. . . totally didn’t happen, because there was no quorum. Quorum for the Summer Senate is 2/3 of seated members, of which there are 11. As far as I know, nobody has resigned from Summer Senate so far (not with public notice anyway), so that means they would have had to have eight people show up. They had four. Pretty much a fail, in my book.

Although they didn’t have an official meeting, they did give some updates:

1. According to Summer Senate Chair Kaitlyn Lange, there is no longer a Finance Coordinator in the ASUO Executive. This must mean that Kamal Ararso has left the position, but the ASUO hasn’t posted a hiring notice for the position yet. It’s KIND OF an important job, so they should probably get on that.
2. The ASUO is working on hiring their Sustainability Coordinator. They are waiting on approval from Human Resources at the moment, but once that approval is received, they will be opening up the position for a regional search.
3. And for by far the most interesting of updates, the ASUO office was the victim of what Ben Eckstein called “criminal mischief 3.” Some amazing person pinned seven (or so) insects to the ASUO Programs billboard, all science lab dissection style. Apparently there were six flies and a cockroach. Nicole Nelson was purported to have said, “There is a science dedicated to the study of bugs, the programs billboard is not the place for such studies.”

So far, I have not seen any output from Summer Senate. They have committees, they’re supposed to be doing things, but they certainly haven’t shown any of it off. Hell, they can’t even get a quorum of members to come to a monthly meeting. I absolutely cannot believe that they tried to give themselves stipends. Thank goodness that didn’t end up happening.

I think it’s about time to start the ASUO Senator resignation pool. I’m going to go with 6 senators, although that estimate is quite conservative. Anyone else?

A classroom. A cluster of desks.

Late afternoon.

Flanigan, sitting at a desk, is trying to cover the ASUO Senate. She pulls at it with both hands, panting.

She gets up, exhausted, rests, tries again.

As before.

Enter Tomchak.

FLANIGAN. Giving up. Nothing to be done.

TOMCHAK. Advancing with short, stiff strides, legs wide apart. I’m beginning to come around to that opinion. All my life I’ve tried to put it from me, saying Tomchak, be reasonable, you haven’t yet tried everything. And I resumed the struggle. He broods, musing on the struggle, turning to Flanigan. So there you are again.

FLANIGAN. Am I? (more…)

ASUO President Amelie Rousseau was published in the Register-Guard this week, along with a UO alum and a grad student, with an opinion on the UO’s proposed riverfront development. As is the general student opinion on the riverfront, they’re not too pleased:

More than two years has passed since the University of Oregon announced plans for the Oregon Research Institute’s office building and parking lot along the banks of the Willamette River, yet construction has not begun. Instead, the university is burning through taxpayer money and public goodwill by defending a development plan approved when Ronald Reagan was president and mullets were fashionable.

Rather than rolling out the bulldozers at one of several viable sites that aren’t shrouded in controversy, the university has chosen to tout the proposed building’s green design features. Instead of addressing the fundamental problem with the site — that construction on the riverfront forecloses on all other options for using this precious public land for generations to come — the university has been tinkering with the placement of its 200 parking spaces.

They go on to appeal to the reader, mentioning taxpayer funding of this project and how there are other locations that might have been more appropriate had the UO gone through an extended public hearing process.

I can only imagine that Rousseau’s name on this letter shows that she is representing students and our thoughts on the riverfront projects. I certainly applaud that. But I also understand the University of Oregon administration’s reluctance to consult with students on larger-scale building projects. In reality, most students are either ignorant or apathetic, or both. This is more evidence of the UO’s inability to engage, but I think it goes both ways. The administration should be consulting with students on their development projects. Whether or not most students would care is another story.

The Oregon Commentator, as well as all other student programs with space in the EMU, just received this memo from new ASUO Programs Administrator Sinjin Carey [Friday, June 4]:

Date: June 4, 2010
To: ASUO Programs, EMU Board, Ticket Office
Re: ASUO Key Requests

In an effort to increase safety and security within Erb Memorial Union (EMU), the key check out process has changed.

