Editorial: SFC out of line

The Oregon Student Association must ignore ASPSU’s meager attempts at political games. OSA must examine Rudy Soto and Ryan Klute’s proposal to alter OSA’s structure based on its merits, without the fear that PSU will cut the OSA’s funding.

The Student Fee Committee made an unfortunate and inappropriate decision two weeks ago when they chose to ransom OSA’s funds to force Soto and Klute’s proposal into effect. Their decision lacked neutrality and an informed frame of reference.

Amanda Newberg made an egregious lapse of judgment as the head of the SFC when she let the committee stamp its seal of approval on Soto’s proposal. The SFC must remain neutral to the operations of student groups. As an organization, the SFC’s mission is to decide how effectively student groups operate and base funding levels on a student group’s potential impact.

This decision by the SFC is frightening because it does the opposite. The committee chose to put OSA’s funds in a reserve because the SFC, influenced by Soto’s opinions, thinks OSA should operate differently. When the SFC is allowed to make decisions that apply to more than funding–decisions that aim to influence the structure and organization of a student group–the committee is stepping beyond its bounds and beyond its purview.

Obviously, the SFC should be able to decide whether a group is operating effectively. That kind of thought process, however, has nothing to do with this decision. OSA, in its current state, has been effective and of great impact. They’ve won victories for students statewide under their current operating model, such as the millions more they brought in for higher education in 2007. The SFC did not place OSA’s funds in a reserve because of OSA, but because of the proposal.

Soto could tell OSA that he will not give OSA funds–which come from the ASPSU budget that Soto created–unless they accept his proposal. He won’t. Instead, Soto is using the SFC as his messenger, and they have complied. That is not the committee’s place, nor is it in the committee’s purview.

It is reasonable for Soto and Klute to think OSA should operate differently and work toward change. It is blatantly opposed to the basic tenants of the SFC–the necessity of viewpoint neutrality–for the committee to advocate for the change alongside Soto and Klute.

The SFC members may know the reasons that Soto and Klute want change. They may agree with those rationales. But it is wrong for them to use their power to ransom an organization’s funds just because they have an opinion.