Commentary

Under Fire

The Student Senate is an ugly place full of ugly people who do ugly things.

Since before the start of fall term classes, criticisms have come from every corner of the campus political spectrum, asserting misconduct, hypocrisy, and stupidity on the part of this year's Student Senate officials. Student activists alleged that summer senators broke rules. Summer senators alleged that the senate Ombudsman didn't follow the rules. The senate Ombudsman alleged the accused senators misunderstood the action taken. What do the rules mean if no one can figure out what the hell is going on? What the hell is going on?

If you don't know what the incidental fee is, I'm not going to tell you. I will tell you, however, that each student pays $135 per term to fund over 90 student programs and organizations. In summary, these groups must be recognized by the ASUO in order to receive that money, and students elect senators to designate who gets how much. What goes on in the Board Room of the EMU every Wednesday will all but shock you. Actually, it's more likely to bore the piss out of you; before reading on, I suggest you brew a cup of heavy-leaded coffee and turn on the air conditioner. This story may involve your money, but the comic relief here is sparse.

The recent flurry of activity in the senate began with a grievance filed by student Autumn DePoe on November 3. In her grievance, DePoe attested to three breaches of duty on the part of several senators who served during the summer term. These breaches included senators failing to hold regular office hours during the summer session, and in two separate cases, misappropriating funds. The senators targeted were Jessica Timpany, Jereme Grzybowski, Spencer Hamlin, and C. J. Gabbe.

The first and most widely recognized section of DePoe's grievance alleges that the four senators did not post or hold office hours during summer session. Essentially, senators are expected to spend time in the student senate office; students and programs expect them to be there. Take a hypothetical scenario for a moment. Let's say a UO student wants to find out, for instance, how to start a student group. This student is in need of a senator's all-knowing advice, and the senate website, for example, advertises that "each senator holds weekly office hours."

The site itself is also badly in need of an update.

Several of the accused senators have claimed they fulfilled their office hours, only in different areas of the EMU, working on special projects and research. However, back to the scenario. Assume the aforementioned inquisitive student is under the assumption that senators hold office hours. Where would she go to find a senator? The Eugene Weekly Personals? Not the Senate office. At least most people would, anyway. Let's presume said student goes all the way to the top of the EMU, to the senate office, and no one's there. They haven't left a way for anyone to find them. At that point, it's safe to assume our subject would feel incredibly let down, to say the least. She might feel as if she had been led on, wined and dined, so to speak, and left at the altar, wondering where her student senator has gone.

Programs and students alike were hurt by the lack of office hours held this summer. Autumn DePoe believes "The meetings to take care of business would have happened more frequently had they been holding office hours, but they weren't." She continued, "they should've had someone in there working on the agenda and getting all the stuff on there correctly." Senate Ombudsman Pfeiffer said of situation, "It's pretty ridiculous to think that normal senate functions could be held when no one had access to senators."

Hamlin described the non-fulfillment of duties charge as a "waste of time...to deal with it after the fact." It certainly is a waste of time to deal with it after the fact, since the neglected students during the summer have already been let down. The fact remains, however, that five senators accused of non-fulfillment of duties are currently serving on the senate. Obviously, it wasn't important to them to be in the office last summer. The incident, while already past, raises the question of just how important other senate duties are to these same people-the people in charge of your money. One case of misappropriation of funds occurred when Family Housing, a program not recognized for funding by the ASUO, filed for a special request and received $395 at the Sept. 1, 1999 senate meeting. Eventually, it took an ASUO controller to realize that Family Housing was, in fact, not an ASUO-recognized group and should not have been allocated funds. It wasn't until the Nov 17 meeting, two months and two grievances later, that the senate voted to deny funding to Family Housing.

The other charge, the allocation of money into the Black Student Union's fundraising account, has since been thrown out by the Constitution Court.

This is where things get confusing. (At least for the senators). On Nov. 10, the senate decided each of the accused should repay $25 of the $75 summer stipend and complete five extra office hours. Spencer Hamlin described the hearing that should have occurred as a formal hearing procedure outlined in the Green Tape Notebook. According to Hamlin, several things should have happened, including a motion to bring non-fulfillment of duties charges, presentation of evidence from both sides, subpoena and cross-examination of witnesses. Said Hamlin, "None of that happened, I feel like our due process was denied."

Autumn DePoe, when asked if she was satisfied with the results of the so-called Rhearing," replied, "When you're dealing with a grievance, you're supposed to try and get both sides of the issue. Only one senator talked to me and that was Eric Pfeiffer. The rest of the senators ignored me and talked [among] themselves and made the decision based on that."

If nobody talked to anybody and procedure wasn't followed, how can the penalty imposed by the senate be justified? Pfeiffer, the senate Ombudsman in charge of investigating DePoe's grievance, explained the senate's actions as "The equivalent of an out-of-court settlement. The results of what happened at the senate meeting are non-binding and do not determine guilt...it was a chance for them to make amends."