Effective June 4, 2010 at 5:00PM ASUO student groups/programs will no longer have the ability to check out or renew personal keys for student offices for the upcoming year. I personally apologize for the late notice, but this was decided by the EMU Administration before my appointment to the ASUO Programs Administrator.

Alternatively, keys to offices can be checked out at the EMU Information Office located in the EMU Concourse. In order to do this, each program must submit a list of students who wish to have access to their program space, preferably in Excel format, to the ASUO Programs Administrator. This list will be located in the Information Office where students will be able to check out keys for the day by use of card swipe. Unfortunately, this system will not be available until early next week. There is no process identified for key check out in the mean time.

Exceptions may be made for groups that articulate a need for round the clock access (ex. APS and DDS). This key policy change is an ongoing, and is open to constructive feedback. I am committed to advocating for ASUO programs in this process.

Best Regards,

Sinjin Carey
ASUO Programs Administrator
Programs Recognition Review Committee Chair
asuoprog@uoregon.edu

Safety is an oft-cited reason for changes in policy that limit student freedoms or compromise students’ ability to access student space. For those who use the EMU quite a bit, you know how much of a bitch it is to get anything done at night or on weekends. Since my time at the University of Oregon, the building has been open for less and less hours and the revenue-generating services that the EMU provides have also been open for less and less time each day. I wonder how this concern is going to be mitigated with the building of a new EMU.

Also, there is one person who decides whether or not students can have keys to their space — EMU Director, Dusty Miller. The EMU Board House Committee will have no say on anything having to do with keys, even though they’re supposed to be the ones in charge of student space in the building. I’ve been told that this policy is in response to a number of instances of students being in the building after hours or on days when the building is closed, most recently the Oregon Commentator. We got in a bit of trouble last Monday for being in the building when it was locked. We weren’t doing anything illicit. We were trying to get our issue out so you guys could have a copy of the Oregon Commentator magazine to take home over the summer.

Granted, being in the building when it is locked does present a nominal safety concern, but there are other ways to go about mitigating those concerns than to remove access for all students for every program. How about actually having DPS officers, you know, do their job? I’ve never ever seen a DPS officer in the EMU, except to check to see that doors are locked at night. They respond to calls, but that’s about it. Maybe having one entrance at night where students can enter to do work?

This is a bad sign. More and more processes within the EMU administration have circumvented students and left decision-making up to the administrators. I’ve been hearing about this from EMU Board members for years, saying that students have no voice or power when it comes to this building that so many of us love and use every day. According to today’s ODE, the decision was made by Dusty Miller alone with no consultation with the EMU Board. I implore the EMU Administration to reconsider this slapdash decision and give students access to the places that they work, socialize, and build greater university community.

Apparently there will be a meeting with ASUO higher-ups and EMU higher-ups today to talk about the decision. When I receive updates on that, I will let you know.

P.S. The ODE article makes it look like I let some random person into the building. The “man” mentioned was a member of the OC staff, and we were in the building trying to work on getting the issue out, like I mentioned above.

P.P.S. Kudos to ASUO President Amélie Rousseau for this quote:

“The fact that we’re restricted access to the building is not acceptable,” Rousseau said of the new decision.

UPDATE:

Just received this email from Sinjin Carey:

Hello,
Please disregard the new EMU key policy.
Due to a multitude of student complaints, the EMU Administration has agreed to suspend its policy until it can be reviewed. The new policy is set to take effect Sept. 1st. The ASUO is asking for an extension on the time beyond Sept. 1st so the the EMU Board can review and approve the policy.
Please continue checking out keys as normal with the yellow forms that do not require the EMU Director signature.
Thanks for your patience in this process.
–
Sinjin Carey
ASUO Programs Administrator
Programs Recognition Review Committee Chair
asuoprog@uoregon.edu

Last night, the ASUO Student Senate held a special meeting with the purpose of electing a Summer Senate Chair and Vice Chair. Unfortunately, senate meetings never turn out to be as short as we would hope them to be, especially when nobody knows what the hell is going on. But hey, it’s the ASUO Senate. What was I expecting?

