A potential budget disaster was averted Tuesday night as the Associated Student of Portland State University’s judicial board decided not to invalidate meetings of the student fee committee, even though it found that the SFC had not complied with the public notice requirements of Oregon’s Public Meetings Law.
An invalidation ruling could have wiped out all of the committee’s work on the budget over the past school year.
The threat of invalidation, which hinged on whether the SFC gave acceptable notice to the public and other interested parties of their meetings, agendas and minutes, came after last week’s ASPSU senate meeting was invalidated on similar grounds.
“Invalidating either the last 60 days or last year of work seemed to be a bit harsh in light of the circumstances,” said judicial board Chief Justice Aubrey Hoffman. The board clarified what steps need to be taken to comply with the ASPSU constitution and OPML.
“There’s no excuse for not following the guidelines,” Hoffman said.
The board’s concerns came down to whether the SFC complied with OPML to give public notice that was, in the words of the law, “reasonably calculated to give actual notice to interested persons.”
“That is my responsibility as chair,” said SFC Chair Nick Rowe. “If it turns out that you think that the SFC hasn’t been giving proper notice I think that that should be more of a reflection, not on the SFC’s general processes, but on my conduct as an officer.”
The SFC allocates roughly $14 million in student fees to student groups each year. A student taking 12 credit hours pays $216 in fees each quarter. Student groups submit their budget and the SFC reviews them and makes decisions in a series of public budget hearing meetings.
Board members debated whether the SFC’s website clearly indicated how people could learn about meetings and obtain meeting minutes.
“How many hoops are we going to require the public to jump through and still be considered general notice to the public at large?” Hoffman asked.
The time-sensitive nature of the budgeting process was repeatedly brought up, as an SFC budget is due to PSU President Wim Wievel by Monday. Invalidating a year’s worth of SFC meetings could end up sending a budget to the president that was stripped of student input, Rowe said.
“I don’t think that anyone wants to say that the last five or six months was a waste of time,” Hoffman said.
Much of the discussion between the board and the SFC members who were present came down to what would happen if the board invalidated past SFC meetings and whether the board technically has the power to do so.
“I guess I have some questions about what specific authority the j-board has over this,” SFC member Sean Green said. “What you’re talking about is literal interpretation of the laws, which is done by the courts.”
Hoffman quoted article 8.1 of the ASPSU constitution, which states that “The Judicial Review Board must rule on all questions of interpretation of this Constitution and all bylaws, guidelines, policies and rules subsidiary to it.”
After debating, the four members of the board who were present voted unanimously that the SFC violated section 4.1 of the ASPSU constitution, which holds that student government must be in compliance with OPML. Justice Emily Kunkle then put forth a motion, also passed unanimously, that did not penalize the SFC for the violation but instead referenced the invalidated senate meeting as a warning against further infractions.
“This is what will happen in the future,” she said.
Though he said it was disappointing to find that the organization had been in violation, Rowe said he didn’t think there were people who missed out on participating in past SFC activity because of lack of notice. “This is a budget that has, ironically, had lots of public exposure,” he said.