Student government leaders from the University of Oregon and Oregon State University told the House Interim Committee on Education they want clearer statutory protections after contentious administrative actions at OSU.

Priscilla Moreno (Associated Students of the University of Oregon), Masha Makulevski (Associated Students of Oregon State University) and Andrew Dushar (ASUO chief of strategy) outlined a legislative concept to define recognized student governments in statute, codify the relationship between student governments and governing boards, and reserve participation and membership decisions to student bodies.

Presenters cited ORS 352 (statutory provisions that grant students authority over incidental fees) and historical court and attorney-general opinions that led to expanded public-meetings and records responsibilities for student governments. They argued that because student governments already manage mandatory incidental fees under statute, the law should explicitly define what constitutes a recognized student government and protect the student-led processes that allocate fee revenue.

Speakers from ASOSU described recent events at OSU that motivated the concept: an administrative decision to split the incidental fee into two fees (moving a new mandatory fee to university oversight), temporary suspension of most student government operations earlier in the year, firing of student officials and conditions placed on reinstatement. ASOSU members said the changes removed more than half of their incidental fee from student control and disrupted student governance for months.

Kyle Thomas of the Higher Education Coordinating Commission gave a statutory primer and said HEC collects fee and budget data and could provide comparative fee information if requested; he cautioned HEC would not take a position on specific student proposals during the legislative process. Representatives asked detailed questions about legal liabilities, appeals and whether statutory changes would increase institutional exposure; HEC staff said the university, not students, is typically the party that would be sued under current structures.

Why it matters: Student leaders said codifying recognition and process protections will secure student voice in budgeting and on governing boards, while lawmakers asked for examples and fiscal context to evaluate whether statutory change or other remedies would be most appropriate.

What happens next: Student leaders said they are working on model language and building endorsements; committee members asked for follow-up materials and clarifications on liability and definitions.