The Senate made two monumentally stupid funding decisions last night. The first of which was to allow ASUO fee-funded group Dance Oregon to move their remaining funds into a line item called “Student Dance Concert and Research.” Dance Oregon uses this line item to grant students money to go to summer dance classes and conferences around the world. Dance students can apply to Dance Oregon to receive a grant, and they can essentially use that money to pay for whatever they want for their trip.

This is ridiculous for a number of reasons. First of all, the justification for allowing the group to move money into this line item was that the line item existed in the first place. “Student Dance Concert and Research” is a pretty vague name for a line item, and when PFC approves budgets, they don’t always go line by line. Something like “Scholarships” or “Going on a trip on the student dime” would have been more appropriate.

Second of all, YOU’RE GIVING MONEY TO STUDENTS FOR SCHOLARSHIPS! These students can use the funds for whatever “workshop” or “seminar” or WHATEVER they intend to go on! There is no ASUO oversight there, there is no accountability at all. For a bunch of people who claim themselves to be fiscally responsible, that’s not very responsible.

The other funding decision was definitely the more egregious of the two: the ASUO Senate voted, for the first time in a long time, to give themselves stipends over the summer. That’s right. Senate evaded the stipend model to give themselves money for a job that hasn’t been paid in at least the last five years, potentially longer.

In order to work around the “inconvenience” of a fiscal year that ends on June 30th, Senate approved a surplus request (FOR THEMSELVES, might I add) for $600, even though the total amount to pay the Summer Senate will be $1800 ($50/person/month, $75/person/month for chair and vice-chair). The Summer Senate will then have to allocate themselves money over the summer to pay their stipends.

Just to clarify, Summer Senate does not have the same luxuries as the full body does the rest of the year. They don’t have hundreds of thousands of dollars to allocate — they have $5000 for the whole summer. That money is supposed to be used for emergencies, if a student group is in desperate need of money for a summer event or some other cost incurred. If Summer Senate does in fact allocate themselves the remaining $1200 for stipends, they will be sucking up almost a quarter of those summer funds. And that money will go right into their pockets.

The rest of the meeting was as good as it could be, with everyone rushing to get things done so they could get out of there. The body lost quorum a couple of times, which was thoroughly entertaining. Sen. Kaitlyn Lange (5 – EMU Board) was elected as Summer Senate Chair and Sen. Zachary Stark-MacMillan (16 – General Science) was elected as Summer Senate Vice Chair. Apparently Sen. Jeremy Blanchard (10 – DFC) has a long list of rules changes he wants to pound out over the summer. And the whole Summer Senate wants to work on projects outside of funding, because, y’know, the ASUO Executive gets to.

Speaking of the Executive, they did get through a number of their appointments before Senate adjourned early. Each of the appointments was thoroughly coached by President Rousseau and Political Director Robert D’Andrea, as indicated by the number of times “fiscal responsibility” and “viewpoint neutrality” came up unprovoked. From what I’ve seen so far, Robert’s tactic is just to coach people on how to avoid answering a question. Amelie certainly does it, but more on that later. Senate confirmed appointments to the Athletics and Contracts Finance Committee, EMU Board, and also confirmed an Elections Coordinator, William Price. He had a well-rehearsed speech, he apparently has had no involvement in the ASUO thus far, and will probably make a pretty good Elections Coordinator. I mean, as good as an Elections Coordinator can be. Especially with D’Andrea breathing down his neck creepily all the time.

So, that’s the last Senate meeting of Spring 2010. I’ll be covering the sure-to-be-sneaky activities over the summer as well, so stay tuned to the OC for your weekly entertainment.

