Lies, Unfairness Alleged in ASUO-Funded Groups
Are we talking about OSPIRG or the Emerald? Precisely.
And so it turned out that holding the ASUO elections during winter term
was in fact a smart move.
It didn't seem that way: the Elections Board predicted a lower turnout
this year on account of the unexpected rescheduling. 2,155 students voted
this year, compared to 2,483 last year: no catastrophic margin. Only about
ten percent of the UO campus - give or take - cares enough to cast their
vote, and this isn't going to change anytime soon.
More importantly, were this year's elections held in late April like they
have been since time immemorial, it's not altogether impossible that
classes may have ended for the academic year without an Executive branch
of government in place. Wouldn't that be funny?
The current lack of resolution to the Executive race is both frustrating
and laughable. For the Commentator, it's a little tricky. This
issue is, first, a sweeping indictment of the Oregon Liquor Control
Commission and, second, dedicated to the obligatory elections wrapup that
we print every year under the illusion that someone, somewhere out there
might be interested in hearing what the Ol Dirty Emerald won't tell
you. Except the biggest question of the previous month and a half still
hangs in the air like the perpetual cloud of pot smoke over Eugene: who
gets the job?
More about that in another part of the magazine. For right now, how about
the Emerald this term?
Last issue (OC v. XVII, i. VII) the Oregon Commentator ran a news
article explaining how OSPIRG's budget was placed under the jurisdiction
of the Programs Finance Council.
On the morning of Feb. 17, the Emerald ran exactly five sentences
on the subject in the final paragraph of a related article. They read as
follows:
The senate also changed OSPIRG's budget slightly Wednesday night,
although the group did not lose or gain any money. According to the Clark
Document, which regulates how the incidental fee is spent, ASUO groups
that receive funding through ballot measures, like OSPIRG, can only do so
for one year. Last year students voted to fund OSPIRG for two years.
To correct the problem, senators moved next year's OSPIRG budget into the
Programs Finance Committee budget. Senate President Jessica Timpany said
the move is not a real fee increase because OSPIRG's budget about will
(sic) remain the exact same amount that students voted on last year.
Can you say "buried?" If the Oregon Commentator took a page from
Rush Limbaugh, we could be crying foul about a supposed left-wing media
bias. The truth is actually much simpler and somewhat less
heinous: they're just incompetent.
Isn't there something to be said about the fact that two of the three PFC
senators themselves voted against the move? The decision doesn't change
the fact that the ballot measure violated state law in the first
place. Instead, the story clarifies the obvious point that giving the
money to OSPIRG (which they would have received anyway) in a different
bureaucratic manner doesn't change the amount of fees collected from
students. Boy, you guys really cut to the heart of this one, didn't
you? Way to keep the public informed.
In the span of two weeks, the Emerald could print a total of five
front page articles (plus one editorial) on visiting professor Francis Fox
Piven's inane theories about how the rich are oppressing the poor - but
they couldn't devote so much as a paragraph to a situation that, left
unresolved, could have led to the suspension of the ASUO's legal authority
to collect student fees?
One week later Trained Monkey-in-Chief Laura Cadiz - who only pops her
authorial head out for breaking news like the Kinkel conviction or
Frohnmayer's heart problems - ran "Lies, unfairness alleged in PFC," a
1500-word opus on ASUO President Wylie Chen's dissatisfaction with next
year's Executive budget. So Laura, what'd you get in return?
Consistency isn't the Ol Dirty Emerald's strong point. If you want
fair and unbiased reporting, the Emerald is not going to be your
first stop. Neither is the Commentator, but then we've never hidden behind
any veil of impartiality. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to your
face.
Of course, the Emerald's advertising rate sheet unwittingly points
out that the single most read part of the newspaper is the crossword
puzzle. At least they know who their audience is.
Oh, and also: the Commentator received its first death threat of
the year. We're not sure exactly why, but this we know: we must be doing
something right.
|