Live coverage of Wednesday night’s ASUO Senate meeting:

Senate Agenda:

After more than a year of planning, meeting and researching the University of Oregon Organization Against Sexual Assault is ready to hire staff for the 2014-2015 school year.

Former ASUO President Laura Hinman created the organization in 2012 as the Sexual Violence Prevention Task Force after negative reaction to the university’s implementation of a mandatory reporting protocol.

The task force’s founding members created a report identifying and evaluating current sexual assault related resources and services on the UO campus. The spring 2013 report made detailed recommendations to increase campus awareness, literature and educational changes, trainings, response protocol changes, further research and risk reduction.

The organization is currently funded to the tune of about $38,000 through the ASUO executive. Though funded under the executive, the group is its own line item, meaning that executive cannot touch the funds. The funding will allow the organization to hire students to carry out various programs.

The organization is currently composed of  five members: Caitlin Corona, Amy Jones, Lauren Appell, Lyndsey Goforth and Naduah Wheeler.

“The group was student-made, student-run. It’s all of our ideas.” Jones said. “We presented this to the administration, but they’re not telling us how to use our money. They recognize that there’s a need on campus.”

Many of those ideas will be implemented in the 2014-2015 school year. The OASA plans to institute a buddy-walking program similar to Safe Ride, conduct a campus and near-campus safety audit and trainings like the Agent of Change module.

The program will first be implemented in Fraternity and Sorority Life and housing, then across campus. The decision to introduce FSL and housing to the module first is not because those are the groups with the biggest problems, but rather because they can reach the most people.

The module is meant to train students in what consent means, how to be active bystanders and how to intervene.

During the planning stage, OASA looked to other university campuses like UCLA and UC Berkley to assess how sexual violence prevention is handled elsewhere. There are many groups both on and off campus that deal with sexual assault. OASA member Lauren Appell emphasizes that the group is not the first on campus to tackle sexual assault or in its goal of working with and helping improve existing programs and resources..

“We are really just adding to the work that people have been doing for years,” Appell said. “We’re really just trying to reach out to students as students.”

The aim of the OASA is to improve existing structures and to coordinate between different groups on campus.

“I got involved with the OASA because sexual violence is a serious issue on our campus,” Caitlin Corona said. “Being a part of this organization would allow me to work with other student leaders to end this problem.”

The organization is currently hiring a facilitator, an internal affairs coordinator, a logistics coordinator and five member-at-large positions. Applications for all positions are due May 30.

‘Brother Jed’  is back on campus preaching his anti-gay and anti-feminist religious message on the Knight Library lawn. George Smock, Campus Ministry USA president, also known as ‘Brother Jed’, has drawn a crowd the past few days, and the University of Oregon Police Department showed up today to make sure it didn’t get out of hand.

Nearly 300 students gathered around 1 p.m. May 21, to protest against Brother Jed. Students were surrounding him holding signs reading: “Trigger Warning: Transphobia,” “Trigger Warning: Rape Culture” and more.

By 2 p.m., campus police arrived and many of the protesters moved out, though close to 50 students remained until evening. Several students were agitated and screamed at Smock. However, students were careful not to touch him, in order to avoid arrest.

Protesters want Smock banned from campus, but Maure Smith-Benanti, the coordinator of UO’s Bias Response Team, explained, “All of us have a right to say what we want, but that doesn’t mean we have to agree.”

Because Smock doesn’t have a reservation to speak on campus, he is allowed to preach as long as he doesn’t stay in one place, so he wandered around the lawn while protesters followed.

“The only thing we can do is counter-protest,” Smith-Benanti said.

Meerah Powell was on her way to class when she joined the group of students and community members protesting the teachings of Smock and his associate Mike Hail. The pair have been preaching against everything from homosexuality to wearing tights with holes, saying that women deserve rape if they dress a certain way, and gay rights supporters are going to hell.

“I just came to support the people being affected,” Powell said. “And to make it known that there are accepting people on this campus.”