I said I’d make some commentary on Rousseau’s executive staff hires, and I will. But first, read Tomchak’s article about the fact that ROBERT D’ANDREA IS AMELIE’S BOYFRIEND. Hate to say I told you so . . .

So, ultimately, I don’t have too many problems with Amelie’s choices of staff hires. You know, except for Robert. The only concern I have is the appointments of Kelsey Jarone and Alexis White to Gender and Sexual Diversity Advocate and Multicultural Advocate, respectively. Both of these individuals are up for a position on the Programs Finance Committee, the group that determines funding for ASUO student groups. If one of them receives that PFC position (Programs Representative, for those playing along at home), not only would it create a conflict of interest, but it would likely be too time consuming of a position to maintain both. Students are allowed to hold one elected and one appointed position, but since both positions would be appointed, they would probably have to choose. On the other hand, one position was appointed by the ASUO Executive and the other would be appointed by the Programs Council, so I’m not sure on the logistics of that.

Kamal Ararso, Finance Coordinator, was chair of the Programs Finance Committee this last year and secured PFC’s budget benchmark at .81%. This means that the total budget of the PFC only increased .81% from the year prior, as opposed to the 5.34% benchmark for the 08-09 PFC. I certainly considered this a victory, and Kamal’s diligence and mathematical and budget competence will lend well to the position.

Sinjin Carey, one of Amelie’s campaign managers, should be a good Programs Administrator. He has experience with programs and seems to be very detail oriented, so he will probably do well in that position. It’s a hard job — just ask Emma Kallaway.

I don’t know most of the other hires. Do any of you have any thoughts?

ASUO Executives-elect Amelie Rousseau and Maneesh Arora have not been wasting any time — I have heard they are trying to get a full staff hired by the end of this school year. Those of you who read the Ol’ Dirty may have seen their display advert for these positions. Every executive has the option to add and change the staff positions as they see fit, often creating new jobs or redefining old ones. Rousseau does a little bit of both here.

She made a number of interesting choices, but I would like to focus on one in particular — Political Director. People have been asking me for a couple weeks now how I feel about Rousseau and Arora hiring current ASUO Programs Administrator Conrad Hulen to be their Chief of Staff. They claim that this is an odd hire because as of the last couple of years, the new executives hire their campaign manager, or someone close to the campaign to be the Chief of Staff. To those people, I say that that hiring Hulen doesn’t really matter. The Chief of Staff position, with the creation of Political Director, is politically unimportant. Hulen will quite literally manage the staff — nothing more, nothing less.

The Political Director position, on the other hand, is meant to fill the role that Chief of Staff used to fill — namely, setting the agenda for the administration and getting other programs and strategic allies on board. My prediction, along with ASUO politicos and skeptics, is that Amelie’s boyfriend and former Ol’ Dirty opinion editor/news editor/ASUO reporter Robert D’Andrea will receive this position. And let me tell you, the man knows how to play the system. He’s been watching it for years now and knows what’s gonna work to reach his goals.

And that’s the scary part. Seventy five percent of senators are brand new. Usually at the beginning of the year the executive is new too, and the two groups grow and mature together. This year, it’s going to be a little different. Rousseau and Arora have been coached by D’Andrea all throughout the process so far and, if everything happens as it has been appearing to, will continue to be coached throughout the year, creating an imbalance of power simply by pure experience. Sure, Robert has never worked directly for the ASUO. But with all that experience watching, does it really matter?

I really do think the ASUO can be effective. Laugh if you want, but with good intentions and reasonable dialogue, the ASUO really can enhance the cultural and physical development of this university in a way that represents students. With this kind of political bullshit, however, that goal is not so easily reached. We’ll have to see what issues the administration chooses to push before I can definitively say that. Let’s just say that when Robert does become the Political Director — the conductor of the Rousseau-Arora train — I will not be surprised.

First of all, let me say that today’s Ol’ Dirty is full of gems. I suggest you pick up a copy.

