Over the course of fall term and winter break, Oregon State University’s student government was under fire for the Judicial Council’s holding of closed meetings. 

The Associated Students of Oregon State University JC faced a possible investigation for allegedly violating Oregon’s Public Meeting Law, according to a preliminary review by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. The commission agreed there had been a violation but ultimately decided not to investigate further.

ASOSU senators also have recently questioned the legitimacy of the JC’s policies under the ASOSU constitution.

For now, the JC has reportedly ceased closed-door deliberations and is holding upcoming meetings in compliance with Oregon law. 

However, the controversy raised concerns within ASOSU about the council’s ability to properly govern and put into question the council’s adherence to state law, even as ASOSU moves forward with new elections this month. 

The controversies have also prompted internal strife among ASOSU branches, leading to a public appeal for help from President Audrey Schlotter and other ASOSU leaders to the Board of Trustees. The board acknowledged these concerns but has taken no formal action.

The OGEC review stemmed from a complaint about closed-door deliberations and a lack of transparency regarding the public.

The complaint, filed on Aug. 25, 2024 by ASOSU Senator Emerson Pearson, alleges that the JC improperly held a closed session on Jul. 18, 2024, to deliberate on a writ concerning the authority of the Student Fee Committee.

The OGEC ultimately decided not to pursue an investigation because the only resulting action would have been a formal warning to stop meeting in private, and a continued investigation was not worth the resources. However, they insisted that as a part of ASOSU, the JC must follow the same public meeting laws. 

Writs are formal legal documents which order a person or entity to perform or cease performing a certain action. The writ which was being deliberated on over the summer was asking “whether or not the Student Fee Committee may exercise binding authority.”

However, the complaint filed on Aug. 25 argues that, as a governing body within ASOSU, the Judicial Council is subject to Oregon’s Public Meeting Law, and was therefore required to conduct its deliberations in an open session.

Documents reviewed by OGEC indicate that the JC has historically operated under the assumption that it is, as a governing body, exempt from public meeting requirements. 

In an internal memo sent on Oct. 23, from Judicial Councilor and former SFC Chair Matteo Paola, he initially opposed this interpretation and revealed that the council relied on guidance from Oregon State University’s Office of General Counsel, which claimed the JC does not function as a governing body and is therefore not subject to public transparency laws.

In a letter from the OGC stating their defense as to why the JC is immune to the law, the OGC said, “This letter provides relevant background information underlying the complaint and outlines the University’s position on application of the [Oregon Public Meetings Law (OPML)] to meetings of the ASOSU Judicial Council, a position on which students of the Judicial Council have likely relied upon in not treating their meetings as subject to the OPML. The Judicial Council has historically operated this way…” 

The OGC letter continues, “… OSU continues to maintain that the nature of the work of the Judicial Council, which interprets the ASOSU governing documents and does not make nor is it authorized to make decisions or recommend policy for OSU as a public body, is not subject to the OPML.”

The OGEC’s preliminary review, however, contradicts the JC’s position. It asserts that the ASOSU is a public body and that the JC, as part of the ASOSU, must adhere to the same transparency laws as other student government entities. 

“Since ASOSU is a public body, the question then is whether the Judicial Council is a governing body. ‘Governing body’ is defined as the members of any public body which consists of two or more members, with the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public body on policy or administration. [ORS 192.610(5)],’” the OGEC investigator stated.

The review cites the council’s binding powers which include deciding upon “Interpretation of applicable rules and procedures of the student government – Matters pertaining to parties, institutions, or actions under the student government constitution – Interpretation of the Constitution – Interpretation of the statutes – Interpretation of other acts of the student government – Adjudicating disputes arising between individual officers, employees, and elected officials – Adjudicating disputes between the various branches – Constitutionality of legislation – and Elections Committee decisions, including disqualification of candidates.”

OGEC’s preliminary report recommends further investigation into the JC’s actions, citing potential violations of ORS 192.630(1) and (2) which “requires that all meetings of the governing body of a public body shall 17 be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as 18 otherwise provided,” along with ORS 192.640 for failing to properly notify the public, and 192.650 for inadequate record-keeping of its meetings.

Despite its findings, the OGEC ultimately voted not to proceed with a formal investigation. The motion to investigate failed in a 4-1-1 vote, falling short of the five votes required. 

“The OGEC voted not to pursue an investigation against JC members. This does not mean that the JC was correct and public meeting law did not apply to them. In viewing the preliminary report or video it is very clear that the entirety of the OGEC commissioners in attendance agreed that public meeting law was being violated,” Paola said.

The controversy has sparked broader conversations about transparency and accountability within the ASOSU. The JC’s past decisions, some of which have overturned student government legislation, are now being scrutinized under the lens of potential legal violations.

“I firmly believe the council needs to be significantly reformed or replaced entirely. It has routinely been used as a method to delay action or attempt to undo passed legislation undemocratically after a presidential veto is overridden,” Paola argued. “I don’t believe the council was designed to be used as a political tool to undo the will of duly elected ASOSU Senators, but that is what it has become.”

Some student leaders have called for legislative action within the ASOSU in order to ensure compliance with public meeting laws moving forward. Proposals include amending the ASOSU Constitution to remove the JC’s authority over legislative decisions or subjecting its rulings to oversight by the ASOSU Senate.

“Ultimately, I see two ways to a more transparent judicial council and thus more democratic and transparent student government as a whole. One, vote in members of the ASOSU senate who believe, not just in words but in demonstrated action, that transparency and accountability is important. Or two, through a ballot initiative (gathering of signatures and then winning a student body election with 2/3rds support) amend the constitution to remove the council entirely, and leave questions of interpretation up to the student senate,” Paola said.