Since the penalty was "non-binding," it would seem the accused have the option to pay back the money. Although he hasn't stated whether or not he plans to repay his portion of the stipend, Hamlin said, "If all of us pooled a hundred dollars, it would still be less than a penny per student. Should we get some buzz saw and cut pennies in half, so we can pay them back their cent?"

By not complying with the senate's decision, these senators are more or less giving the finger to the students they're supposed to be representing, along with the rest of senate. To say that they don't agree with the majority vote in this case is one thing, but to shamelessly refuse to acknowledge that a step was taken is another. At this point, it looks as though some senators may do just that.

If any of the accused senators do refuse to repay the stipend and do the extra office hours, Pfeiffer explained that "Non-fulfillment charges will be brought up. They can have their due process experience."

In the midst of dealing with grievances and dodging bullets from the press, things started to get stickier for some senators. On Nov. 11, student activist Scott Austin filed a grievance demanding the removal of five senators from their respective senate seats. Those targeted were the same as before, with the addition of senator Andrew Schneider.

At first glance, the two grievances are very similar. A key difference lies in which governmental body each was filed. DePoe's grievance was filed with the senate itself. AustinUs grievance, on the other hand, was filed with the Constitution Court. By filing with the senate, DePoe provided an opportunity for the grievance to be handled in as non-public a manner as possible. Austin, on the other hand, felt it should have gone directly to the ConCourt. According to Austin, dealing with the grievance internally provided an avenue for the accused senators to sway the opinion of the deciding senators. Austin described the senators as a body of five people "Who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them, collectively." DePoe has maintained she is content with "a slap on the wrist," whereas, she said, Austin wants the "[summer senator's] heads on a platter."

In the "Abuse of Power/Unequal Access to Funds" section of his grievance, Austin claims the senate violated ASUO guidelines for disbursement of the incidental fee by allowing a non-recognized group funding, and denying it to another non-recognized group.

In his Ombudsman Report on DePoe's grievance, Pfeiffer decided to throw out the Family Housing charge, because the money never actually reached Family Housing. The fate of this section of Austin's grievance depends on the fact that no money reached the Family Housing program. However, the fact remains that the senators voted to allocate the money, "allocated" being the key word. According to the Green Tape Notebook (and that rare bird, common sense), the senate is not allowed to allocate money to a non-recognized group. However, they did allocate, or designate, money to go towards the Family Housing special request. Call it an ambiguity if you will, most would call it a certainty. It's straightforward and evident in the Senate Rules. Anyone who is able to read can determine that aspect of the senator's responsibility in allocating funds. If the same chain of events had happened and gone unnoticed, and an unrecognized group received money, the breach of law would still be considered the decision to give the money to Family Housing. Jessica Timpany called it a "simple mistake" in the Emerald.

When posed with the question of whether or not the misallocation of funds could be called a simple mistake, student activist Austin responded to this quote by saying, RA simple mistake, my ass. You [senators] just broke a whole bunch of state laws." As Spencer Hamlin explained, "We don't currently make a habit of going through the documentation for every single special request, I mean, we get like five special requests a meeting." Five? Well, that explains everything. You couldn't expect 16-18 senators to make sure five special requests per week are legitimate. They're busy doing other things-like holding office hours.

Despite the confusion about the imposed penalty, one fact remains: the senate made a ruling and the senators should be expected to uphold that ruling, regardless of their personal opinions.

Accountability. The word is thrown around during elections campaigns and PR stints, but in reality, very rarely is it evident in the UO student government process.

Austin, as well as DePoe, alleged non-fulfillment of duties on the part of the senators for not holding office hours. In the grievance, he sites direct violations on the part of the respondents of several sections of the Senate Rules. He also claims the senators lied to cover up the incidents. Both breaches outlined in his grievance, he contends, are grounds for dismissal from office.

With these grievances and the WISPIRG Supreme Court case pending, it's a critical time for the student senate here at the UO. With national attention on whether or not incidental fees have a place on college campuses, one can't help but consider the accusations of misconduct and incompetence valid. Out of that, two burning questions arise: (1) If students and the press hadn't been so focused on these issues, would the senators' mistakes have gone unaccounted for? And (2) Can all the mudslinging and dissention within the senate body be healthy for the allocation process?

The grievance process is one that is supposed to bring light to a problem or mistake within the elected body. Without students and ASUO controllers paying attention, the money could have gone anywhere. That itself is a direct reflection of how the senate is being run. The senators are elected by the students, albeit a small percentage of them, with the faith that they know more about the process than does the average student. It's a lot of faith to put in a few people, but as in any job, it can be done well or it can be done poorly. With senators disputing the power of the senate as an entity and its authority when a decision is made, the basic structure is undermined, and that is not good for any democratic body, government or other. You can wake up now it's over.

Dakia Anheluk, an undeclared freshman, is a staff writer for the Oregon Commentator