I’m here today, however, to talk to you about one of the most absurd acts of protest I’ve ever heard. Last night’s ASUO Senate meeting did not carry on as planned, due to lack of quorum (to be a legitimate voting body, the ASUO Senate needs two thirds of its members present, or 13 people). They were planning on having exactly quorum, until Sen. Jairo Castañeda failed to show up without notification. His reason? I’ll let Tomchak’s article speak for itself:

Castaneda said his absence was a deliberate attempt to make a statement about an incident at the April 28 Senate meeting.

There, the Senate gave the club women’s lacrosse team funding to go to its national championship in Scottsdale, Ariz. While voting for the funding, Sen. Ben Fisher told members of the team to “bring your birth certificates,” a reference to Arizona’s recently passed immigration law, which critics have said will lead to racial profiling.

“I believe that was highly disrespectful,” Castaneda said after the comment, at which many senators and audience members laughed.

Fisher said the comment was intended as a joke criticizing the Arizona law, which he, like Castaneda, opposes.

“The whole reason for me not going to tonight’s Senate meeting was not Fisher,” Castaneda said. “It was the climate that allows things like this to be said.”

The best part of all of this is the only group who had time constraints on receiving money was the Multicultural Center, a group largely considered to be the greatest advocate for marginalized communities:

The only group seeking funding whose members said it needs the money before the Senate’s next meeting was the Multicultural Center, looking to pay for two speakers coming May 12 and 13. [Senate President Nick] Gower told the MCC’s representatives the Senate would hold a special meeting for them if necessary.

“Unfortunately, a few senators who don’t want to represent their constituents are the reason we don’t have quorum tonight,” Gower said.

Sen. Gower really hit the nail on the head there. You want to talk about respect, Sen. Castañeda? Not allowing a public meeting to go on as scheduled and postponing potential funding for at least seven student groups is, to quote Sen. Ben Fisher, “stupid,” as well as one of the most asinine forms of protest I’ve heard of. You are an ASUO Senator, and it is your job to show up to your meetings and dole out student money. So do your job, or get the fuck out.

P.S. I saw you last night at the bars while you were supposed to be serving the student body. Real classy.

2009-2010 total PFC Budget (last year’s budget process): $1,782,269
Amount of that that was stipend: $198,025
Percentage: 11.1%
Amount per student for program stipends assuming 22,000 students: $9.00

And that’s just PFC, not including DFC, ACFC, or EMU Board. So, basically, at very least $9 of YOUR money went not to events or something tangible, but straight into someone’s pocket. Most groups are limited to four stipends per group, but there are some exceptions (the MCC has 5, the Women’s Center has 10).

I’ll also note that the Commentator staff do not take stipends, even though they are eligible for stipends. Eligibility is based on the size of the programming portion of a group’s budget (not including administrative expenses) and the more money you have, the more stipends you are eligible for. Because obviously, a larger budget means that you deserve more stipends.

The best part? Once a stipend has been in a group’s budget for five years or longer, it takes a unanimous vote of PFC to remove it. Interesting, no?

Government transparency is important. In that interest, I give you something useful: incidental fee budget allocations per group both for 2009-10 and 2010-11. I went ahead and divided each number by 21,000 for 09-10 and 21,400 for 10-11, just so you can see how much YOU pay for each of these groups. Click on the image to see the whole file (too big to put on the blog as an image). Enjoy!

Notes:
1. If a group received money for 2009-10 and not for 2010-11, it is likely because they didn’t turn in a budget packet.
2. There are two groups that are listed as n/a for 2010-11 in the PFC budget — Forensics and Service Learning Program. Forensics was moved onto the DFC budget, and Service Learning Program was absorbed into the Holden Leadership Center.
3. All dollar amounts per student are rounded to the nearest cent, so each column does not come out to exactly $585 (or $576 for 2010-11). I didn’t include totals because the numbers were so skewed from rounding.
4. 2009-10 amounts don’t include surplus requests or other monies not obtained through the fee allocation process.
5. EMU Board Programs only receive a portion of funding from the incidental fee. Numbers listed for these programs are incidental fee allocations, not whole budget numbers.
6. If there are any questions about any particular funding decision, leave a comment and I’ll try to answer.

