CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM:
(541)346-5511
E-MAIL:
ode@oregon. uoregon.a
ADDRESS:
Oregon Daily Emerald
P.O.BOX 3159
lu Eugene, Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/~ode
Perspectives
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Carl Yeh
CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald
The high number of grievances indicates
problems with the ASUO elections rules
Recently, Disney opened yet an
other theme park, this one dedi
cated to showcasing (and occa
sionally killing) animals. While
this is all fine and good (except for the
animals and the poor public planners
trying to deal with still more traffic in
central Florida), there’s no good reason
why animals should get so much
attention.
We’ve got a better idea. Disney
should open a theme park based upon
the ASUO elections — let’s call it
Grievance World. As you wander from
a realistic simulation of the infamous
Progressive table to animatronic rendi
tions of stressed-out Constitution
Court justices, you too could slowly go
insane.
Viewed as petty amusement, the
piles of grievances filed during the
elections are more funny than fright
ening. Viewed as an example of public
activism and student handling of civil
affairs, the elections are a bit more
alarming.
Many of the grievances filed were
based on legitimate complaints that
need to be addressed. Some were not.
The sheer number of complaints raises
issues beyond the alleged rules viola
tions, however.
This year, like last year, the final out
come of the elections will not officially
be determined until the Constitution
Court meets to consider the vast number
of complaints. That meeting won’t hap
pen until mid-May, after law school fi
nals are done.
Such delays are inexcusable, but they
are hardly the fault of the court. Rather,
it is the elections complaint process that
deserves blame.
If the elections board were given the
power to consider and act upon griev
ances, and if that power were clearly
. 2 Oreaon Daily Emerald Tuesday. Aoril 28.1998
defined and included action beyond
rerunning the elections, the entire
elections process could be made to
run faster.
Appeals could still go to the Constitu
tion Court, which should also have the
ability to hand down decisions that
don’t require redoing the entire election
portion of the election in question.
Additionally, the rules that govern
elections need to be clarified to reduce
the number of violations that appar
ently emerged from ignorance or mis
understanding of those rules. Candi
dates should receive a listing of
relevant rules, and those rules should
be simple enough for that listing to be
useful.
Many complaints occurred when
candidates either were not aware of
publicity opportunities or thought op
portunities existed when they did not.
Simplifying, clarifying and publiciz
ing the rules would improve that situ
ation. Such action would also help
justify leveling punishment against
campaigns that still clearly violated
elections codes.
This process is one the Constitution
Court, the current and future ASUO
Executive and the elections board
should all address by meeting and for
mulating a proposal for rules changes.
At the very least, they could reach a
clear understanding of how the cur
rent rules affect candidates and
should be enforced.
Until efforts to achieve clarity and ef
ficiency take place, we can look forward
to an elections process that mirrors the
Magic Kingdom rather than the magic of
democracy.
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial Ixxird Responses may be
senttoode@oregpn.uorepon.edu.
I
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Elections sad
I am extremely saddened and dis
heartened by a number of incidents
and comments that have occurred
during this year’s elections.
First off, Claudia Villena forgot to
tell the readers in her letter (ODE,
April 23) that she is the campaign
manager for the Progressive slate.
And secondly, Michael Olson, an
other Progressive slate candidate,
was not truthful when he stated in
his letter (ODE, April 23) that all of
the Progressive slate winners had to
go back to the ballot. Olson certain
ly did not have to go back to the bal
lot, so I do not know why he thinks
that all Progressives were forced to
go back to the ballot. Olson also im
plied in his letter (ODE, April 23)
that my grievance was “politically
biased.” I am disturbed that any stu
dent leader would have the audaci
ty to judge another person and label
them politically without ever speak
ing to them about their political
views. I think that all of us need to
get rid of this “us” and “them” atti
tude that is making everyone talk
nonsense.
These types of actions seem to be
anything but progressive. To me, be
ing progressive means that you be
lieve that every student, whether
they are involved with a program or
not, should have the chance to run
for office and that you will do your
best to recruit all students into stu
dent government and student pro
grams.
