Funding OSPIRG
After having its budget cut earlier this year, OSPIRG placed a measure on the ballot that will poll student interest on whether the organization should be funded to hire a professional staff. The idea behind the professional staff is that it will be able to work full-time in Portland, Salem and Washington, D.C.
A “yes” vote would send an advisory statement to the ASUO that OSPIRG should be funded.
A “no” vote would support the current defunding of OSPIRG.
Post-deadline budget
Currently, if the ASUO Senate fails to pass a budget that itself and the ASUO president agree upon before the deadline, the president receives full control of the budget. This measure asks whether the ASUO Constitution should be amended to prohibit the president from changing budget line items greater than what the Senate has approved and allow the Senate to repeal any final budget decision made by the president with a two-thirds vote.
A “yes” vote would amend Article 5.8 and disallow the ASUO president from unilaterally constructing the budget.
A “no” vote would keep the ASUO Constitution Article the same.
Qualifying ballot measures
According to the ASUO Constitution, measures can be placed on the ballot in three different ways. The first is by submission of a petition with enough signatures totaling at least 5 percent of the student body. Secondly, the Senate may place a measure on the ballot with a two-thirds vote of its seated members. The third way, which is the process in question, is that the ASUO president may unilaterally add a measure to the ballot.
The proposed measure asks students whether ASUO Constitution Article 15.3 should be amended to require a simple majority vote of the ASUO Senate to approve a measure added by the ASUO president.
A “yes” vote would amend the Constitution and require and measure submitted by the ASUO president to be approved first by the ASUO Senate.
A “no” vote would keep Article 15.3 as written.
Non-fulfillment
This measure asks whether the ASUO Constitution should be amended to specify that when ASUO officials are charged with non-fulfillment of duties, such cases should be determined on a case-by-case basis. It would create a three-prong test to determine non-fulfillment: Whether the ASUO official acted in good faith, damage caused by non-fulfillment and remedial measures taken by the ASUO official.
In addition, the court would be allowed to order sanctions other than removal or vacancy.
A “yes” vote would amend the language in ASUO Constitution articles 11.3 and 14.3 changing what the Constitution Court could consider and what it could order.
A “no” vote would make no changes to the articles.
ASUO Elections Board structure
Currently, the Elections Board is under the ASUO executive and all five positions are appointed by the ASUO president. There is also no current procedure to remove Elections Board members.
This measure would make three changes to the ASUO Constitution: Establish the Elections Board as independent from the ASUO executive branch, give the elections coordinator the authority to appoint the other four members of the board and create a system to remove a member of the board, requiring either the Constitution Court to remove a member due to non-fulfillment or have three-fourths of the Senate authorize the ASUO president to remove a member due to non-fulfillment.
A “yes” vote would remove the Elections Board from the executive’s purview and create a process in which a board member can be removed by adding Constitution articles 3.9, 13.14 and 13.15 as well as amending Article 13.5.
A “no” vote would leave the Constitution unchanged in this area.
ASUO elections operation
This measure has the potential to change the Elections Board by giving members deadlines for responding to grievances. Currently there is no requirement for the board to respond to a grievance within a given time nor is there a date when the board must submit the elections rules.
The measure would require the Elections Board to rule on a grievance within 48 hours, post the elections rules by week five of winter term and require the members to be neutral in all ASUO elections during their involvement on the board. Currently the Elections Board does not have to remain neutral.
A “yes” would create deadlines for responding to grievances and posting elections rules as well as requiring the board to be a neutral body by amending Constitution Article 13.5.
A “no” vote would not create new deadlines or require the Elections Board to be neutral.
Office hours
Currently, all ASUO senators are required to serve three hours in the ASUO offices each week between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. during weekdays. In addition, there is no limit set on the number of office hours each senator is required to serve.
The measure asks whether senators should be able to serve one of their three office hours at another location on campus other than the ASUO office between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. Monday-Friday.
Some senators have suggested serving their office hours in a location more appropriate for their constituents. Other senators have stated that the ASUO office provides a consistent and reliable area where constituents will always be able to find assistance.
A “yes” vote will amend ASUO Constitution Article 6.27 and allow senators to serve one of their three hours outside of the ASUO office with extended hours and create a limited amount of hours that each senator must serve.
A “no” vote would retain the current rule.