Comments on: The Whole, Ugly Scoop on OSPIRG

By: Top Five v. Top Five « The Arizona Desert Lamp

Top Five v. Top Five « The Arizona Desert Lamp — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:49:20 +0000

[...] PIRG money has a funny way of leaving campus. [...]

By: Five reasons why you should vote NO on PIRG « The Arizona Desert Lamp

Five reasons why you should vote NO on PIRG « The Arizona Desert Lamp — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:33:41 +0000

[...] Oregon Commentator also has a great write-up on its blog: Currently, OSPIRG (the student one) receives roughly $120,000 of student funds. Most of it goes to [...]

By: Josh M.

Josh M. — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:28:32 +0000

When are you guys going to do a movie night? I recommend “Gran Torino.”

By: Sorry, Oberlin sucks

Sorry, Oberlin sucks — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:38:35 +0000

1) Affirmation process you mention is somewhat invalid. You’re extending what happens at your college and trying to apply it to UO. We actually don’t get to vote/sign a petition on funding OSPIRG every two years – or really any year. See: above Commentator talks about defunding in 1998 through referendum. Students voted to defund them 55 to 45 percent, but then OSPIRG got refunded by ASUO the following year. Sketchy, at best.
2) I don’t know how your private college works, but damn. I totally wish I could opt out of our incidental fee. In short, students don’t get to “opt out” of paying this fee. Another moot point.
3) “Supporting advancing issues” according to the PIRG, or specifically OSPIRG involves money and giving that money to administrators and politicians who then “advocate” for issues at both state and federal levels. In actuality, this is called lobbying and is illegal as a contracted service at the UO. This is why they have defaulted to saying they are an advocacy group when they lobby.
4) Screw your “structure.” Consistently trying to evade certain budgetary processes is weak sauce. Being a contracted service means they don’t have to provide a line item budget. Back in the 80s they tried to get their budget reviewed every two years instead of one. OSPIRG constantly tries to ask for more money. Only $25,000 of their $120,000 budget stays on campus. $23,000 is to pay an outreach coordinator.

Maybe I’m beating a dead horse though because it seems you actually didn’t read this or any other article regarding OSPIRG on the Oregon campus. Shame on you, Leah Pine. It sounds like you’ve had some involvement with PIRG or you just decided to stick your nose into UO issues without any real warrant. Either way, none of your points apply to the situation here in Oregon.

By: Leah Pine

Leah Pine — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:05:30 +0000

The major fundamental problem with this article is that it neglects the PIRG affirmation process that legitimizes its funding. At least on my campus, Oberlin College, OHPIRG is required to get a huge number of student signatures every 2 years to verify that students want to fund it. Furthermore, any student has the right to opt out of paying the fee. Perhaps this is not the case with OSPIRG, and that is a shame. But on another note, I don’t believe that Student PIRG chapters really do aim to bring a lot to campuses–rather, they are intended to rally student support for advancing issues in the public interest that often take place largely off campus. In this case, it is perfectly logical that resources would be channelled away from campus, and also that student PIRG chapters would have such a close relationship with the state office. That is not money-laundering, it is structure. I hope nobody actually takes stock in that ridiculous and unsupported accusation.

By: Ossie

Ossie — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:40:43 +0000

Great article, CJ. A long, strange trip indeed. In the first issue of the OC, there is an article about OSPIRG trying to convince the ASUO to allow the group to go through the budgeting process every two years, instead of every one year like every other student group. I forget the whole context, but i know that an OC founder (I think it was Rust) was integral in pointing out how illegal this request was and the ASUO shut down OSPIRG’s request.

By: Kai Davis

Kai Davis — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:06:14 +0000

Wonderful article, CJ.

By: Niedermeyer

Niedermeyer — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:24:41 +0000

Goodness I’ve mellowed in my old age…

By: raz

raz — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:00:13 +0000

As a liberal and former PIRG employee, I disagree with virtually everything in this paper, but the main points of this article are spot on. A large part of the money from student fees are funneled off campus to state and national PIRG offices. It is also used to fund Environment Oregon, which split off from OSPIRG to run strictly environmental campaigns. And don’t let the PIRGs get away with saying the chapters are run by students. The vast majority of students of are on campus and state boards are simply rubber stamp votes that reflect the agenda of the national PIRG staff. I think OSPIRG does do alot of good work, but I wish they would be more honest and open about how they spend student fees.

By: shelly

shelly — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:08:40 +0000

stop writing on white chalk boards.