-a notoriously savvy public interest lobby-developed the plan and asked the girls to insert tab A into slot B. But if you merely find this conspiracy theory to be offensive and unrealistic, than let us be the first to implicate you into the debacle-apathy is corruption's strongest catalyst.

II. A Cry For Attention How Did The ASUO Executive Call The Special Election?

Little if any language exists in the ASUO Constitution regarding Special Elections. Article 13, Section 10 of the ASUO Constitution identifies the ASUO President as the instrument through which recall petitions can be converted into recall elections for the removal of specific officers, but at no point does it identify the President as the initiator of the election. This type of recall election was most recently called in December of 1991, when JoSonja Watson, then Vice President, was accused of withholding her criminal record from the public during her campaign -she resigned before the recall election could take place.

The Special Election taking place in February is unlike any kind of election documented in the ASUO Constitution. The Constitution specifically defines a regular election with fourteen thorough subsections. The other election documented in the ASUO Constitution is the recall election, which-although not as thoroughly expounded upon in the Constitution as the Regular Election-is clearly defined by virtue of its location in the Constitution and nature of content. In no place in the Constitution is an election defined that combines the flexible time frame of a recall election with the issues and processes of a Regular Election. By inviting programs to take advantage of the Special Election and place measures on the ballot, the ASUO Executive Office is enacting a Regular Election.

Enacting a regular election is problematic, though, because according to Article 12, Section 7 in the ASUO Constitution, elections for positions currently filled by appointees or left vacant must be held at the earliest possible regular election. As of the 27th day of January, none of those positions had been placed on the ballot. Even more problematic is that according to Article 12, Section 2 of the ASUO Constitution, a regular election must be held between April 1 and May 1, making this election unconstitutional. If the ASUO Executive sees this Special Election as a Regular Election with limited capacities, then Geneva and Morgan are guilty of either conducting an illegal act under the Constitution (Article 12, Section.2), or non-fulfillment duties (Article 12, Section 7).

The ASUO Executive office admits to a lack of Constitutional backing in calling a Special Election, turning instead to precedent for their authority to call a Special Election. "There is no language saying who can call a special election," explained ASUO Elections Coordinator Taylor Sturges. "There is a precedent set with Bobby Lee calling a special election, so they are going off of precedent. But nowhere does it say that the executive can call a special election."

"The power comes from precedent," said ASUO Executive Vice President Morgan Cowling.

"Bobby Lee called a special election to revamp the IFC (Incidental Fee Committee)," clarified ASUO President Geneva Wortman.

Bobby Lee was one of the most influential ASUO Presidents of recent memory, and he did work hard to revamp the IFC-challenging them in the Constitution Court, then resigning once students had elected the new ASUO President, who promptly appointed Bobby to the IFC so that he could single-handedly reorganize the committee's leadership. But Bobby Lee never held a Special Election. The very fact that the Executive is citing non-existent precedents to justify its use of power should send red flags up to everyone involved. By God, these people have no idea what they're doing! Hearsay and conjecture are not strong political arguments, and they make even weaker justifications of power.

A Special Election did occur in March of 1994, under the Presidency of Eric Bowen, but only in the face of extreme pressure from the UO Administration. Upset with the yearly tripping and blundering of the IFC (the committee originally responsible for allocating fees to the EMU, Athletic Department, and Student Programs), and concerned that the committee was no longer capable of allocating that much money, the Administration asked the ASUO to come up with a new model of budget allocation. The alternative was for the Administration to use the University President's authority and implement the best set of rules available. When Bowen sent a memo to the administration, indicating that they would work on a new system while proceeding under the current rules, Vice Provost Moseley simply replied, "We're not doing it the old way."

The 1994 Special Election was a last ditch attempt for the students to retain power over student fees. The ballot consisted of 7 measures, all of which changed the student government to the specifications of the Administration, in turn retaining the student control of the incidental fee. And when the 1994 Special Election was over, the IFC had been divided into the Programs Finance Committee (PFC), the Athletic Department Finance Committee (ADFC), and the Erb Memorial Union Board (EMUB). The Student Senate was given ultimate authority over the different budgets, and expanded to 18 seats.

Because of the drastic changes imposed on the ASUO Constitution by the 1994 election, it must be viewed more as a revolution than a mere election. Just as the federal government does not look back to the decisions of the British Monarchy or even the Articles of Confederation for precedents, the ASUO Executive should not look back to a type of government that no longer exists. Moreover, the comparison of an ASUO administration in utter chaos to an ASUO administration that merely wants to streamline wording is absolutely preposterous.

WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THE SPECIAL ELECTION?

It has a $1,400 budget, as opposed to the $9,000 allocated for the 1998 regular election. $500 will be given to the League of Women Voters to fill the four voting booths. The Emerald will not be doing the Voters' Guide they normally produce for regular elections. And as of January 27, no official dialogue has been established with students outside of the programs about the special election. If the 1994 special election is any indication, the voter turnout for the election will be extremely low. Additionally, in 1994, student control over incidental fees-an issue that hits close to home for many University students-was being threatened, and the voter turnout was only about 2% to 3%. Hence, without a budget comparable to a regular election, media attention from the daily periodical, announcements to the general student population, and issues that warrant concern, how can the ASUO possibly expect a voter turnout high enough to mandate its own decisions?

Even Elections Coordinator Sturges, who was a key contributor to the 1998 elections that garnered a record 20% voter turnout, questioned the validity and worth of an unpublicized, underfunded election. "I was very hesitant about this, and still am, because of the low voter turnout and the low amounts of money." She later added, "I'm trying to make this as fair as possible...with what's available."

WHY DID THE ASUO EXECUTIVE CALL THE SPECIAL ELECTION?

The official line on the purpose of the Special Election is that it will create a cleaner grievance process, and present students with the option of voting in future elections by Duck Web. The proposition for streamlining the election grievance process revolves around allowing the Election's staff to hear and deal with grievances. Although questionable in terms of conflicting interests, it's a worthy suggestion. It does directly violate the ASUO Constitution (Article 12, Section 5), and therefore must be passed in election before becoming official. By the admission of both Sturges, and Vice President Cowling, the ballot measure can wait until the regular election to be decided upon, but the Executive office wants to have its cake and eat it too. "The problem with [waiting] is once you get to the point of the regular election, you're leaving office, you're saying goodbye to all the stuff that's going on in here," Cowling explained. "We want to actually use [the special election] and make some concrete changes as a next step, we want to continue making that process better." Translation: The flow of the democratic process moves too slowly for us; we want to be able to make changes and decisions on whims.

On the other hand, voting by Duck Web does not violate the Constitution, and while campaign restrictions would have to be modified to contain the new type of voting, the implementation of voting over Duck Web does not require a special election. So why put the measure on the ballot? Legacy, baby. The idea of voting by computer is not new to this school. Over the past four years, every administration has researched into the possibility of holding a vote via the Internet. On a number of occasions, the dream nearly became reality only to be shot down by security concerns and technological skepticism. So this year, the administration committed itself to finding a viable vote-by-computer-option. "It just happened that I made one phone call to the Computing Center, and they said, 'Let's do it!'" Sturges said in explaining the driving force behind the vote-by-computer campaign. The "Let's do it" sentiment eventually manifested into a ballot measure, and later into a special election. By putting the proposition up for election, the ASUO Executive is ensuring that it will not fall through like past years.

The student government has become so useless and ineffectual that the only element of the government that still holds any authority is an election itself. For the most part, officers come and go, indistinguishable from those they are replacing, and inseparable from the officers that will replace them. The government can't even trust its own power to enact its ideas, so it turns to the only thing left with authentic power: the election process.

If the election process calls for a vote by Duck Web, then no one will question the demand, and the proposition will be implemented-if not by the student government, then by the administrators mandated to create a new type of election. The ASUO Executive knows that whatever administration holds the first election by computer will likely be credited with raising voter turnout by more than 200%. Because they want to leave a proud legacy behind, and because they can't trust themselves to enact the computer elections on their own, they are putting the proposition on the ballot, under the assumption that the sanctity and reverence remaining for elections on this campus will carry computer voting to the promised land of student government and in turn, christen President Geneva Wortman and Vice President Morgan Cowling as the joined messiahs of the University of Oregon's information age.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU?

This Special Election is mostly harmless. Its two main ballot measures (voting via Duck Web & streamlining the election grievance process) are insignificant to everyone but government officials hoping to enhance their legacies and make their jobs easier.

Although its existence violates or challenges a number of ASUO Constitution articles, the average student need not worry about its effects or implementation. What is hurtful about the Special Election is its availability to other groups for their own purposes of corruption and evil. Had the ASUO Executive not invited programs "to take advantage of this opportunity" in a letter to Programs Directors, February 17 and 18 would come and go without 98% of the campus ever noticing. But as it stands now, with student groups standing in the shadows with everything from $30,000 murals to $200,000 budgets, this "something really stupid" could manifest itself into "something really expensive."

Tamir Kriegel was Managing Editor for the Oregon Commentator when this article was first printed.