Progressive also means that you
will not run for office or endorse
those running for office in a write-in
campaign simply because you do
not like the opposing candidates. I
wish that students would campaign
for office because they care about
and want to listen to all students,
whether they are conservative or lib
eral, black or white, tall or short,
dumb or intelligent. You should rep
resent all students, period.
Progressive means that you under
stand that basic campaign rules and
local and state laws are there to pro
tect you and all students from harm.
Progressive means that you would
like to listen to all student concerns,
no matter what their political views
may be. By doing this, you also be
lieve that the grievance process is an
important means for students to
have their voices and concerns
heard and that you will do nothing
to discourage students from using
this process.
Progressive means that you be
lieve that every student campaigning
for office should be given an equal
chance no matter how much money
they have or do not have in their
pockets.
I’d also agree with Olson that my
grievance was asinine, but it was
only asinine because the Progressive
slate’s violation was asinine. If you
plan to work for the government,
doesn't it only make sense that you
are familiar with and follow the
laws? I do not think that this is a very
difficult concept to understand.
Now that all of this seems to be
nearing an end, I can only point out
the good that will come out of all of
this. Everyone will finally know
whether they won or lost by their
merits and not by cheating, and
hopefully the grievance and elec
tions rules processes may finally be
updated to serve all candidates and
students equally.
Lastly, I feel the need to give props
out to the only Progressive slate can
didate who has shown exemplary
behavior towards me and every oth
er candidate. His name is Matt
Swanson, and I think that all of us
could benefit from watching his self
less behavior.
Autumn De Poe
Candidate for Student Senate Seat 7
Grievance Filer
Prosecute Unger
Last Wednesday I filed a grievance
to the ASUO Executive office asking
for a halt to the elections, reimburse
ment for now-illegal campaign fliers
and prosecution of ASUO Vice Pres
ident Ben Unger.
According to Unger (ODE, April
23): ‘‘[Unger] was with election
board member Jennifer Wilson and
OSPIRG director Carolyn Whipple
during the disputed incident. He
saw campaign leaflets had been dis
tributed in a classroom, which is
against University rules, and wanted
to take action.
‘“I saw [the fliers],’ Unger ex
plained. ‘I asked her, “Jennifer, can I
remove these?” She said, "Yeah.”’
“Wilson supported Unger’s story,
saying she authorized him as the
ASUO Vice President to remove the
pamphlets.”
As Unger claimed, he had permis
sion to collect leaflets that were
against the rules, and thus is not in
violation of sabotage rule 2.3. How
ever, acting on this granted permis
sion is acting on behalf of the elec
tions board. 1998 ASUO Elections
rule 6.8 reads: “People employed by,
or acting on behalf of, the elections
board shall not in any way attempt
to influence the opinions of the vot
ers concerning candidates or issues
on the ballot. The elections board
considers violations of this rule to be
extremely serious and may prose
cute anyone accused of a violation.”
Unger, who identified himself at
the time he was acting on the per
mission from the elections board as
Geneva Wortman and Morgan Cowl
ing’s campaign manager, violated
this rule. Moreover, by concurrently
participating on Wortman and Cowl
ing’s campaign and acting on behalf
of the elections board, he takes on
more than the responsibility of en
forcing the rules of the campaign: he
must also comply with the codes of
conduct that the elections board it
self stands by.
I would say that there are several is
sues that are debatable in this situa
tion, but the crux of the problems
rests on the integrity of Unger. I do
not intend to attack Unger personal
ly, but I am calling into question his
actions as vice president. Unger has
simply been confronted with a con
flict of interest. His desire to see Wort
man and Cowling in the presidential
and vice presidential seats has dictat
ed his actions as vice president, a po
sition possessing vast potential for
corruption and abuses of power.
Unger needs to understand that
his position as vice president has in
herent responsibilities that need to
be recognized. The most important
realization that Unger needs to ac
knowledge is that everything he
does will be viewed and critiqued by
all members of the University com
munity. He is our elected leader and
our representative. He needs to live
up to the standard that we demand
from anyone in that position. Acting
in his own self-interest is not accept
able. Unger broke the rules. It influ
enced the election. These allegations
are not "weird.” He needs to be pros
ecuted.
Matt Gross
Economics/Japanese