UOPD Sgt. Brad Petrie said that there has been no violence today that he’s aware of.  According to Petrie, it wasn’t necessary for police to be at the scene today.

“We’re here to protect everybody’s rights,” Petrie said. “As long as they’re not crossing lines into hate speech, they have the right to be here. They come here every year.”

Protesters chanted, “Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia’s got to go.”

Then Smock interrupted with his own chant: “Get this, sinners, and get it clear; Jesus Christ can save a queer!” Just then two women began kissing passionately directly in front of Smock, and the crowd started cheering.

But not all the spectators thought protesting was a good idea. One man yelled, “The only reason this yahoo is here is ’cause you’re feeding him. I’m leaving.”

Smock relished the attention. He encouraged people to challenge his views so he could argue with them. “Yes, I’m enjoying this,” Smock said, laughing. “I hope you all are having as much fun as I am. Now does anyone have an intelligent question, one that doesn’t have to do with sex?”

One protester held a sign reading “Christianity is not —>” with an arrow pointing at Smock.

The InterVarsity Christian Fellowship are also stationed on the Knight Library lawn, juxtaposing the preachings of the Campus Ministry USA.

The InterVarsity Christian Fellowship is engaging in conversations about injustice throughout the world with students; the fellowship is completely separate from Campus Ministry USA.

The University of Oregon Coalition to End Sexual Violence rallied outside of Johnson Hall on Thursday, in response to a list of demands given to the UO administration on Monday, May 12. Those demands included the administration holding a press conference Thursday at 12 p.m., which the administration declined.

“We took that as by not holding a press conference they don’t respect our demands,” UO-CESV media contact Alex Dione said. “The goal of the rally is to stand by our demands and say that we believe in these demands.”

Members of the Coalition to End Sexual Violence attended a meeting with administration prior to the rally. The meeting included four undergraduate students, two graduate students, one faculty representative, Vice President of Student Affairs Robin Holmes, Senior Vice President Provost Scott Coltrane and President Michael Gottfredson.

Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation Bargaining Chair David Craig attended the roughly 50 minute meeting. In the meeting the CESV’s individual demands were addressed.

“We feel that we received no clear answers,” Craig said. “The President, Holmes and Coltrane gave vague answers without any firm commitments.”

Craig spoke at the rally about the University’s tendency to make empty promises, similar to the GTFF bargaining. Craig called for actions instead of words.

In between chants Dana Rognile, CESV member and GTF, addressed each demand made in the meeting and the administrative response, most of which was met with boos from the crowd.

President Gottfredson sent out an email after the meeting urging the UO campus to change the culture of sexual violence, harassment and intimidation.

“I spoke directly about this issue to the University Senate yesterday, and called for our campus to take this opportunity to move forward together as a community, to channel our anger and our energy around this incident and direct it toward a solution,” Gottfredson said. “As I said to the senate, we have an opportunity—a responsibility—to lead the nation in creating a campus that is safe from sexual violence.” 

The CESV demands include:

1) Provide advocacy independent of UO for survivors of sexual violence that corresponds to actual rates of sexual violence at the University;

2) Support the expansion of the UO’s Multicultural General Education requirements to include at least one mandatory class that addresses gender, sexuality, and social inequality in the United States;

3) Provide resources for Dr. Jennifer Freyd’s research team so that they can begin conducting their campus climate research survey by Monday, June 2, 2014;

4) Appoint a UO-CESV member to the committee charged with revising the student conduct code, as well as to all future committees regarding sexual misconduct and prevention;

5) Hold a press conference at noon on Thursday, May 15 that includes the following:

-A public apology from the University Administration for lying about the University’s failure to act on a reported sexual assault;

-An outline of specific measures regarding sexual violence prevention at the University of Oregon and a list of specific resources that will be allocated to these measures;

-A public signing of the Academic Freedom policy, which will enable staff to speak freely and openly on this and other issues regarding the University;

-A direct response to items 1-4 above.

ASUO senate voted to move funds returned to surplus to a rollover fund. What does that mean?

