Comments on: Con Court Denies Conflict of Interest Charges Against Gulley

By: Niedermeyer

Niedermeyer — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:01:16 +0000

No, this perception has been around longer than anyone can remember, which is why it’s so damn important that they start doing something about it.

By: Betz

Betz — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:45:37 +0000

Wait…you mean there was such a time that they did?

By: Niedermeyer

Niedermeyer — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:04:12 +0000

Betz, you’ve put your finger on the problem, and that problem is all about perception. Everyone hears about shit like this year after year, and yet nothing is ever done about it. The Con Courts ruling upheld the doctrine that there is only one form of conflict of interest, and that it is constitutionally impossible to prove a conflict of interest in the disbursment of surplus funds.

The steps taken by Ombudswoman Kinsey show the way for the ASUO to prove that they take this issue seriously, but more needs to be done, including passing comprehensive ethics rules. If this doesn’t happen soon, students will have no choice but to conclude that the ASUO is clueless about how it is perceived, and that it doesn’t give a shit about good governance.

By: Betz

Betz — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:51:58 +0000

Although I am an outsider to the ASUO political arena, I do pay attention to whats going on on campus, and this is absolutley rotten. What path of logic was following the justices decision when, instead of recognizing the parallels between the Mann v Morales incident and Gullys’, to instead overrule precedent just to avoid confrontation? I’m sorry, but this just makes me laugh at how ineffective and weak the ASUO really is. If the UO had a…whats the word I’m looking for? O, of course….”GOOD,” or “MEANINGFUL” student government, then BS like this wouldn’t happen, and justices would have the cajones to take action.

And also, senators would realize that quoting things “for the record” means indefinatly, and that as a representative of a large group of people, that kind of shit just won’t fly.

By: Niedermeyer

Niedermeyer — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:04:18 +0000

A good place to start would be ORS 244. Unfortunately, my reading of the statute seems to suggest that conflict of interest cannot take place if the beneficiary is a 501(c)3 nonprofit. Needless to say, if this reading is correct, new ASUO rules would need to cover nonprofits as well.

By: Jacque

Jacque — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:40:08 +0000

Well I am working on drafting some rule changes specifically addressing conflicts of interest any ideas for some language?… as we speak nothing personal agains gulley but for the record “he can kiss my ass” I love that he called us all racist… that is so laughable.

By: Senator Toby

Senator Toby — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:24:43 +0000

Is Wally still on the court?

By: Doomscheissah

Doomscheissah — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:34:47 +0000

I’d like to know what Wally Hicks has to say about this.

By: Goward

Goward — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:31:55 +0000

I am absolutely amazed, and this is coming from someone who has been around a time or two with the Con Court. Last year the ASUO had 17 primary injunctions against it, because of strict interpretation of the Constitution, now the Con Court is throwing out common sense and losing its backbone. I guess in the justice turnover they some how have lost their collective balls, but come on, this is just common sense. Gully should have been sanctioned for a direct violation, plain and simple.

I never thought I would say it, but I miss the days of Tony (Chief Justice) “fucking legislating” from the court.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:55:14 +0000

I am unshocked by this opinion, but also completely livid.

By: Niedermeyer

Niedermeyer — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:05:09 +0000

Look, the opinion basically says that the only way to have a conflict of interest is to vote on the budget of a program thaat pays you a stipend. As often as that might happens, and as good an idea as it is to prevent it, this does not constitute a comprehensive ethics code for the ASUO. I’m not surprised that no one has given a shit about this so far, but it does need to change. The ASUO is enough of a joke as it is.

By: Jacque

Jacque — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:31:11 +0000

I like that it is a per curiam decision. this is latin for something like “from the court” but in other words no one person wants to take responsibility for the decision. I think it is clear that Gulley had the discretion to vote if he wanted to but even judges can be sanctioned if they abuse this discretion, which I am afraid Gulley clearly has. I am a little dissapointed in the Con Court and thats not even anything personal against Gulley, I would say the same thing if it were any member of senate…