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
Friday
February 25,2000
Volume 101, Issue 105
Eifierald
Is accountabi
TOO MUCH
to ask for?
Why do people in posi
tions of power make
crazy decisions? By
now, you may have
read “Lies, unfairness alleged in the
PFC” (ODE, Feb. 24). In the article,
ASUO President Wylie Chen alleges
that Programs Finance Committee
Chairwoman Shantell Rice and PFC
Vice Chairwoman Emily Sedgwick
came to him during the PFC hearings
and asked him to choose between
two positions that the Multicultural
Center and the ASUO were asking for
in their respective budgets. The MCC
wanted its first ever non-student co
ordinator position. The executive
wanted the return of a long-time non
student staff position of executive co
ordinator.
Only one could be funded, they
told Chen. And they told him to
choose, he says.
While Sedgwick and Rice ac
knowledge a conversation between
them and Chen about the coordinator
positions, they deny asking him to ei
ther choose which one would be
funded or to cut other budgets to
make both affordable. “Maybe he
misunderstood what we were trying
to ask him,” Rice says.
Yet Chen says Rice lied, and he
maintains — and seemingly has an
old e-mail to prove — that he was
asked to compromise his ethics to
make a decision he shouldn’t have
had to make. What an impossible sit
uation it was for Chen. He possibly
held the fate of each coordinator po
sition in his hands and was asked to
choose. Incidentally he did not
choose, and his reasoning was that is
was intrinsically unfair. It’s a conflict
of interest that Rice and Sedgwick
created.
And the sad thing is that it didn’t
have to happen.
Chen could have been invited to the
actual PFC hearing for both budgets
and asked for his input on the record.
The fact that a back-room deal was
asked to be set up is strange when
you consider that alternative. The
system is supposed to take care of all
the groups with pretty equal consid
eration, and everything should be
public record. If one group has a re
quest of if the ASUO has some sug
gestions in addition to its submitted
ones, then everyone should be invit
ed to hear these ideas, including the
other members of the PFC who voted
on each budget.
Maybe the alleged unfairness is a
testament to the idea our system
doesn’t work. If Sedgwick and Rice
did not feel they could adequately
handle or perform their jobs — and
therefore had to ask Chen or try to
make him choose which position to
cut — then maybe the PFC system
should be revamped.
But we don’t think so. Rice and
Sedgwick could have easily solicited
Chen’s opinion and others’ at the ac
tual hearing. Then all ideas and con
siderations would have been aired in
the public light. People who dis
agreed or had alternative solutions
could have presented them in the ap
propriate setting.
And there may well be alterna
tives. An obvious one is that instead
of funding a full-time MCC coordina
tor and not funding an executive co
ordinator at all, fund each position
half time. That would have been
about the same amount of money as
the MCC received, and the 0-percent
benchmark would have been met.
Another solution would be ways to
get students more involved in the
MCC to collectively do what a paid
non-student coordinator would do.
The ASUO Executive coordinator,
which we believe to be a more funda
mentally significant and important
position, should have been reinstitut
ed.
And there were certainly better ways
to go about making the decision on
which position to fund than asking one
of the people who could theoretically
benefit from one or the other.
The message of much of this
school year has been about accounta
bility. Candidates in the current
ASUO elections are talking about po
lice accountability. ASUO Executive
candidate Scott Austin is calling for
fiscal responsibility. And Chen and
Vice President Mitra Anoushiravani
have tried to establish executive ac
countability. Now we need some in
the PFC.
Two million dollars of incidental
fee money is too important for back
room deals and unethical behavior to
poison what is potentially a really
democratic process. We demand ac
countability for the PFC.
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board. Responses may be
sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.
Incidental fees reflect student interest
s the University’s chief student
affairs officer, I am following
JL JLthe discussions on campus, in
higher education journals and in the
media regarding the challenges to
student incidental fees in the pend
ing Supreme Court Case called “the
Southworth Case.”
It is our understanding that the
Supreme Court’s decision about the
Wisconsin case will be released
sometime this spring. Although the
facts in this case relate to a universi
ty in Wisconsin with an incidental
fee process quite different from the
University’s, the implications of the
Supreme Court ruling will be signifi
cant for all student incidental fee
policies and practices. The instruc
tions the U.S. Supreme Court gives
the lower court in Wisconsin and the
subsequent implication instructions
to the University ofWisconsin will
with great care and concern
inform us of legal considerations
about which we must be mindful as
we decide, levy and collect student
incidental fees.
The University’s student inciden
tal fee process follows a carefully
Board of Higher Education.
These guidelines are ones of
which University students and ad
ministrators are very proud. They
are guidelines that enable University
students to select a wonderful array
craned and legally
tested set of guide
lines we refer to as
“the Clark Docu
ment.” Practitioners,
challengers and legal
scholars have re
viewed our policies
Commentary
Anne
Leavitt
or campus pro
grams and activi
ties that enhance
students’ learning,
leisure, cultural
and physical de
velopment and
community experi
and practices and round that they
represent a student-driven discus
sion and review process with multi
ple opportunities for challenge and
appeal, as well as several final insti
tutional accountability points in the
form of over-all review by first the
ASUO president, then the Universi
ty president, the Oregon University
System chancellor and the State
ence on our campus. The incidental
fee review process is one in which
University students find and speak
their voice, exercise choice and
manage their funds responsibly and
responsively. The programs, funded
through this review and allocation
process, are places where students
make friends, learn leadership skills,
broaden their educational experi
ences and apply learning that begins
in our classrooms.
It is my conviction, as well as
hope, that we have in place an insti
tution fee process that has been care
fully designed, implemented with
integrity and withstood the tests of
time. I am hopeful that the outcome
of the U.S. Supreme Court decision
this spring does not require that we
make alterations in process, in scope
or in outcomes from our current in
cidental fee process. Should this not
be the case, it is also my hope that
we can work together collectively
and supportively with student lead
ers in making whatever adjustments
might be needed if this court review
requires any fine tuning in our
process.
Anne Leavitt is the associate vice president
for student affairs and dean of students. Her
views do not necessarily represent those of
the paper. ' .
Thumbs
To helping ‘taxed’
students
Beta Alpha Psi, the
accounting frater
nity, is offering
free tax advice for
students. The
workshbps involve
Beta Alpha Psi
members and IRS
experts, and they
offer one-on-one
help. Students will
have opportunities
to get tax help
March 4, March 18,
April 1 and April 8.
To driving for food
The Oregon Food
Bank and Food for
Lane County are
rolling up their
sleeves to combat
the rising shortage
of food with this
year’s Governor’s
Food Drive. Twen
ty-four food col lec
tion barrels a re
scattered through
out the University
and will remain on
campus until
March 1.
To exempting
donor information
The Oregon Uni
versity System
Board of Higher
Education has
passed a proposal
to exempt donor
information from
the public record.
This means that
any money given
to the University
essentially would
beanonymous.lt
seems secrecy is
the new status
quo.
To poll booth
‘mishap’
A controversy
erupted after the
South Carolina Re
publican primary
when supporters
ofSen.john Mc
Cain said that 21
polling precincts in
predominantly mi
nority areas were
closed without
warning by the Re
publican Party.