Amicus Curiae Brief — Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth

~ BEST AVAILABLE COPY.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term 1998

Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin,

Petitioner,

v.

Scott Southworth, et ai.,

Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF

OWEN BRENNAN ROUNDS;

H.&. FRIEDERICH VON CARP;

HARRISON LYNCH; ED MATTHEWS;

AND STUDENTS FOR LEGAL GOVERNMENT

IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

THOMAS H. NELSON

Thomas H. Nelson & Associates

825 NE Multnomah Suite 925

Portiand, Oregon 97232

Telephone: (503) 230-8311

August 9, 1999 Counsel for Amici Curiae

P Fes

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............... ii

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI .... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............. 2

DEE, on bee ck un ene ees cede eee becuse oh 3

ee lee ee aa 3

The Free-Rider Problem .............. 6

The Breadth of “Education” .......... 7)

The Meaning of “Political” Activity

and the Insufficiency of the

Educational Element .............. 12

Se innnn dhned tna nemnweded ts bb 15

APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,

431 U.S. 209 (1977) ... 0 .vccsennes os sane aeneeeeen

Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson,

475 U.S. 292 (1986)

[citing Roberts 468 U.S. at 623 (1984)]................

International Association of Machinists v. Street,

367 U.S. 740 (1961) .... o00cueeseuee ween

Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association,

$00 U.S. 507 (1991)... cecccvcccesssceumenen eumnE

Roberts v. United States Jaycees,

468 U.S. 609 (1984)... ..- snconsegee anpeeaneeeeeee

Rounds v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education,

166 F.3d 1032, pet. for reh'g pending decision

in Southworth granted (1999) .......2020 cee ce ee eeees

Smith v. Board of Regents of the University of California,

4 Cal. 4th 848 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 862 (1993) . 10

Rules

U.S. Supreme Court Rule 37 ... 0.6... . cece eee eee eee

**

ewe mee —_—-

es

IDENTITY AND INTEREST QF AMICI

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37, Owen

Brennan Rounds, H.E. Friederich Von Carp,

Harrison Lynch, Ed Matthews, and Students for

Legal Government respectfully submit this brief

amicus curiae in support of Respondents Scott

Southworth, et a/. All parties consented to the

filing of this brief. The letters of consent have

been lodged with the Clerk of this Court. Pursuant

to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, Amici affirm that no

counsel for any party in this case authored this

brief in whole or in part and, furthermore, that no

person or entity has made a monetary contribution

specifically for the preparation or submission of

this brief.

Owen Brennan Rounds, H.E. Friederich

Von Carp, Harrison Lynch, and Ed Matthews were

students at the University of Oregon in Eugene,

Oregon. They objected to paying a mandatory fee

to subsidize the Oregon Student Public Interest

Group Educational Fund (“OSPIRG EF”). In a

decision issued February 23, 1999, the Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected their First

Amendment claims against the Oregon State

Board of Higher Education, the University of

Oregon, OSPIRG EF, and a number of state and

university officials. Rounds v. Oregon State

Board of Higher Education, 166 F.3d 1032 (9th

Cir. 1999), pet. for reh'g pending decision in

Southworth granted (Rounds, 9" Cir. 1999).

2

In its Rounds decision, the Ninth Circuit

found that First Amendment claims in the student

activity fee context warrant only intermediate

scrutiny. /d at 1037. The Ninth Circuit also found

that OSPIRG EF engages only in “educational,”

not “political,” activities, /d. at 1038, and that

support of OSPIRG EF’s activities with mandatory

student fees does not offend the First Amendment.

Id. at 1040. The Rounds students filed a petition

for rehearing which the Ninth Circuit has deferred

pending resolution of Board of Regents v.

Southworth.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Amici support the determination by the

court below that the First Amendment prohibits

the compelled funding of private student groups’

political and ideological activities. Even if,

however, the Court determines that some such

compelled funding can survive constitutional

scrutiny, Amici submit that such funding of

political activity is unconstitutional when (1) the

targets of the funded group are not students qua

students but, rather, federal and state political

leaders and the population at large, and (ii) the

funded group spends the greater part of the funds

derived from mandatory fees at _ locations

geographically far removed from the campus of

origin.

3

ARGUMENT

Introduction

The First Amendment protects a person’s

right mot to associate. Roberts v. United States

Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 623 (1984) (“Roberts”)

(“Freedom of association . . . plainly presupposes

a freedom not to associate”). This right is

infringed upon when a person is compelled to

subsidize the expressive activities of another.

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S.

209, 222 (1977) (“Abood”) (“To compel

employees financially to support their collective-

bargaining representative has an impact upon their

First Amendment interests.”). Compelled funding

must be “carefully tailored” to minimize this

infringement. Chicago Teachers Union v.

Hudson, 475 U.S. 292, 302 (1986) (citing Roberts,

468 U.S. at 623 (1984) for the proposition that

“{ijnfringements on freedom of association ‘may

be justified by regulations adopted to serve

compelling state interests, unrelated to the

suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved

through means significantly less restrictive of

associational freedoms.””).

