WHY HELLO THERE, SENATOR
“Here at Anonymous Student News, we want it to be clear that we are not an enemy of student government, just of false representation and false democracy.”
Anonymous Student News recently received an opinion piece from Sam Galyen, a Senior at the University of Oregon (UO) and a member of the ASUO Senate. While Galyen's views delve into the intricacies of referendum funding, it's crucial to critically examine the motivations behind his words and consider the broader context of his position. So, is he speaking as a student? Or as a Senator?
Galyen, who holds Senate Seat 6 and ran unopposed for a two-year term, now positions himself as a voice of the students. However, the claim is dubious, given that less than 10% of the student body voted for him, and those who did had no alternative. The concept of winning a position unopposed raises questions about the depth of Galyen's representation of student interests.
A submission from a UO student and ASUO senator. Scroll down for Anonymous Student News Analysis
SAMS ARTICLE
“First, some basics! Every year students pay the “I-Fee” as part of their tuition. This fee exists to fund student organizations & services, enriching student life on campus.
There are 3 types of groups who can use this money: Programs, Departments, and Contracts.
Programs are student clubs, such as the International Student Association, Black Law Student Association, Taylor Swift Club, Ad Team etc. who get an annual budget to spend on events, buy essential materials/equipment, travel to conferences or competitions, among other uses.
227 Programs - $1,470,103 total budget
Departments are campus services, such as Duck Rides, LGBTESS, or the Multicultural Center are funded by the I-Fee and provide necessary services to students at UO.
16 Departments - $4,526,441 total budget
Contracts are off campus groups, such as Lyft (rideshare discount), EmX (free usage of the bus), or Cascadia Mobility (PeaceHealth Bikes) who are contracted to provide a specific service or experience to students.
8 Contracts $3,228,371 - total budget
These funds are allocated by ASUO senators each year through a rigorous process to ensure all groups have a fair and equitable chance at securing the resources necessary for the operations of their group. Now that you understand the fundamentals of the I-Fee… What is the question at hand? This election will decide whether I-Fee referendum funding should be abolished.
Referendum funding is a process that bypasses the standard budget process and allows groups to put their funding on the ballot in a direct student vote in spring elections. While this may sound like a fair check to the system, it has a very important caveat that is not mentioned by the ‘Vote No’ campaigns.. Referendum funding is only available to off-campus contracted services, meaning that only 8 of the 250+ I-Fee funded groups have access to this method of funding. These 8 groups have some of the largest budgets on campus, meaning relatively small changes in their budgets have a huge impact on your student clubs.
The I-Fee is a finite pool of money, so every dollar allocated to one organization cannot be given to another group, it is a zero-sum game. Legally, the total budget can only increase 5% annually, so naturally a healthy organization will also see roughly 5% growth to ensure the fair allocation of funds can persist between all groups. Through referendum funding, contracts can hijack this fair system and inflate their budgets, stealing dollars from smaller groups with no power to fight back. As I-Fee referendum funding has only been used two times in university history (both by OSPIRG), well-meaning students are easily compelled to vote on ballot measures with deceptive wording and no mention of the implications of their vote.
Last year, OSPIRG, an Oregon chapter of the National PIRG, used a deceptive ballot measure asking students to support their organization under the guise of just donating a few more dollars per term, without explaining that these dollars currently belong to other groups on campus. The National PIRG, or Public Interest Research Group is the central organization directing campus chapters and establishing their priorities across the country. Many students, wanting to support an organization that positions itself as an effective public advocacy group, voted yes and they won, increasing their budget by 113%. This sum of money is equal to the combined budgets of tens of programs, who would not be able to do anything to fight back.
Luckily, ASUO was able to mitigate the damage by passing an emergency measure limiting referendum funding to 3% growth. OSPIRG will be funded $252,762 in the upcoming year and still have the power to put a referendum funding ballot measure in the spring election, meaning they can manually seize even more money from the I-Fee pool, while programs and departments are powerless.
While the end of referendum funding would force OSPIRG to follow the same rules as everyone else on campus and may have negative effects on the organization, would that really be so bad? Remember that the I-Fee exists to fund student organizations & services, enriching student life on campus.
OSPIRG uses 59.37% of its budget to pay $150,064 of salaries to National PIRG employees who do not live, work at, or regularly visit the University of Oregon, aside from one campus organizer. 71.58% of the budget covers national PIRG salaries and National PIRG functions. These are your dollars, does this enrich campus life for you?
The National PIRG relies on stolen student funds from campus chapters across the country to fund itself. Without these dollars the National PIRG would crumble. What legitimate institution cannot stand on its own?
All of OSPIRG’s student volunteers work long and hard hours, forced to antagonize community members for absolutely no compensation.
OSPIRG is contractually bound to run 5 campaigns each year. “A minimum of one such campaign must incorporate a racial justice component.” OSPIRG has failed to meet this agreement every year. In 2022, OSPIRG stated that racial justice is not a public interest issue. Do you want to financially support this?
All other Oregon PIRG chapters have been dismantled. Do you see a pattern?
Protect your funds, protect your campus, protect yourself! Do not sell your funds to the illegitimate interests of the National PIRG.
This article was written by Sam Galyen, Senior at UO, and is a personal opinion. This does not formally reflect the interests or ideas of any campus organizations.”
ANALYSIS
In his opinion piece, Galyen delves into the complexities of I-Fee referendum funding, claiming it disproportionately benefits off-campus contracted services. The piece argues against the existence of this funding method, asserting that it allows a select few to hijack the fair allocation of funds meant for student organizations.
Galyen specifically targets OSPIRG, a national organization with a campus chapter at UO. He criticizes the group for using referendum funding to increase its budget by 113% in the previous year. However, the article also admits that ASUO later implemented a 3% growth limit on referendum funding, mitigating the impact.
Galyen stands to benefit here, his committee’s power obviously will increase with complete control over a previously non ASUO funded student organization on campus, a significant limit on ASUO senates power. Referendum funding exists as an external check on the power of his position. What he has to gain as a Senator cannot be understated, but we should not also dismiss what he has to say as a student.
It is also important to mention, as one anonymous reader correctly pointed out, that there still exists “Lots of organizations, like club sports, Students Demand Action, Chinese Flagship program (partially funded by I-Fee, partially funded by Fed. Government), etc. [that] are funded by national chapters, organizations, or other funding sources.” However, these organizations still receive I-Fee funding in some respect and to our knowledge are subjected to ASUO Senate oversight in that regard.
The tone of the article takes on a confrontational stance towards OSPIRG, questioning its budget allocation and framing it as an organization reliant on stolen student funds. Moreover, Galyen attempts to discredit OSPIRG by questioning its commitment to racial justice, suggesting that the organization fails to fulfill its obligations. This line of argumentation aims to cast doubt on the legitimacy of OSPIRG's campaigns and financial practices. We are not in a position, nor do we care to, defend OSPIRG against these claims other than by giving them the opportunity to respond.
It is essential to recognize that Galyen's opinion reflects a personal viewpoint and not the formal stance of any campus organizations. However, the timing of this piece, following the passage of referendum-related measures in the winter special election, raises questions about the motives behind its writing.
As readers, it is crucial to approach Galyen's words with a discerning eye, considering the potential biases and the broader political context. Anonymous Student News remains committed to providing a platform for diverse opinions, but it is equally vital to critically examine the motivations and potential agenda behind each perspective. It is up to readers/voters/students to decide how much of this article is Student Sam and how much is Senator Galyen.
