SFC meetings under scrutiny

Portland State student government’s judicial board is asking the Associated Students of Portland State University’s student fee committee to provide evidence that meetings they held over the last year complied with Oregon’s Public Meeting Law and the ASPSU constitution.

Specifically, the judicial board is questioning whether the SFC sent out its agendas only via a private, opt-in email list, which would be a violation, said judicial board Chief Justice Aubrey Hoffman.

“We’ll be asking the SFC to come to us and prove that their meetings were valid, and there’s the potential that meetings over the last school year could be found invalid,” Hoffman said. “This could be a big issue.”

A meeting to consider the issue is slated for 6 p.m. today in the ASPSU conference room.

After ruling Wednesday’s student senate meeting invalid on similar public notice grounds, the judicial board’s concerns come with just more than a week left until a budget is due to PSU President Wim Wievel.

At stake is an entire school year’s worth of work by the group on the budget, Hoffman said.

But according to SFC Chair Nick Rowe, “There’s a question as to whether there was even a violation—quite honestly I don’t know,” he said. “We’re not even sure they can invalidate the meetings or decisions.”

If there was an oversight, action should be taken only if there was malicious intent, said ASPSU President Tiffany Dollar in an email, adding that she is not an expert on Oregon’s Public Meeting Law.

“The ongoing flexibility of the SFC…displays a commitment to transparency and participation, not malicious secrecy. I hope the board takes this into account when they hear this complaint,” Dollar said.

Overall, Rowe said he’s proud of the SFC’s process and welcomes scrutiny: “I want to be up to snuff on public notice.”

As to whether the budget process would have to begin again if the judicial board rules that the meetings were invalid, Rowe said he’s not sure what would happen.

“I don’t know what the other options are: What would they have us do?” he said.

Another controversial decision invalidated at the meeting dealt with the senate’s changes to the judicial board’s bylaws, without which elections cannot be held.

In a separate ruling, the judicial board stated that its interpretation of the ASPSU constitution meant that the senate may not make changes to other groups’ rules, bylaws and procedures, but rather may only approve or deny changes made by the groups and offer recommendations.

Dollar said that the most controversial change the senate made to the judicial board’s bylaws was a requirement that candidates for office attend mandatory orientations. However, the judicial board amended their own bylaws, making orientations optional or voluntary.

“I personally support mandatory orientations as they provide a venue early on in which candidates can meet their opponents,” she said. “I believe this goes a long way in building communication between campaigns, and leads to cleaner campaigns. This is also an important step in the accountability process.”

Dollar said she is happy overall with last week’s conversation and budget compromise.

“I’m confident that we will pass a budget that is fair and equitable, and I hope the board comes to the meeting with bylaws that reflect the values expressed by ASPSU over the past two weeks.”

As for the question of the SFC meetings’ validity, Hoffman said she hopes to try and sort things out before the next senate meeting, scheduled for 6 p.m. on Wednesday, March 13, in Smith Memorial Student Union (room TBD).

As for what happens next? “I don’t know,” Hoffman said. “It’s troubling.”