The constitutionality of compelled funding

has arisen in two relatively narrow contexts,

agency-shop cases and integrated-bar cases.

Abood, 431 U.S. 209 (1977); Keller v. State

4

Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990) (“Keller”).

This Court has not addressed compelled funding

in the educational context. In the agency-shop and

integrated-bar contexts, however, this Court has

held that compelled funding does not violate the

First Amendment provided that the subsidized

activity is germane to the government interest that

justifies the exaction. Abood, 431 U.S. at 235-36;

Keller, 496 U.S. at 13-14.

In the context of agency-shop cases,

compelled funding that is germane to collective

bargaining is carefully tailored to minimize

infringement on First Amendment nghts by

application of three factors. First, the purpose

behind the agency-shop laws, labor peace through

collective bargaining, is a legitimate government

purpose. Second, in the face of the free-nder

problem discussed infra, compelled funding is the

most narrowly tailored manner in which the

government can achieve this purpose. Third, the

government’s purpose, collective bargaining, is

relatively narrow and _ requiring subsidized

activities to be germane thereto ensures that

compelled speech is as narrowly drawn as

possible.

These same three factors apply in the

context of integrated-bar cases. First, the purpose

behind integrated-bar laws, regulation of the legal

profession and the improvement of the

5

legal system, is a legitimate government purpose.

Second, again because of the free-rider problem,

compelled funding is the most narrowly tailored

manner in which the government can ensure these

purposes. Third, the government’s interest,

regulation of the legal profession and

improvement of the legal system, is relatively

narrow and requiring that subsidized activities be

germane thereto ensures that compelled speech be

as narrowly drawn as possible.

In the agency-shop and _ integrated-bar

contexts, the government’s purposes are legitimate

and the free-rider problem mandates compelled

funding. Accordingly, the only factor left to

assess is whether the subsidized activities are

germane to the applicable governmental purpose.

Moreover, because these purposes are relatively

narrow, the germaneness inquiry assures that

compelled funding is as narrowly drawn as

possible and therefore constitutional.

The mandatory-student-fee context presents

a more difficult problem. The purpose behind

compelled funding, education, is obviously a

legitimate governmental interest, but it fy-by~no

means clear that there is a free-rider problem. In -

the absence of a free-rider problem, the

government’s educational mission may be pursued

without compelled funding, and which would

eliminate impositions on associational freedoms.

6

Amici suggest that this Court consider

whether there is a sufficient concern with free-

riders in the compelled student fee context to

justify mandatory exactions. In the absence of

such a concern, the objecting students should not

be required to fund voluntary third-party activities.

If compelled funding is found to be justified,

Amici suggest that simple germaneness to

education is not of itself sufficient to establish that

the compelled speech is as narrowly drawn as

possible, and that the government’s interest in

education should be pursued in ways that are

significantly less restrictive of associational

freedoms than the compelled funding of political

and ideological activities. Finally, even if

compelled funding of political activities is found

to be justified in the educational context, Amici

respectfully request that the Court provide

guidance to the effect that such funding is not

warranted if the funded entity (i) targets off-

campus political leaders and the _ general

population (ii) from locations geographically far

removed from the campus that is the source of the

funds.

The Free-Rider Problem

Mandatory funding is necessary in the

agency-shop and integrated-bar contexts because

of the free-rider problem. Abood, 431 U.S. at 224;

Keller, 496 U.S. at i2; Lehnert v. Ferris

7

Faculty Association, 500 U.S. 507, 520-21 (1991)

(“Lehnert”). The free-rider problem arises because

non-union employees and collective bargaining

representatives share a common cause. Abood, 431

U.S. at 222-23 (citing with approval Justice

Douglas’ concurrence in /nternational Association

of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 778 (1961)

(“Machinists”), in which Justice Douglas wrote,

"(t]he furtherance of the common cause leaves

some leeway for the leadership of the group. As

long as they act to promote the cause which

justified bringing the group together, the

individual cannot withdraw his financial support

merely because he disagrees with the group's

strategy". Non-union employees directly benefit

from a collective bargaining representative’s

ability to negotiate favorable terms of

employment; if non-union employees were

allowed not to fund the efforts of collective

bargaining representatives, they would receive the

benefits of union negotiation without bearing the

costs. This free-rider problem can only be

mitigated by requiring non-union employees to

fund the collective bargaining related activities of

collective bargaining representatives. Because of

the free-rider problem, the governmental interest

of labor peace cannot be pursued through

collective bargaining without compelling non-

union employees to fund the activities of

collective bargaining representatives. The same

free-rider problem applies, though less

directly, in the integrated-bar context. Keller, 496

U.S. at 12.

