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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0261%3A35

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2000
- **Citation:** 529 U.S. 217

## Text

~ 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0261%3A35. Public record. Not legal advice.