Last week the Child Care Subsidy returned around $45,ooo to surplus, which brought the total surplus to $97,160.

Groups typically return funds to the surplus so that it does not count as unspent money and therefore isn’t deducted from their subsequent budgets. The debate at tonight’s senate meeting was whether to move the returned funds to a rollover fund or keep them in the general surplus.

The rollover fund essentially saves the money and adds it to next year’s surplus. All money in the current surplus automatically goes into the rollover fund July 1 when the new budget begins.

Senator Miles Sisk proposed moving the funds to the rollover fund to provide support for groups affected by the budget caps. The 2014-2015 ASUO budget gave many groups zero percent increases or just enough to maintain current service levels which could potentially increase demand for next year’s surplus.

“This rollover fund was created this year when we had a huge surplus just in case we didn’t have a big one next year,” Sisk said.

Many senators mentioned issues with last year’s surplus being significantly lower than the current surplus. Senator Taylor Allison said she supported the motion to move funds returned to surplus to the rollover fund. Fellow Programs Finance Committee member and Senator Elect Yelin Oh agreed.

Many senators took issue with moving returned funds to the rollover fund. One point addressed by senators was that current seniors who paid the incidental fee would not have access to the returned surplus that they paid into if it was moved to the rollover fund.

Another point addressed was that since the money would automatically go into the rollover fund by July 1 and there are only three more senate meetings this term, the discussion was redundant.

“I don’t see the point in having this discussion when we already have money and most of the money will be rolled over anyway,” Senator Helena Schlegel said.

The motion to move returned funds from surplus to a rollover fund passed. With returned funds added to the rollover fund the surplus now sits at $52,926.

Now that the elections are over and the dust has settled, members of the ASUO senate have created a working group to change the way the ASUO conducts elections.

The ASUO presidential election was decided by both a primary and general election. As described in the ASUO elections rules if no candidate receives over 50 percent of the vote in the primary election a general election takes place between the two candidates who received the most votes.

Oregon State, on the other hand, used an instant runoff election for the first time. The ASOSU previously had primary and general elections like the ASUO. In an instant runoff election voters rank the candidate on their ballot eliminating the second round of voting, explained Associated Students of Oregon State University President Elect Taylor Sarman.

“What you do is rank and slate your candidates that you wanted for president and vice president,” Sarman said. “Voters had the opportunity to rank one, two, three, four, five and then after the first round of voting the lowest number drops off and those votes are reallocated to the second choice.”

ASUO Senator Elect Andrew Lubash introduced the idea of an instant runoff election to senate this term.

“I would really like to see an instant runoff of the same nature that the Oregon State University has,” Lubash said. “I think that process would allow for more candidates to run in the first place.”

Universities across the United States use instant runoff elections including Harvard, MIT, Stanford and more.

There are many advantages to ASOSU’s switch to the instant runoff voting system. According to Sarman the instant runoff election helped to increase voter turnout.

“This past year we had 15 percent of the student body turn out to vote,” Sarman said. “Last year something like 9.4 percent voted in the primary and then 4.5 percent turned out to vote in the general election.”

At University of Oregon voter turnout significantly decreased from the primary to the general election — 1,174 fewer students voted in the general than in the primary elections.

“I think it’s taxing to have two weeks of elections when we have classes to go to, the student body experiences fatigue,” Lubash said. “I think that was clearly evidenced in the results of the second week’s elections. A thousand less people voted. Students don’t want to deal with us for two weeks, so I think that’s a really good solution.”

The biggest challenge associated with the new election system that Sarman faces is changing the culture of voting at OSU.

“A fairly significant amount of the student population voted that only ranked 1 or 2 candidates,” Sarman said. “Which is fine, it just means that if your first choice candidate didn’t get enough votes then your vote was essentially done after that ticket was dropped.”

Any decision on elections reform at UO is a ways off. Changes to the election rules are a long term issue that students will continue to discuss until the next election.The elections reform working group met Tuesday May 13 and started a discussion of problems with the current elections system and potential solutions.