It is not clear, however, that this free-rider

problem applies in the educational context. In the

instant case, the government has compelled

students to fund the expressive activities of

voluntary student groups and justified such

compelled funding on the basis of its interest in

education. In the educational context, however,

the free-rider problem is more attenuated; any

educational benefits that a student group might

provide do not directly benefit students who

oppose the funding of such a group. For example,

a conservative student derives no direct

educational benefit from the expressive activities

of a student socialist group; the conservative

student is opposed to the expressive activities of

such a group and will not willingly participate in

those activities. Because the conservative student

receives no direct educational benefit from the

socialist group’s expressive activities, the

conservative student will not become a free-nder

by failing to fund the socialist group.

It might be argued that the mere existence

of the socialist group provides some indirect

educational benefit to the conservative student.

Any such benefit, however, is a far cry from the

direct benefits that create the free-rider probiem in

the agency-shop and integrated-bar contexts.

9

This difference in magnitude, if not in kind,

suggests that compelled funding should be found

unconstitutional because there are less restrictive

ways for the government to pursue its educational

goals than to require students to pay for political

positions with which they disagree.

Assuming that a free-rider problem is found

to exist in the educational context, the next

question is whether the activities are tailored

sufficiently narrowly to justify the imposition on

the First Amendment.

The Breadth of “Education”

Infringement of First Amendment freedoms

requires that the subsidized activity be germane to

the governmental purpose. Abood, 431 U.S. at

235-36; Keller, 496 U.S. at 14. Because collective

bargaining and regulation of the legal system are

relatively narrow purposes, the germaneness

requirement ensures that compelled speech is as

narrowly drawn as possible.

Education, the governmental purpose

purportedly served in the mandatory student fee

context, is a significantly broader purpose than

collective bargaining or regulation of the legal

profession. While these latter purposes are narrow

enough to provide some limits on compelled

funding, education is not. The court below in

10

the case at bar recognized this when it stated that

“everything- is in a _ sense _ educational.”

Southworth, 151 F.3d at 725. The Supreme Court

of California also recognized this in Smith v.

Board of Regents of the University of California, 4

Cal. 4th 848 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 862

(1993), when it stated-that in contrast to the

purposes in the agency-shop and integrated-bar

contexts, “the University’s educational function is

extremely broad; it potentially encompasses all of

life.” Jd. at 855. Indeed, it is common wisdom

that the best way to learn to do something is by

doing it, and participation in the expressive

activities of any student group will provide at least

some educational benefit to those whom

participate. Thus, it could be argued that the

activities of all student groups are to some extent

“germane” to the education of those who

participate.

The broad nature of education, unlike

collective bargaining and lawyer regulation,

means that it does not provide a criterion that

ensures that compelled speech is as narrowly

tailored as possible. That a particular expressive

activity is merely “germane” to education does not

conclusively establish that the activity does not

offend the First Amendment. The California

Supreme Court recognized this in Smith when it

stated:

11

[A] group’s dedication to achieving its

political or ideological goals, at some

point, begins to outweigh any legitimate

claim it may have to be educating

students on the University’s behalf. To

fund such a group through mandatory

fees will usually constitute more of a

burden on dissenting students’ speech

and associational rights than is necessary

to achieve any significant educational

goal. The University can teach civics in

other ways that involve a lesser burden

on those rights, or no burden at all. /d.

Amici suggest that, unlike collective

bargaining and the regulation of the legal

profession, education does not provide a criterion

sufficient to establish the constitutionality of

compelled funding. Rather, Amici suggest that the

court below was correct in holding that subsidized

political and ideological activities violate

objecting students’ First Amendment rights even if

the funding somehow promotes education. Simply

put, the government can pursue its interest in

education in ways less restrictive to First

Amendment nghts than compelling students to

fund political and ideological activities of

voluntary, independent student groups with which

they disagree simply because those activities

might provide some educational benefit to other

students.

$$$

12

The Meaning of “Political” Activity and the

Insufficiency of the Educational Element

As discussed above, governments can

pursue educational goals in ways less restrictive of

First Amendment freedoms than to compel the

funding of the political and ideological activities

of student groups. Compelled funding must be as

narrowly drawn as possible to achieve a legitimate

government purpose, Chicago Teachers Union v.

Hudson, 475 U.S. at 302-03; this suggests that

compelled funding of political and ideological

Student activities is prohibited by the First

Amendment.

In the Rounds decision, the Ninth Circuit

stated that OSPIRG EF’s activities were

“educational,” not “political.” 166 F.3d at 1040.

The Southworth court did not entertain such a

distinction, and the Ninth Circuit’s holding in this

regard seems peculiar; indeed, in light of the

record in the Rounds case, which is based upon

OSPIRG EF’s own statements and materials, it

appears that OSPIRG does indeed engage in what

fairly can be characterized as political or

ideological activities. For example, the record

establishes that OSPIRG EF engaged in the

following activities (citations are to Exhibits A, B,

and C, copied from the record):

13

Lobbying President Clinton by sending post

cards urging him to prevent a controversial

timber sale in Oregon (Exhibit A at 2-3)

Lobbying Congress by collecting signatures for

an environmental petition to be sent to then

Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt

Gingrich and other members of Congress

(Exhibit A at 6-7)

Lobbying the Secretary of Energy by sending

signed light bulbs in an effort to increase

funding for renewable energy programs

(Exhibit A at 8)

Lobbying the Oregon legislature to retain the

state’s recycling program through a post card

campaign and testifying at public hearings

(Exhibit B at 1)

Lobbying for the Toxic Use Reduction Act

(Exhibit C at 2)

Backing legislation to set “organic” food

quality standards (/d.)

Registering students as voters (Exhibit B at 2)

Sending petitions to Congress to mark the 25"

anniversary of Earth Day (Exhibit A at 4)

,

14

e Educating the general population about the

Endangered Species Act (which was up for

reauthorization before the 104" Congress)

(Exhibit A at 5)

Amici believe that OSPIRG EF’s activities

do implicate First Amendment protections even

though Amici have consistently conceded that

there is some educational component to OSPIRG

EF’s activities. Amici also concede that there are

many other voluntary student organizations on the

University of Oregon campus that receive

mandatory fee funds and that engage in activities

that implicate the First Amendment; for example,

the funding of the Muslim Student Association on

the University of Oregon campus obviously raises

the First Amendment issue of establishment of

religion. Amici restricted their challenge to the

mandatory funding to OSPIRG EF’s political

activities because, unlike all other entities that

receive incidental fees from the University of

Oregon, (i) OSPIRG EF directs its efforts to off-

campus audiences (President Clinton, Congress,

then-Speaker Gingrich, efc.), and (ii) the vast

majority of funds OSPIRG EF receives from

University of Oregon students is spent at OSPIRG

EF’s administrative headquarters in Portland and

at other locations many miles distant from the

Eugene campus. Amici claimed that these two

factors — the off-campus nature of both the targets

and the organizational heart of the funded group -

15

clearly implicated the First Amendment and that,

because there was an insufficient nexus between

the activities and the educational purpose, such

funding was- unconstitutional. Amici seek from

this Court a ruling in the instant case that, at a

minimum, preserves these claims before the Ninth

Circuit and, perhaps, ultimately this Court.

CONCLUSION

Unlike the agency-shop and integrated-bar

situations, no “free-rider” problem arises from the

funding of voluntary student organizations with

mandatory exactions. Accordingly, the First

Amendment should be construed to prohibit those

exactions. If, however, it is determined that

mandatory exactions may, under certain

circumstances, be used to fund voluntary student

organizations, Amici respectfully submit that it

would not be a constitutional use of such authonty

to fund an organization engaging in political

activities that are (i) directed toward off-campus

politicians and populations, and (ii) administered

and governed from a geographic location many

miles distant from the campus that is the source of

the funds.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Thomas H. Nelson

Thomas H. Nelson

Of Attorneys for Amici

IN THE UNITED STATES OISTRICT COURT |

30

K. Krishnasurthy

FOR THE OISTRICT OF OREGON

,

1 On the next page, it says, 17, Hunger and

| QWEN BRENNAN ROUNDS, et al,

| ) 2 Homelessness.

Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 9$-6132-TC

} 3 A. Yean.

vs. ) | P .

, : 4 Q. And you have to forgive me, I didn’t go to

| THE OREGON STATE BOARD OF ) | |

| «HIGHER EDUCATION, et al, } | S| U of 0, so I’m not really as familiar with around here as I

) -

| Defendants. ) | 4 could. There’s a sentence down here that says: ‘In |

| 7 | advocating.for the renovation.*

|

| 3 A. Correct.

DEPOSITION OF KALPANA KRISHNAMURTHY 9 Q. It says: “In advocating for the renovation of |

|

| 10 the Amazon Housing Complex, OSPIRG students sent over 200 |

|

| 11 empty plates to the State Board of Higher Education." And |

| ; | some can

| 12 | this may be thing that you Clarify really sizple

} !

| SE IT REMEMBERED, That the deposition of Kalpana 13 | for me -- simply for me. What is the Amazon Housing

- Krishnamurthy was taken, pursuant to the Federal Rules of 4 | Complex?

|

Civil Procedure, on Friday, February 2, 1996, DdDeginning at is | A. It’s the only low-income student housing offered

10:05 a.m., at the law offices of Johnson, Clifton, 16 at the University of Oregon, or some of the only.

i

| Larsen & Corson, 975 Oak, Suite 1000, Eugene, Oregon, 17 | Q- Okay. That’s fine. I didn’t knew, so I thought

|

| before Sharon Gorham, CSR/RMR, Shorthand Reporter. | is | I’d ask. |

| , 19 Let’s drop down to Ancient Forests.

| 20 A. Right.

— Q. The second sentence starts: “OSPIRG students

| ; ;

| 22 have been active for several terms educating the campus

| ’ 23 community about the value of ancient forests and advocating

24 for their protection." If we drop down to the last

mas ae ORIGINAL ] sentence spec uden |

CEC wet 4. ad _ it says: "More ifically, OSPIRG students |

Court 900/344-7984)

(72 East th Avenue + Eugene OR P7401 + = S41/485-011)

Reporting 100 High Street SE. Suse 210 + Salem OR POS + SmVGeDHe FAX S4/68S-0926 C & C COURT REPORTING

—— EUGENE & SALEM, OREGON

Exhibit A (541) 485-0111 cace eo \L

emer A

Page 1 of 8

Exhibit A

Page 2 of 8

ne —eeeee

31

K. Krishnamurthy

publicized local hearings around the Opal Creek issue and

collected hundreds of postcards calling on Clinton to

prevent the Sugarloaf timber sale.”

Did OSPIRG engage in that activity?

A. OSPIRG worked with a coalition of student groups

to engage in that activity, yes.

Q. What were the student groups involved in this

coalition?

A. From what I remember, the Survival Center, the

Oregon Student PIRG Education Fund, and how many other

groups are under the Survival Center.

Q. How did you publicize local hearings?

A. I don’t actually remember that.

Q. Okay. I’1ll ask the same question I asked

previously about the postcards sent to the governor and the

EQC. How -- were any of the materials sent to -- let se

ask this question. At the time this was sent, would this

reference to Clinton be a reference to President Clinton?

A. It would be a reference to the President of the .

United States, Bill Clinton.

Q. And what happened to be the printing -- were any

of these postcards sent to the President printed?

A. Yes.

Q. And would you happen to remember where the

printing was done?

‘

C & C COURT REPORTING

EUGENE & SALEM, OREGON

(541)485-0111

onct_5 7 VL

omet

Exhibit A

Page 3 of 8

$4

K. Krishnamurthy

Public Interest Research Group, engage in these activities?

A. The Oregon Student PIRG Education Fund did engage

in a petition for the 25th anniversary of Earth Day.

However, OSPIRG did not write 25 steps that Congress can

take to protect the environment.

Q. Did the Oregon Student Public [nterest Research

Group send a petition to the United States Concress in

relation to Earth Day? Or participate in that process?

Excuse me, let me rephrase the question.

Did the Oregon Student Public [ntierest Research

Group participate in sending a petition to United States

Congress for the 25th anniversary of Earth Day’

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

There’s a lot of technology floating around

nowadays. Are you familiar with the Worldwide Web or the

Internet?

A. Barely.

Q. Barely. That makes two of us.

I’m going to hand you what’s previously been

marked Exhibit 129; the exhibit stamp is from Moore and

Henderson, sc [I’m assuming that it’s from the Portland

depositions that were recently taken.

A. Um—-na.

Q. It says, “The PIRGs’ Campus Chapters.” And then

C & C COURT REPORTING

EUGENE & SALEM, OREGON

($41) 48$-0111

Exhibit A

Page 4 of 8

pact \O_0F \ hae

“xHrgiT _ eee

71

K. Krishnamurthy

"According to OSPIRG leaders, several US Senators

have made gutting the Endangered Species Act one of their

top priorities and action needs to be taken to stop

Congress from weakening the Act." Then it continues:

"'The Endangered Species Act is the crown jewel of

America’s environmental laws and our best legal defense

against growing -- against a growing tide of extinction and

habitat destruction,’ said Laura Siegal, OSPIRG’s campaign

coordinator. ‘As Oregonians, we need to get active so our

leadership -- so that our leadership prioritize this

issue.’"

Let me ask a question. Ouring your tenure, has

the U of © chapter of OSPIRG been involved in strengthening

the Endangered Species Act?

A. Well, no, we’re not elected members of Congres¢.

Q. Okay. Have you had any campaigns or issues

worked on by OSPIRG related to the Endangered Species Act

during your tenure?

A. Yes.

Q. And what would those campaigns and activities be?

A. Educational foruns on the Endangered Species

Act. More importantly, a campaign with the Endangered

Species -- or let me check. It was either National

Wildlife or Endangered Species Coalition, that involved

medicine pill bottles that we were sending to Congress,

C & C COURT REPORTING

EUGENE & SALEM, OREGON

"|

($41) 485-0111 —

Exhibit A ial -

Page 5 of 8

24

25

A. Yes.

Q. It drops down and it says -- let’s drop where it

says “Krishnamurthy was Oregon’s." Oo you see that

paragraph?

A. Got it.

Q. "Krishnamurthy was Oregon's sole representative

in the Earth ODay Campus Summit, part of the Earth Day 1995

Free the Planet campaign. The cenpeign’s three objectives

are to activate grassroots politics, stop corporate green

washing, and pass env ronmental legislation in Congress,

Krishnamurthy said.”

Would that be a fair characterization of

activities you did previously or anything you said

previously?

a. Yes.

Q. It also went on to say: “April 22nd is Earth

Day’s 25th anniversary, and the campaign lasts through

July 4th. OSPIRG has been collecting student signatures

for the campaign, a so-called environmental petition to

Newt Gingrich. Lee" -- oh, well, let’s stop there.

Would that be a fair characterization of OSPIRG

activities during that time period?

aves.

Q. It goes on to say:

"Lee Novak, OSPIRG’s Free the

Planet coordinator, said the purpose of the petition is to

—E_annersay

C & C COURT REPORTING

EUGENE & SALEM, OREGON

($41) 485-0111

Exhibit A

Page 6 of 8

mreiT

oace \>_ or LL

>

24

25

tell Newt that this election was not a mandate against the

K. Krishnamurthy

environment. Novak said that OSPIRG students have

collected 3,000 signatures from university students and

hope to have 7,000 by April.”

Let me ask this question. Was OSPIRG involved in

activities in collecting -- okay. I retract that.

Was the U of O chapter of the Oregon Student

Public Interest Research Group involved in obtaining

signatures to be placed on a petition to be sent to any

member of Congress in relation to the Free the Planet

?

campaign?

A. Yes.

Q. Let’s drop down to the paragraph that says: "She |

encourages."

A. Um-hn.

Q. No, I have no further questions on this one.

I don’t think this has been entered previously.

This will be the next exhibit, Exhibit Number 6.

This document is entitled, “The Report of the

Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group.” And on the

second page of the document, it’s dated January 1, 1995.

Is that your signature at the bottom of the page?

A. Yes, it is.

MISS JOHNSON: One question about this document.

MR. BELNAVIS: Certainly.

C & C COURT REPORTING

EUGENE & SALEM, OREGON

(541)485-0111

once 4_on LL

ExmigiT ro ee

Exhibit A

Page 7 of 8

24

25

112

K. Krishnamurthy

_Bulbs to O’Leery, where we had students signing light

renewable energy programs, providing OSPIRG with one of our

first victories in the campaign for R.E.A.L., renewable,

efficient, affordable, lasting energy."

Would that be a correct characterization of an

OSPIRG -- let me rephrase the question.

Was OSPIRG involved in any manner in helping to

increase in fiscal year 1995 funding for renewable energy

programs?

A. Not directly, no.

Q. How about indirectly?

A. Students carried out a campaign known as Light

bulbs --

Q. Un-ha.

A. ~~ that said we support -- we support research

into renewable energy resources.

Q. Okay.

A. It did not suggest numbers, it did not suggest --

as far as I remember, it did not suggest numbers or |

specific types of energy. [It just said that students

support renewable energy research.

Q. Who’s 0’Leery?

A. Hazel O’Leery, the Secretary of Energy. If there

is -- Secretary of Energy.

Q. Okay.

C & C COURT REPORTING

EUGENE & SALEM, OREGON

($41)485-0111

exHigit

Exhibit A

Page 8 of 8

pact \'o_or L

fa. ‘

OSPIRG

‘The pepose of OSPING shal be to articulate and

pur sue rough the courts, the media. he insitutlons of

Qrrerrment and other legal means the concerns of the © =

suderts @ he sate of Oregon on bsves of genera! national scate lo accu ately represent Bre public inter commrunty service, orgs a

DuOfC rterest in such areas 85 ervionmental preser. rd

vaton and consumer protection ‘(Petition and Nesoky ne

bon by students of the Oregon State System of Higher 2

Fux ahon to create OSPING. suberitted february. 197 3 Sy

Dreven by Os eal students in Oregon have become Aa

one of the sizte’s leading votes on consurer and

prtorerental Bsues The unique pining of shuterd

energy and Wealism wih professional knowledge and

expertise has enabled OSPING to have 2 profound

erPact on sues al sled ow quality of Be today and

lor gene: ations to come.

EMYVIROMMEMTAL ACTION

CARTH DAY

From preverting the de

siruchon of ancierd lorests

© Oregon to protecting

Owing water enveon

mortal detense has long

been of prevery con ernie

suderts, Thel accom

pasherents im this area

have dermonst sted an enduring vesirrent in the hture

of ow planet

Fewwonerertal action prog arma encompass 2 wide va been regniered

ety of sues and activities Students deveinp and

leach cove onmmental educ afion prog ars. coflect post

Ct 10 rience leaders energy policies end bring Campa Green Vote Green Come Rock the Vote and pubic heath by reducing he smourd of toxics released

roted speaters te campus OSPING stso has 8 history ADDI locysed this year on registering and getting ouf Into the envionment Rls stucient research and innova:

of 300 he ating F arth Day events The Free the Manet the youth vote Record murbers of thutents were Wwe sobsions thal play on biegral role in protecting

CORT an Pape of shadent Pflons lo promote regriered and huned of to vote dramatic aly demon Oregon's pristine envoonment om toric contamina

9 28 OOS action Over Comper ste G1 on De 25h aand strafing the power of shurte nts fon

versary of Eaan May These programms serve to che ate

ewer OO _

Mhiyt/

RECENT HOW TO $ :

ACCOMPLISHMENTS GET INVOLVED

LAMOMARK RECTCLIMG PROCRAN OSPIRG PROCRAHS “

1991, students bom around the state worked to Progams ofleved by OSPING ae open to af a

successtuly create Oregon 5 landmark recycting Students a schools with hunded chapters By a

prog am 1994 students overwhebrenchy Ar sgning and inplementing. arp sgn thitents is 4 | =

Dre ated spectal terest memes lo gs hat aw gain sues expertise ard vahrabte shits uo

gathering murcbeds of poste as and lestying z ”

cubic hearings, preserving one of fhe stron DMTERMSHIPS ax me

OF! ptastics recycting Bes in he nation, Many shatents gain course cred while working id

on ksues that concem the haure of the environ

RECORD YOTER REGISTRATION ment and society. interns choose to work either Y

1994 over 77.000 shadents hb Oregon arxi over wah sue based project groups oF dn indepen a

250 000 shxtents nattorente regcered im rote Gert research ternships give students the -

Brough the OSPIWIG founded Youth Vote ¥4 Opportundy te take fet eurstion ov of the ¥)

coation Shudents working wah OSPING and atsvoorn work wih professional tall and

Sudent governments statewtte motiived an un hands on wort in real Be shustons

Pecederted marter of new voters on etection

tay PROJECT COORDOUTORS

AMD YOLUMTEERS vu

MATIOMAL MUMCER CLEAN-UP brokvement wih OSPING can easily Ml into even =

Fach yoo hundreds of shadents orgarntie and the busiest schectde Whether you have 7 or 1? 4

partcrpate in the nation's singe eyes! vokeveer hours a weet lo volunteer, OSPWAG provides 8 a.

Servce day From weatherizing hones to clean wie opporturdty to work on me aringhs sues -

hq of hichens, suderts ih Oregon swwaly ard make you Canpus Communty stronger Fea

orgartre Hunger Olean Ups accomplishing rh

needed work and sho ‘siting thous arcts of doitars FOR HORE IMF ORMATION CAL =

for refet tor a8y and rtermationsty osrinG ~

1596 SE 1th vi

HARD HITTIMC COMSUMER REPORTS Porttiand_ ON x

Snadent research and retour ehiness hat long Contact Maureen Kirt ie)

been he Betinad of the many consumer reports .

reteasedeach yea by OSPWIG inrecent pears. Campus Qhapters a

Students have uncovered everything Irom ptay University of Oregon Lane Community Coftege oO

Fourd satety vintations tm rising bank lees and (00) 46 497 (07) 40

Gorqrross products Py mating these findings

cette OSPTAG prowedes crite af consume: inter Lewis & Clark Coftege Porttand State University

maton to the pair oy 6a

What is OSPIRG?

| 1989:

S ince 1971, the Oregon Saudeat Public Inuerest Research Group

(OSPIRG) has combined the power of swdent activism with the * OSPIRG successfully lobbies for the Toxics Use Reduction Act,

+ OSPIRG-backed legislation sets quality standards for foods

OSPIRG provides snidents opportunities to attack social problems,

z labeled “organic.” For the first time in Oregon, consumers are assured

owe ee

leam from experienced researchers and advocates, and assume organ-

izational responsibilities through their positions in local chapters and on that when they buy organic food, it is wuly organically growa

OSPIRG’s statewide Board of Directors.

In the process of achieving coacrete goals, students take part in a 1988:

experience, OSPIRG students successfully transform private concerns + OSPIRG

into public actioa to improve the quality of life for all Oregonians. stecioenn me eee samen tiga

company agreement w withdraw the can from store shelves nationally.

OSPIRG Accomplishments

1987:

‘ SPIRG suudents, staff and citizen members have won a variety

of victoties since 1971. Below is a partial list of recent ____* OSPIRG wins its top priority in the legislature with the passage

accomplishments, ofthe state Supecfund, which will initiate a statewide search fe

abandoned toxic dampsites and force the

1990: ; polluters to pay for the

+ OSPIRG releases the fifth annual report oa dangerous wys,

warning consumers prior tp the holiday shopping seasoa that not all OSPIRG’S Internship P rogram: Practical

toys are safe for children. Since 1988, OSPIRG studies have led the Experience in the Real World

Consumer Product Safery Commission to recall six hazardous toys

nation ; V2 stients at looking for more from a college education than

+ OSPIRG student ign involving 14 Ore they can find im the lecture hall or the library. By taking the

organizes a vote campaign involving goa theories taught in the classroom and :

campuses and registering more than 10,000 xudeats. OSPIRG also nin iota ee.

coordinates voter information fairs and assists with voter participation fe to problems facing society.

strategies. | Sanita, 2 nanstip Program is designed to give suidents

+ OSPIRG suudents organizes the Hunger Cleanup in Portland, | imers gain a bener endersanding of peblic policy insees wide reas

angenent Coils TisGune h Gee ai ate hands-on experience in the skills of research, advocacy ee

community service in the country, raising thousands of dollars to lobbying, which ial . Organizing

help the hungry and homeless locally, nationally and internationally. } ” - ve citizen action.

(over)

: - COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL 1-2 / x } 1-3

RIGHTS VIOLATIONS pace_L_o* RIGEES VICLATIONS mot op

ewer P _ crwierr BK.

Exhibit C | Exhibit C

Page 1 of 5 Page 2 of §

Choose From a Wide Range of Internship

Opportunities

CO Saeed ee

provide a variety of internship opportunities. Each internship is

tailored to a ©" dent's interests and the amount of credit to be received.

Internship options include:

Pollution Prevention

OSPIRG has been involved in preventing pollution from industrial

toxics since 1985. The pollution prevention intern will learn skills of

environmental research and data analysis by studying which toxics pose

Baal threat to the environment. Safe alternatives to toxic chemicals

nat reduce toxic pollutioa will also be explored.

Resource Conservation

The wandering Long Island garbage barge, the mideast crisis and

the Exxon Valdez oil spill are obvious examples of the problems

caused by dependence oa resource consumption. Lf we are to build a

sustainable future, we mest focus more on resource conservation

policies. The possible topics for this internship include researching

recycling market development sxrategies, the viability of alternanve

auto fuels, or incentives to developing alternative sources of energy.

Consumer Protection

From its start in 1971, OSPIRG. has been committed to protecting

the rights of the consumer. Research options available for the

consumer protection intern include credit card rates, renter's righss,

G7 fraud in the used car business, and food and beverage

sawcling.

Publications

Publications interns work with OSPIRG's publications staff to

pt xduce the /mpact (OSPIRG's statewide student report) as well as

p sters, fact sheets and other organizational publications. Depending

or the individual student's interests, the intenship may involve writing,

la rout design, photography and/or graphic arts.

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL 1-4 PACE 7

RIGHTS VIOLATIONS expunge a

Exhibit C

Page 3 of 5

Orgunining tssens loam he dis of compsign soamgies end

grass-roots organizing by coordinating mayor campus campaigns

events. iatataltccsenaidinehasin aenbanoun,

develop leaders and run successful meetings.

Internships

The Legislative lnernship Program, which offers students full-

Ume internships during winter and/or spring term, allows students the

opportunity to learn the intricacies of the Oregon Legislamure in Salem.

Working with OSPIRG's professional staff of lobbyists, interns

conduct education campaigns, organize lemer-writing drives, arrange

state capitol “lobby days” and work with the media

Other Possibilities

Opportunities do not ead with those described above, nor do the

optons end in Oregon. Sasdents are encouraged to pursue thei own

inmernship ideas wth OSPIRG, the National Student Campaign Against

Hunger and H>melessness (NSCAHH), or USPIRG, the PIRG national

lobbying office in Washington, D.C.

Supervision and Training

ach OSPIRG internship offers students a structured experience

under the supervision of professional staff The organization's

researchers, advocates, publicists and campus staff design programs so

that suudents not only acquire new skills, but use their skills effectively

to make an impact oa public policy.

A professional staffperson works directly with each intern, training

the suudent through day-to-day supervision and feedback. Swdents also

have the opportunity to attend local, regional and statewide briefings,

(rainings, organizational retreais and siudent conferences where they

learn more about public interest issues and polidcal skills. Al the end

of each program, OSPIRG staff write an evaluation for each student,

and recommend a grade when appropriate.

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL 1-5 ra if phan

RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

wary

How to Get Credit

he process for getting college credit for internshups varies from

campus to campus. [f you are not sure of your school’s credit

policies, the OSPIRG staffperson on your campus can help guide you

to the appropriate faculty members or programs thal sponsor

- bi

Most interns work with a campus internship sponsor, most often a

faculty member in the intern's chosen field of sudy. Your campus

internship sponsor may ask you to keep a journal on your experience,

read materials related wo your subject, or write a paper on the resulis of

your work.

The ime commiument required of interns varies between intern-

ships and can be negoaated with the staff supervisor at the beginning o/

une term. With the exception of the full-time legislative internship, an

intern can expect to spead from three wo fifteen hours a week on his or

her internship. Typically a student will receive one credit for every

three hours of work a week.

How to Apply

nterested scudents are encouraged wo apply for an OSPIRG intern-

ship at any time, although specific openings may vary. To apply,

first talk with the OSPIRG stafFperson on your campus, or contact the

OSPIRG State Office (see below for office phone numbers). An

internship coordinator will help you determine the opuon that suits you

best OSPIRG staff interview applicants to determine their qualifica-

uons. Lf you qualify, Geant wil wok wih you w dontape quails

interns: \p proposal

For more information or an application:

OSPIRG Internship Program Pordand Sia University

1536 SE 11th Ave. (503) 725-4500

Pordand, Oregon 97214 :

anya ag

University of Oregon

Lane Commanity Colleg:

05) 36-4577 (S03) 747-4501 ext 216

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL

RIGHTS VIOLATIONS “= race ad

EXHIBIT

Exhibit C

Page 5 of 5