Oregon Daily Emerald

Tuesday night, the Athletics and Contracts Finance Committee will hear from members of the University’s Oregon Student Public Interest Group for a second time to fulfill OSPIRG’s appeal of its initial hearing.

Unlike other political controversies that may seem two-sided, the debate about whether to fund OSPIRG features stakeholders with varying opinions both in favor of and in opposition.

Here’s a summary of all arguments from all sides of the conversation.

In Favor

• Students in the OSPIRG chapter work with state- and national-level advocates to  promote positive benefits for the public.

OSPIRG treasurer Katie Taylor: “(OSPIRG Health Care Advocate Laura Etherton) is able to represent us as citizens and public interest … Laura’s literally the only one in the room representing the public.”

Taylor: “Due to our work, we were able to lower rate increases.”

• A majority of students who voted in ASUO elections last April voiced support for funding the group.

ASUO Vice President Maneesh Arora: “The way we find out what students want is through ballot measures. That’s what students on our campus voted for.”

Arora: “The majority of students who voted wanted an OSPIRG chapter.”

• OSPIRG does advocacy on issues, but they are issues that a majority of students will agree upon.

OSPIRG Campaign Co-Coordinator Jeremy Hedlund: “The reason I joined OSPIRG was because we are working with things majority of people focus on.”

Hedlund: “‘A vast majority of people’ support OSPIRG’s projects.”

OSPIRG board chair Charles Denson: “Students have complete control, not a lot of statewide non-profits are directed by an all-student board of directors.”

In Opposition

• Past students have said student volunteers are not always able to contribute.

Emerald Guest Commentator Tara Celentano: “I felt empowered while navigating my way through Capitol Hill, but it struck me as odd that the students were asked to remain quiet during the actual sessions.”

• Everything OSPIRG works on is cool, but making students pay through a mandatory fee is not.

ASUO Senator Evan Thomas: “The argument against OSPIRG doesn’t have to do with content. If you’re against what OSPIRG does, you’re crazy. The argument is about the funding rubric. Basically, the idea of having a mandatory fee for a public interest group is hypocritical.”

• OSPIRG’s methods for procuring those votes and student support go too far.

ASUO Senator Kaitlyn Lange: “I’ve seen your campaign tactics. I’ve seen you talk to students who don’t even speak English.”

ASUO Senator and ACFC Vice Chair Ian Fielding: “No other contract has to do lobbying.”

The implication ACFC members have made is that this appeal hearing will be a place for them to air all arguments they’ve heard for and against OSPIRG in more private settings in the last four months in order to alleviate concerns that ACFC’s initial decision was made in haste. Unlike the previous hearing, there will be time for public testimony from students not involved with the ASUO or among OSPIRG’s group of presenters.

As ACFC has reached its growth cap, a favorable decision for OSPIRG will by necessity result in shuffling work by members of the finance committee. The two proposals, if necessary, include paying for part of Lane Transit District’s contract from money the ASUO has received from Oregon Business Energy Tax Credits or renegotiating the contract the ASUO has with the University’s athletic department for student tickets to athletic events.

Each ASUO major programs budget (ACFC, Programs Finance Committee, Department Finance Committee and the EMU Board of Directors) can grow by no more than 7 percent each year. The ACFC is at exactly that 7 percent number with OSPIRG’s appeal hearing still awaiting.

ACFC Chair Brianna Woodside-Gomez has said since the committee’s initial hearing with the student PIRG that her reason for adjourning the meeting early has been incorrectly spread.

“I think it was a waste of our time, it’s the same arguments over and over again,” Woodside-Gomez said. “To clarify … it was poor communication on my part; I completely misrepresented myself. People were just using the same arguments over and over again and it’s just something that people aren’t going to agree on. I was just so frustrated with people going back and forth that I moved to adjourn, we could have just as easily moved to vote; I realize that now in retrospect, but at that point I felt like adjourning was more effective.”

Woodside-Gomez’s reason for adjourning was similar to what her fellow senator on the committee, Ian Fielding, has said. The two committee members have said they have had plenty of contact with OSPIRG members and they know the other members on the committee have as well.

They attribute much of the contact they’ve had with OSPIRG members to a less formal public meeting where OSPIRG Board chair Charles Denson and treasurer Katie Taylor made a 25-minute presentation and answered questions. That in combination with the personal conversations OSPIRG has had with ACFC made up her reasoning to move to adjourn.

The Programs Finance Committee stuck to its original allocation decision for the Student Insurgent on Tuesday night, because, members said, the Insurgent’s appeal did not outweigh the little amount fundraised and spent by the publication.

There were two primary concerns with the Executive recommendation for the Student Insurgent for the Programs Finance Committee at its last hearing: the copies of the publication sent to non-students and last year’s group did not spend all of its budget.

While the original recommendation for 2011-12 was for a 10 percent decrease from 2010-11, the eventual decision Jan. 6 was to decrease the Insurgent’s budget by 20.1 percent. This is a decrease of $4,577, which took into account less funding for distribution to those not paying the incidental fee and the common decrease groups see when they do not spend most of their allocation or return the money they don’t need to surplus.

Additionally, the committee suggested the group petition for surplus funds if the publication came to a point where it published the last issue for which it has funding — the amount it fundraises can be pooled with a surplus request to have enough money to publish.

The Insurgent’s fundraising has been a sticking point from the beginning for PFC because the group is one of the highest-funded publications on campus and it only raised fewer than $100 before their original hearing.

The publication received a $21 donation and is working on a bake sale with the Alliance of Happy Atheists and a number of other projects.

After a vote by acclimation failed that would have added $725 to the printing and publication line item from the original allocation, they took a vote on the same motion from the original hearing.

The vote to keep the Student Insurgent at the same level assessed to it at their Jan. 6 budget hearing passed 4-0-1 with Sen. James Dos Santos and members Katherine Du Pont, Paul Trakarn and Melissa Cohen approving and PFC at-large member and chair Noah Wolf-Prusan abstaining from the vote.