Chris, that is funny. Maybe it’s just the particular people I’ve dealt with, or maybe the current members learned their lesson after all the arguing I did, including bringing copies of the records/meetings law with me to meetings and when I went to their office. It’s also possible the people I dealt with thought that I didn’t understand the law well enough to know what I had the rights to get my hands on. Of course, it should be said that when I was the reporter, the ASUO was being told by a certain attorney who works for the University that they were not required to follow the public meetings law, despite the fact that 1) the Green Tape Notebook says they do and 2) In 1984, the Attorney General ruled that student governments are in fact subject to that law — Fun fact, that Attorney General was Dave Frohnmayer — so there were some people in the ASUO at the time who really didn’t know what their own rules required.

That letter itself is covered under the law (so if this were just a rumor, you could request a copy of the letter), as would be any e-mails sent over the senate list serv, documents passed out during the meeting where the request was approved, the request itself, any financial documents the BWA is required to give the Senate, etc. I don’t know what documents could prove that someone was a student at the time she made the request. I know that when I was at UO, the Registrar’s Office would confirm to ODE reporters whether a person was a current student (when I left, requests for anyone other than us were forwarded through some other organization that charged for the information), but I don’t know if they’ll tell you whether someone was a student on a specific date.

That’s funny considering that nearly every professional interaction I’ve had with the ASUO dealt with their incessant requests for documents, etc. with a thinly-veiled insinuation that they’d go to the highest court in the land to get them…even though we always gave them what they wanted. It was very childish and kind of insulting the way they did some things.

Is it worth requesting documentation? What are we looking at here…or is that letter all that is needed to further inquire? I feel bad for the BWA because they’re being thrust into the middle of this. As far as I can tell, they put in a request and while the conditions of the agreement (allegedly) are murky and suspicious…I’m not sure what they did that was wrong, per se. Seems like minutes would clear that up, but then would you be dumb enough to write such a quid pro quo into public record?

They’re required to follow the Oregon public records law. If you submit formal requests to the ASUO for documents, you do it under the Oregon law. An explanation of the law, along with forms for making requests, can be found at openoregon.org. Any documents that are covered under the state law have to be made available to anyone who requests them, although the governing body can charge for the cost of copying them. FOIA is a federal law that applies to documents controlled by the federal government. Fortunately for UO students/media, the ASUO is required to follow Oregon’s records/meetings law, which happens to be extremely open as far as what you can get access to.

However, as the former ASUO reporter, I can tell you that getting documents out of the ASUO is harder than just a matter of submitting the request. They’re so damn disorganized that even the things they’re legally required to make available aren’t always there. They don’t really keep things that they’re supposed to, and despite the fact that they’re supposedly aware that they have to follow the law, a lot of people in the ASUO are unaware of what the law actually requires. I spent quite a bit of time standing in the office, refusing to leave without basic documents they should have had no reason to deny me. If they try to deny you access to something, the burden of proof is on them to prove why the law doesn’t require them to make it available.

Speaking of smoking…

Speaking of which, I think that hookah bar on 13th is opening soon (if it isn’t already).

*grin*

See? I know where to get the good shit.

That’s a lot of tobacco!

This was exactly my question. Seems like something could be just as easily put on for a few hundred dollars, if that.

I heard rumors of promoters being involved, which sounds both extraordinarily costly and utterly unnecessary.

I mean, maybe.

$64,050 for a “hair show”?

How in the hell could this possibly cost $64,050?

Also interesting that Frohnmayer is apparently the Chief Executive of ASUO? Or am I reading that incorrectly?

McLain’s letter is a study in the monstrous results of giving students a million-dollar slush fund. Recommendations were rushed, late, contradictory (there are major issues, but whatever, it’s you’re call”), and most don’t pass muster. Telling Frohnmayer that “risk management should not be a factor” for CASL’s request despite that group’s enigmatic “issues in the past”? Building an “S-Shed” isn’t capital construction because dammit, we say so? Get Liora Sponko’s say-so before not approving the BWA request? Sadly, this all just seems so par for the course.

What this also lays bare is the fact that overrealized fund requests, along with the whole budget, are all subject to Frohnmayer’s approval. Despite the “power to the students” rhetoric of the very Executive that passed this hot potato off to Johnson Hall. Then again, this is exactly what the Administration deserves for allowing this misappropriated slush fund they call the Overrealized fund to even exist. And they’re gonna keep on dealing with these kinds of fiascoes until they kill it dead.

So Johnson Hall has a choice. They either accept that this is what student government is, and this is how they educate youngsters for a future of political service, or they stop the madness. I (once again) humbly beg the latter.