Live coverage of Wednesday night’s ASUO Senate meeting:

Senate Agenda

Campaigns spent more than $16,000 to win your vote in this year’s ASUO elections. High price tag elections are nothing new for the University of Oregon.

The Mighty Oregon campaign spent a total of $10,668.81. The Ducks Like You campaign spent $4,894. Thomas Tullis’ short-lived Fresh Start Oregon campaign spent $470.

The campaign financial disclosures published on the ASUO Elections site show the amounts contributed by and on behalf of members of ASUO campaigns. The sum of money that presidential candidates raised — different from the total number, which reflects the contributions of other members is significantly higher than those raised at other schools. The Mighty Oregon presidential candidate Taylor Allison raised $5,290, while the Ducks Like You presidential candidate Beatriz Gutierrez raised $1,666. 

Fundraising is crucial for ASUO campaigns. Those running for office solicit donations from friends and family members. The emphasis on donations in order to run for ASUO office creates an advantage for students with personal wealth or connections.

“Having thousands of dollars less was a disadvantage,” Ducks Like You Campaign Manager Helena Schlegel said. “Mighty Oregon clearly bought more T-shirts and freebies to hand out.”

With big budget elections comes big budget drama. T-shirts have been an issue in past two ASUO elections — grievances have been filed citing campaigns giving away T-shirts as bribery.

“I think it has really become a trading T-shirts for votes (situation) and I think that’s really unfortunate,” Senator Elect Andrew Lubash said. “People, a lot of times, don’t know what side is supporting which policy or what the campaign platform is, and that’s really the purpose of democracy.”

The ASUO has no caps on campaign spending or contributions.

Many other universities set campaign spending limits. The Associated Students of Oregon State University sets a $1,000 spending limit per campaign. The Associated Students of the University of Washington limits campaign spending to $540 for presidential candidates running on a ticket and a $630 limit for presidential candidates running independently.

The University of California Los Angeles Undergraduate Student Association Council requests that candidates sign a voluntary spending limit, which is $600 for presidential candidates. Public notice of a campaign’s participation in the voluntary spending cap is then published in the UCLA newspaper, the Daily Bruin, along with the total expenses of each campaign.

The voluntary spending cap then becomes a binding contract. Failure to abide by it can result in sanction or disqualification. The system is not without flaws. A recent editorial published by the Daily Bruin discusses a lack of incentive for candidates to agree to the voluntary spending cap.

The ASUO senate recently created a working group to discuss potential elections reform, like campaign finance reform. The working group was created after Former Mighty Oregon Vice Presidential Candidate Austin Palacios addressed the need for elections reform.

“It’s exciting to know that the ASUO is putting together a working group to address the reformation of elections,” Palacios said. “We as a student body have this beautiful opportunity to mitigate what has made it difficult for students to be involved in and have their voices be heard.”

By the end of tonight’s ASUO Senate meeting the surplus fund gained $44,234. That’s right, gained.

The Child Care Subsidy returned $45,000 to the surplus fund which, after taking into account other funds allocated at senate, put the surplus at $97,160.

At the meeting, senators discussed whether the returned money should remain in the surplus or go directly into the roll-over fund. All left over surplus funds automatically go into the roll-over fund at the end of the year, which goes to next year’s surplus.

If the funds were left in the surplus, students and groups could request them for the rest of the year.

“This year’s seniors who paid the i-fee would have a chance to use the money if it wasn’t rolled over,” Senator Amy Jones said. “I dislike displacing the money further and further out.”

Some senators felt that the best course of action would be to save the funds for next year.

“I am wholeheartedly against spending money for the sake of spending money,” Senator Losner said. “I’m leaning towards putting it in the roll-over fund.”

If the returned funds were put in the roll-over account, they could still be accessed by a vote of 2/3 of the ASUO Senate.

Senate will further discuss where to put the returned surplus funds at next week’s ASUO Senate meeting.

Live coverage of Wednesday night’s ASUO Senate meeting: