A UOSA presidential candidate is battling in UOSA Superior Court to allow his argument equal time at a forum to defend a referendum he co-authored.
In September 2009, Nicholas Harrison, law and business graduate student, co-authored a referendum that would create a fifth branch of UOSA made up of representatives from various student organizations if passed.
A UOSA-sponsored forum to discuss the referendums in the upcoming election was scheduled for Sunday night immediately following the Graduate Student Senate meeting.
Harrison contended, and the UOSA Superior Court and the election chair agreed, that UOSA would be offering an opinion on a referendum if it did not allow both sides equal time to speak at the forum.
The UOSA Constitution currently prohibits UOSA and UOSA officers from offering their opinion on referendums while acting in their official capacity.
Meanwhile, a bill is circulating GSS and Undergraduate Student Congress that would remove this restriction.
After the court ordered an injunction, the organizer of the UOSA forum organized a similar forum that she said was not affiliated with UOSA.
EQUAL TIME
This particular dispute arose March 7 when Harrison responded to an e-mail sent by Lindsey Harvell, the organizer of a UOSA forum to discuss referendums.
Harvell’s e-mail contained a flier describing a forum Sunday that would have immediately followed the GSS meeting. The schedule for the forum allowed Harrison 10 minutes of speaking time to explain the referendum; Matthew Gress, vice chairman of Undergraduate Student Senate, 10 minutes to explain undergraduate impact; and Michael Upkong 10 minutes to explain graduate student impact.
Harrison said both Gress and Upkong have come out publicly against the referendum and he expected them both to oppose the referendum at the forum.
“Equal time is basically an issue of fairness,” Harrison said. “If you’re going to give one side 20 minutes you should give the other side 20 minutes. If one side has two speakers, the other side should have two speakers.”
Harrison asked that Matthew Bruenig, co-author of the referendum and philosophy junior, also be allowed time to speak.
Harvell replied that Bruenig could speak at the forum but must share Harrison’s allotted time.
This response left Harrison unsatisfied and he sought a ruling from Jeff Riles, the UOSA election chair.
Riles issued a formal ruling March 12 stating that “the Graduate Student Senate, or any UOSA organization, needs to exercise all due diligence to allow equal and adequate opportunity for all view points regarding any candidate or referendum be heard.”
When Harvell responded to the ruling by refusing to change the format of the forum, Harrison issued a complaint to the UOSA General Counsel.
The complaint alleged that members of the GSS and the Ad Hoc Marketing Committee were in violation of state law and the UOSA constitution.
The court responded by issuing an injunction “to prevent an imminent violation” of the UOSA constitution.
The order for injuction states: “holding a forum in which the deck is stacked against one side of the public debate over the referendum is a de facto violation of the requirement that UOSA offer no opinion on referendums unless a concurring resolution so agrees.”
On Saturday, Mike Davis, UOSA General Counsel, submitted a motion asking the court to reconsider the ruling and allow UOSA to hold the forum as planned.
UOSA Superior Court Chief Justice Kyle Eastwood responded by upholding the injunction and ordering that if the forum was held, it must comply with the UOSA Constitution.
“Simply because this event has been labeled a ‘forum’ by its organizers does not mean the event, based on the selection of speakers, is not a poorly veiled attempt at advocacy against the amendments,” Eastwood said by e-mail.
A DIFFERENT FORUM
Harvell and Susan Adams-Johnson, GSS chairwoman, are members of a recently formed student organization, Graduate Students for a Better Tomorrow.
The organization hosted a forum discussing upcoming referendums following the GSS meeting Sunday night.
The forum was not affiliated with UOSA, but it followed the same structure and occupied the same time slot as the event planned by UOSA, Adams-Johnson said.
Harvell organized both the UOSA forum and the Graduate Students for a Better Tomorrow forum.
Adams-Johnson said the forum that received an injunction was not supposed to be sponsored by UOSA, but was originally planned to be hosted by Graduate Students for a Better Tomorrow.
“From day one this was supposed to be Graduate Students for a Better Tomorrow who hosted the event,” Adams-Johnson said.
She said neither she nor Harvell realized their mistake until after the forum was already sponsored by UOSA.
Harrison said he was not invited to the forum and was surprised that it was held, considering the injunction.
He called the forum a “flagrant violation of the law” because “there will probably be issues with UOSA officers clocking in and using office computers and UOSA funding to publicize the event.”
Adams-Johnson said that no UOSA funding or office computers were used in the organization of the Sunday forum.
Harrison said he would most likely file a complaint to UOSA superior court about the forum.
A THREATENING BILL
A section of the UOSA constitution prohibiting members of UOSA from offering opinions on referendums while acting in an official capacity is currently under attack from a bill circulating GSS and the Undergraduate Student Congress.
On March 9, UOSA Undergraduate Student Congress heard a bill requiring “any entity campaigning for or against a campus-wide referendum must also register their cause and abide by regulations in the same manner outlined for candidates.” The bill also set a $1,000 spending limit on campaigns.
Before passing the Undergraduate Student Congress, the bill was amended to also remove restrictions preventing UOSA and elected members of UOSA from offering opinions on referendums while acting in an official capacity.
The bill was heard by GSS on Sunday and passed after being amended to remove the requirement that those campaigning against referendums must register their cause.
Undergraduate Student Congress Secretary Brett Stidham authored the original bill and spoke in favor of it at Sunday’s GSS meeting He said the bill would be heard by undergraduate student congress at their meeting today and would probably pass.
If the amended bill passes congress, the bill will not take effect, until UOSA President Katie Fox signs it.
Fox said at Sunday’s GSS meeting that she would not sign the legislation until after spring elections have taken place.