In honor of EMU Director Dusty Miller’s retirement (see an interview with him in today’s ODE), I have been reading A Common Ground, a book by EMU Director Emeritus Adell McMillan about the first 50 years of the EMU’s history. In addition to lots of fun information about the building and surrounding culture, the book talks a lot about the ASUO and student groups, as the building and the entities that operate inside it have an inherent connection. I’d like to share something I found in this book, one of the many gems that are hidden in its pages:

One of the early public incidents involving radical student protest, occurred in late January 1969 in the EMU when U.S. Navy recruiters had scheduled table space to hand out literature and talk with interested students. According to [Richard C.] Reynolds[, Director of the Erb Memorial Union], a notice had been placed in the Oregon Daily Emerald that a “mock trial” would be held in the building during this time where students would try the recruiters for war atrocities. Radical students approached the table and put ona guerilla theater type trial that lasted for 45 to 50 minutes. Most of that group left and then a student “spontaneously attacked the table; doing damage and assaulting the recruiters.” . . . bit by bit the students told [University President] Johnson what had happened: the Navy recruiters had been manhandled and literally ejected by force and the protesters had burned the recruiter’s literature and the Navy flag.

The next part is the best part. I call it proof that the ASUO Senate, once upon a time, had balls.

The ASUO Senate took a strong position in opposition to the actions against the recruiters and passed a bill, titled “Free Inquiry and the Eviction of Military Naval Recruiters,” that stated:

WHEREAS: This University has repeatedly upheld the principles of free expression and free inquiry.
WHEREAS: Free inquiry is so vital to this University and any university.
WHEREAS: No man or group of men should sit in judgement upon and thereby limit or restrict ideas of another man or group of men.
WHEREAS: The recent forceful eviction of U.S. Naval recruiters from the Erb Memorial Student Union was a violation of and great discredit to these traditions of free expression and free inquiry.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The ASUO Senate condemns the actions taken by those involved in the eviction of military recruiters, as well as any other action taken by anyone to curtail the free exchange of ideas.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The ASUO Senate proudly reaffirms the University of Oregon’s belief in freedom of expression and free inquiry and trusts that the actions taken by an intolerant minority may not be construed to reflect the official policies and practices of the University of Oregon.

A free and open exchange of ideas is one of the building blocks of a legitimate institution of higher education. It is one of a few delicate factors that are integral to a complete and legitimate collegiate experience. Higher education is not about the memorization of facts or getting good grades. It is about learning how to think critically, hearing different opinions on a variety issues and becoming a more informed world citizen. By silencing speech and ideas of those entities which we find offensive, we are “sitting in judgment upon” fellow members of our world community and working directly in opposition to the goals of higher education institutions.

The importance of free speech on campus is something the 1968-69 ASUO Senate knew very well, and it’s something for which the University community of 2010 should continue to fight. I tend to have a large amount of faith in my fellow students at this university. The ability to think critically on the issue of free speech is something that all of us are capable of.

In the words of John Stuart Mill, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

ASUO Senate April 14, 2010

On this website, we are usually very accepting. During this past winter, we allowed members of the Pacifica Forum to post their thoughts as they pleased. Although this website is privately run, and therefore not subject to laws regarding the First Amendment, we allow private visitors of this blog to say what they please.

Having said that, this blog has a moderation function which allows the Oregon Commentator to identify people by IP address. On that note, a comment was posted (see above picture) by “Demic Tipitino” on April 10th that read:

“Reality Check (RC) = Republican Coalition (RC)
Fuck all you conservatives!”

Although comment-ers often deal in anonymity, we find posing through the identities of others is disingenuous, and therefore not allowed on this blog. There was no doubt that the comment was not from Tipitino, so it was removed.

Later that night, “Demic Tipitino” posted again, this time from another IP address. It read:

“Censoring blog posts now? I’m glad to see the Commentator is upholding its commitment to freedom of speech.”

If you click on the images provided here, you will find that there is a commonality between the photos. The IP address is shared by Sen. Nick Schultz’s posts.

Due to the nature of static/dynamic IP addresses and ISPs in general, it is entirely possible that the IP addresses were assigned at different times to Schultz’s computer(s) multiple times, and also to the individual posting as “Demic Tipitino”.

There is no way to definitely prove that Schultz is posting as Demic Tipitino. When the Commentator contacted Schultz about it, he denied doing so. Additionally, we would like to point out that in all of our interactions with Nick, he has been more than friendly. Additionally, all of Schultz’s previous comments has been more than constructive, and this pattern does not seem to be his style.

Having said that there is no doubt that someone from the ASUO or its related social network is using this website for tomfoolery. It is not the first time, and it will not be the last time. However, we do believe that hiding behind an anonymous handle on the Internet to make ad hominem jabs at people is a sign of true cowardice.

When the angry ASUO children would like to join the adult table, please let us know. Until then, you will remain with your siblings at the Playskool table.

We, meanwhile, will be at the bar.

That’s what someone (I won’t mention who) inside the ASUO office said when the Elections Board was unveiling the results of the elections last night. They couldn’t have been more right. Sen. Demic Tipitno seemed crushed after reading elections results that saw Amelie Rousseau and Maneesh Arora take the Executive spot last night alongside a senate election that saw all but two seats get taken by Reality Check candidates. But the outlook may not be so bleak after all.

For members of the Reality Check campaign, their virtual sweep of the open senate positions was bittersweet. Only the Law and General Science open seats were not taken by Reality Check, yet their presidential candidate–arguably their most qualified and prominent member–lost.

After seeing the elections results, I got the feeling from members of Reality Check that they had lost some great landslide defeat. However, the opposite is almost certainly true. Key issues of the Reality Check campaign–parking on campus, student ticketing etc–can still be worked on. Funding issues, OSPIRG in particular, seems to be another area where Reality Check members need not to worry.

Next year’s senate will have 5 non-Reality Check members: Marissa Garcia, Zachary Stark-MacMillan, Max Barkley, Jeremy Blanchard and Tyler Griffin. However, that leaves an overwhelming majority of Reality Check members to fill senate and finance committee positions by sheer numbers.

The Executive of the ASUO is not the end-all be-all. While I personally feel that McCafferty was the only logical choice for ASUO Executive this year, the fact of the matter remains that qualifications and track record are hardly indicative of who wins votes in the ASUO.

Will next year be a disaster for supporters of Reality Check? No. Will next year be the year the progressives take over campus? Certainly not. What can, then, be guaranteed?

For thirty-something years the ASUO has been an upstanding example of children doing a job that should be left for adults. That–I guarantee you–will remain the same.

Good luck, all.

Today an anonymous informant came to our office today to show us  text messages from reminder@ohdontforget.com. The text reads as follows.

“We are 100 votes behind! Can you get 5 new votes for Amelie and Maneesh and Campus Change Coalition before voting closes at 5pm.”

I’m not sure who is keeping voting tabs right now but I am positive the only one who is can view them at this time is Nolan Gary ASUO elections coordinator.

As I was writing this post the informant also received a text from Brian Allen one of the top volunteer coordinators for the Amelie and Maneesh campaign. The text reads,

“We are down by 100 votes can you get 5 more votes for Amelie and Maneesh in the next 3C candidates in the next 2hrs?!”

Now these voting tabulations could be pure speculation by the Amelie and Maneesh campaign or a serious violation of campaign rules. Either way stay tuned to the blog for election results at 6 tonight.