Editor in chief: Laura Cadiz
Editorial Editors: Bret Jacobson, Laura Lucas
Newsroom: (541)346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
Tuesday
February 22,2000
Volume 101, Issue 102
Emerald
Ml
Student governments have always
held a special place in my heart.
Anything that can make me consent
to be whacked in the knees during a
school assembly just to get elected has got
to have power. Naturally, I lost that high
school election, as I had the year before.
And I’m quite certain that student govern
ment is not for me in college, either.
On the other hand, having never made it
to student council as an elected official, I
aiant really nave
I much basis to judge
that. So last week, I
attended the ASUO
Student Senate meet
ing. And for compari
son, to see what these
fine young politi
| cians have to look for
ward to, I endured a
Eugene City Council
meeting last Monday
night. I was looking to
answer one question:
How do politicians
communicate?
Jonathan
Gruber
Nothing can be accomplished without ef
fective communication. The Student Senate
was discussing the EMU budget in last
Wednesday’s meeting and, frankly, how they
communicated was just as important as
what they actually said.
At one end of the continuum was ASUO
Vice President Mitra Anoushiravani,
whose one comment in the meeting re
minded me greatly of her demeanor when I
first met her in high school debate tourna
ments: fiery, unabashedly critical of the
senators and sickeningly organized (just
like a debate tirade). Later, Sen. President
Jessica Timpany described her colleague’s
speech as a “cathartic episode” (Webster’s
defines cathartic as “purging”). Surprising
ly, the senator to speak after Anoushira
vani, Spencer Hamlin, calmly outlined a
position that differed from Anoushira
vani’s. That speech differed from all his
other speeches, which all reached an un
paralleled level of passion, even for mun
dane or minor subjects.
What was some
what frustrating at
City Council was
the apparent im
portance of long
speeches. It strikes
me that the older
one gets, or the
more prominent
one’s position in
government gets,
the harder it is to
resist taking a big
chunk of the pub
lic record. Almost
all the speakers
from the public hit
their three-minute
limit, and some
council members
spoke for longer.
Senior John
Adams, a political
science major who
attended the City
Council meeting as
part of the Shadow
A Leader commu
nity internship
program, said, “A
lot of people have a
lot of things they
want to say. Giving
them only three
minutes — I can
understand trying to limit it.
i nere were, nowever, many ways in
which the City Council engaged in more ef
fective communication than the Student
Senate. For one thing, nobody yelled,
though the issue of giving EWEB the power
to enter the high-speed telecommunica
tions business was one that brought out
many opinions. Not that I think a little pas
sion in government is bad, but those of us
who are former debaters sometimes forget
that presenting people with overwhelming
evidence that they are wrong is not the best
way to sway their opinion.
What I did enjoy about both meetings was
that people were concerned about the prin
ciples by which governance should occur.
In the City Council meeting, some of the is
sues raised were ones of jurisdiction, rather
than simple pragmatism. Is it right for gov
ernment to ace out private companies in the
new world of Internet access? Moreover, is it
something that ought to be referred to vot
ers, regardless of whether the council tech
nically has power to decide? In the senate
meeting, questions of what the senate rules
directed were dealt with in terms of ethics,
as they attempted to tease the spirit of the
law from the letter of the law. Hamlin object
ed strongly on ethical grounds to an offer to
senators for free event tickets from a group,
irrespective of the fact that there weren’t any
votes left to be swayed.
Both Student Senate and Eugene City
Council meetings are open to everyone, al
though if you want to attend the senate,
you better get there early and be comfort
able on the floor of the EMU Board Room.
At the very least, every member of these
groups has the opinions of her or his con
stituents high on her or his mind, and con
tacting them is the best way to let them
know what those opinions are.
Jonathan Gruber is a columnist for the Oregon Daily
Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent
those of the Emerald. He can be reached via e-mail
atjgruber@gladstone.uoregon.edu.
‘STUS^e^JT ‘ZF-r^ATTE
J
Bryan Dixon Emerald
Elections Board states case for removalfrom ballot
Commentary
Ken
The Elections Board wants to clarify the
extenuating circumstances regarding the
grievance against C.J. Gabbe and Peter Lar
son. The ticket remains on the ballot until
the ASUO Constitution Court is able to rule
on the appeal that the party in question has
brought forth. The reasoning is that in the
event that the court overturns the Elections
Board’s decision, it will give Gabbe and
Larson an equal shot at running a cam
paign. It is frustrating that decisions from
the court take a few weeks to offer an opin
ion; we do, however, respect the ruling of
the court and understand the time con
straints. The injunction by the court does
not speak directly to the innocence or guilt
of Gabbe or Larson.
Their campaign sponsored the Interna
tional Students Association Coffee Hour
Friday, Feb. 4. The ISA Coffee Hour is a
weekly event and is always sponsored by
some program, which pays for food and re
freshments for approximately 100 people.
Melissa Unger, the ticket’s campaign man
ager, paid for the refreshments. And there
was a table that held “C.J. Gabbe and Peter
Larson for ASUO Executive” posters, but
tons, backpack signs and similar campaign
materials.
Rule 2.4 of the 2000 ASUO Elections
Rules states that no candidate or non-can
didate can represent or imply to voters that
he or she will either provide or withhold
“any service, opportunity or other thing of
value for compliance with such efforts to
promote or propose an election or ballot
measure outcome.”
We find that sponsoring the ISA Coffee
Hour has violated this rule: Gabbe and
Larson provided food and beverages,
which is decided to be a thing of value, in
return for an effort to promote an election
outcome — the executive race. The Elec
tions Board finds that the actions of Melis
sa Unger were on direct behalf of the re
spondents’ campaign and indeed
occurred with the candidates’ knowledge
or permission, that they participated di
rectly in the rule violation.
Gabbe and Larson claim that they at no
point orally urged anyone to vote for them
during the ISA Coffee Hour. The board
does not dispute this. The purpose of this
claim is to assert that the rule in question
does not apply to this incident because
they did not “... promote ... the candidacy
[or] election ... of an ASUO candidate ...
nor did they engage in any “... efforts to
promote or propose an election ... out
come.”
The following facts are not disputed: It
was generally known that “C.J. and Peter”
were sponsoring the event, that they talked
about their campaign and that various cam
paign materials were present, displayed
and available. Elections Rule 1.5 states:
“Campaign material is defined as any mat
ter, be it printed, electronic, spoken or oth
erwise designed to affect the outcome of an
election.” Hence, the Elections Board has
no choice but to rule that the respondents
were in fact promoting their election.
The election rules are clearly defined
and upheld by the Elections Board for pur
poses of democracy at the University.
Whether it is a cookie or Corvette, $40 or
$40,000, giving something of value to elec
tors is a violation of the rules. The Elec
tions Board is responsible for the institu
tional integrity of the ASUO and desires
that the real issues be promoted in this
election. We had no other alternative but to
remove Mr. Gabbe and Mr. Larson from the
ballot.
Ken Best is the ASUO Elections Board Coordinator. His
vi ews do not necessari ly rep resent those of the Emera I d.
CORRECTION
The story “Funding granted for Autzen, want
ed for WOlP (ODE, Feb. 21) incorrectly stated
that the Oregon University System Board of
Higher Education approved all the legislative
concepts at its Feb. 18 meeti ng, except one
that would exempt donor information from
the public record. The board actually ap
proved all the concepts, including the donor
information exemption.
Also, the Feb 21 edition of the Emerald should
have included the statement that the Emerald
did not print a q uestion-and-a nswer a rtf cle on
AS’JO Executive candidate Joel Rueber at his
own request.
The Emerald regrets the errors.