Members of GSS and Undergraduate Student Congress threatened Fox with blockage of an unrelated space allocation bill if she did not agree to sign the bill, according to Fox.
Fox said she was pressured by Adams-Johnson and Gress to sign the bill, but declined to comment whether they were the representatives who threatened her with blockage of her bill.
Adams-Johnson said Fox agreed to sign the bill, though Fox maintains that she never agreed to sign the bill before the election.
She said she supports the intent of the bill but does not want to change the election rules during the election process.
“I’m not against the bill, I just can’t sign it in the middle of an election season,” Fox said.
The space allocation bill authored by Fox passed GSS on Sunday night, and will be heard by UOSA Undergraduate Student Congress at its meeting at 7 p.m. tonight in Adams Hall, room 150.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
borenismyhomie 2 years, 2 months ago
ABOUT 10 PEOPLE ON THE ENTIRE CAMPUS ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT UOSA.
soonerboomers 2 years, 2 months ago
What is this, illegal action number 7 for the student government this year. Impressive guys, keep it up.
JJanowiak 2 years, 2 months ago
If you read the e-mails there is a clear pattern of polite manipulation by Harvell over an issue that, at least as told by this article, is very cut-and-dry. These people are all what pass for political operators on this campus and it's impossible that, despite their protestations otherwise, they didn't know exactly what they were doing when they scheduled this "forum" and proceeded to illegally block Harrison & Bruenig from having their equal time. Terrible. And these people are graduate students.
hirt4443 2 years, 2 months ago
I would like to see a little more integrity from the OU Daily on their reporting. It seems that each and every story regarding these amendments is completely one-sided. I have nothing against Mr. Harrison, but it seems to me that the Daily is lobbying for him and his own personal agendas.
bosborne1 2 years, 2 months ago
I know Mr. Harrison, and I know him to be an upstanding, fine person. Nitpicking over a few traffic tickets is frankly pathetic. Find out about the real person that he is, and these petty things you have "dug up" will diminish into oblivion.
ktl 2 years, 2 months ago
I find it pretty interesting that anyone was able to write a story about a forum they did not attend. I also find it interesting that Mr. Harrison claimed he was not invited to the forum, considering I received no formal invitation but was still in attendance. And, what a shock, I was the only Journalism student there. It's too bad I wasn't working on a story...
Also, It seems to me the passage of any bill that allows students full-capacity to their 1st Amendment rights should face no problems being passed by Congress, Senate, and immediately signed into action by the UOSA President. But then again, I'm speaking as a private member of the student body, so I'm allowed to voice my opinion.
Kalfas 2 years, 2 months ago
Well, if you are excluding every single event that the UOSA Campus Activities Council holds (Mom's Day, Parents' Weekend, Sooner Scandals, the Student Film Festival are a few upcoming ones) and the hundreds of students who are part of coordinating these events in addition to the thousands that attend them...
oh...
and the other three branches of UOSA, the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial...
oh...
and the things around campus you use such as bike racks, sidewalks, lighting at night for safety, etc...
oh...
and the annual town hall meetings that all deans conduct so students can voice their opinions on student fee increases and question fee use...
okay, I guess you are right.
NormanNow 2 years, 2 months ago
Speaking of Presidential candidates Harrison seems to have quite a record in the OK Courts database... http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2026891&db=Cleveland
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2043310&db=Cleveland
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2380170&db=Oklahoma
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=398242&db=Cleveland
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=1944608&db=Oklahoma
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2314650&db=Oklahoma
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2079754&db=Oklahoma
facts speak for themselves
Seems like the Daily might want to ask questions
crimethink 2 years, 1 month ago
My first complaint Troy is bias.
"A UOSA presidential candidate is battling in UOSA Superior Court to allow his argument equal time at a forum to defend a referendum he co-authored." The other side in the case argued that Harrison did have equal time because the other two speakers were supposed to only speak on undergraduate effects and graduate effects. The forum wasn't split into vote for or vote against the bill in theory. Therefore the news paper should make a greater effort to qualify the statement in a way similar to the following: A UOSA presidential candidate is battling in UOSA Superior Court to allow his argument what he would consider to be equal time at a forum.
"A THREATENING BILL" This is not a very neutral title. Members of Congress felt that their first amendment right to free speech should not be limited in this way. The proposed change to the law was not in response to this court case.
My next complaint Troy is the frequent errors committed in your articles concerning names of UOSA branches and other UOSA words. The mistakes often leave me confused about who said what and who is who.
"The UOSA Constitution currently prohibits UOSA and UOSA officers from offering their opinion on referendums while acting in their official capacity." It is not the UOSA Constitution that ever prohibited this. It was the UOSA Code Annotated that used to prohibit this. There is a big difference. The Code Annotated is just the collection of laws that have ever been passed. The Constitution is the governing document of the whole student body that cannot be altered without a vote of the student body. You failed to distinguish between the two 5 times in this article alone.
"Matthew Gress, vice chairman of Undergraduate Student Senate" Matthew Gress is not Vice Chairman of Undergraduate Student Senate. That entity doesn't exist in UOSA. He is Vice Chairman of Undergraduate Student Congress. This would not be a big deal, but I think you've made this mistake numerous times.
Further, I doubt that Harrison "was not invited to the forum" though he is free to claim whatever he wishes. It is very surprising to me that he wasn't there considering he is at almost every Congress and GSS meeting trying to find ways to cause trouble.
And @ soonerboomers, it is hard not to violate the law according to the UOSA Superior Court especially when they keep altering the meaning of laws that many members of the UOSA legislature authored themselves.