II. A Cry For Attention

HOW DID THE ASUO EXECUTIVE CALL THE SPECIAL ELECTION?

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 timeframe 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 the appointed positions or vacant 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). In fact, 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 ASUO 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 ASUO President Eric Bowen sent a memo to the administration, indicating that they would work on a new system while still proceeding under the current version of the rules, Vice Provost Moseley simply replied, "We're not doing it the old way."

The 1994 Special Election was a lastditch attempt for the students to retain the power to allocate all 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 control of the incidental fee for the students. 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 also 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 as more of a revolution than a mere election. And just as the United States government does not revert back to the decisions of the British Monarchy or even the Articles of Confederation for precedents, the ASUO Executive would be hard pressed to revert back to a type of government that no longer exists for their precedent. Moreover, the absolutely preposterous comparison of an ASUO administration in utter chaos to an ASUO administration that merely wants to streamline wording, is sloppy and ineffectual.

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 from the executive office 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 also a key contributor to the 1998 elections which garnered a record 20% voter turnout, questioned the validity and worth of a badly publicized, 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-well, trying to 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. The grievance cleanser, although questionable in terms of conflicting interests, is a worthy suggestion and will receive no criticism within this article. 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 violates absolutely no part of the Constitution, and while campaigning 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 attained full development only to be shot down by security concerns and technlogical skepticism. So this year, like in past years, 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 measur,e 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, totally indistinguishable from the officers they are replacing, and inseparable from the officers that will replace them. The government cannot even trust its own power to follow through with new ideas, so it turns to the only thing left with a semblance of authentic power: the election process. If the election process calls for a vote by Duck Web, than 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 full well that whatever admisntration 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 cannot 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?

As a whole, this Special Election is generally harmless. It's 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 there 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 to use 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, a senior majoring in English, is Managing Editor of the Oregon Commentator

Return to Welcome to the Jungle