ASG Breaking the Law

By Marc Seelinger

When the news broke that your humble and lovable author would be producing yet another probing and insightful expose of the UNC Association of Student Governments (ASG), a certain high-ranking officer within the organization took it upon himself to attempt to quash both my First Amendment Right to publish my criticism and your First Amendment Right to hear it. Let this little episode serve as confirmation that the corruption and waste that pervades ASG is real and that its beneficiaries will stop at nothing to squelch the truth and preserve the status quo. Let it also serve as proof of the increasingly futile position that ASG attempts to defend and the increasingly desperate measures its beneficiaries will employ to defend it. This article and its examination of ASG’s illegal lobbying activities is another nail in the coffin.

North Carolina General Statues (NCGS) 120C-100.9 defines lobbying as, “Influencing or attempting to influence legislative or executive action, or both, through direct communication or activities with a designated individual [public official] or that designated individual’s immediate family,” or “Developing goodwill through communications or activities, including the building of relationships, with a designated individual or that designated individual’s immediate family with the intention of influencing current or future legislative or executive action, or both.” Furthermore, a lobbyist is “an individual who engages in lobbying… and is employed by a person and a significant part of that employee’s duties include lobbying” (NCGS 120C-100.10). The only exception to this definition occurs if, in a 30-day period, less than 5 percent of the employee’s “actual duties” involve lobbying.

If ASG falls under these definitions, it may be properly classified as a lobbying organization, and if its members can be defined as lobbyists, than they must register with the Office of the Secretary of State of North Carolina. As ASG has so far failed to register with the Secretary of State, they apparently are operating under the delusion that they are not lobbying. However, in failing to register, ASG and its members risk being charged with a misdemeanor, fined, and banned from future lobbying activities for two years, not to mention the embarrassment such a charge would bring.

To answer the question of whether ASG is in fact a lobbying organization, first examine the Constitution of the University of North Carolina Association of Student Governments. “The purposes of the Association shall be to: Act as a liaison between the students and the Governor of North Carolina, the North Carolina General Assembly, the Office of the President of the University of North Carolina, and other state and federal officials… [to] actively involve students in the area of government relations so as to promote the passage or defeat of legislation, which the Association deems relevant to the education of students, their institutions, and higher education in North Carolina” (Article I, Section II, Paragraphs D and G).

It should be clear that “promoting the passage or defeat of legislation” qualifies as “influencing, or attempting to influence legislative or executive action.” One could also argue that acting as a liaison to various branches of state government is a form of “developing goodwill… to influenc[e] current or future legislative or executive action.” Nevertheless, ASG engages in what North Carolina state law defines as lobbying. The only issue that remains is whether ASG employ lobbyists. Of crucial importance is determining whether ASG’s ranks of salaried officers spend at least 5 percent of their time lobbying. A close examination of the facts will reveal that the answer to both questions is “yes” and that ASG is in violation of state law.

Consider for example ASG’s recent Students’ Day at the Capital, held this past May. In addition to spending all kinds of money on car rentals and hotel rooms, members of ASG spent two days lobbying about 40 members of the General Assembly. This is after they lobbied 44 members of the General Assembly in a similar campaign in November. But do not take my word for it. To quote Atul Bhula, President of UNCASG, “We have meetings set up for both days [May 19-20, 2010] – Thursday is still the primary day in which we are striving for our lobbying efforts.” Not wanting to go in unprepared, ASG also supplied its members with training and talking points before they began their lobbying blitz.

On May 25, 2010, at least nine members of ASG participated in further lobbying of the General Assembly. In an email sent out to ASG’s Executive Officers and Council Members promoting the event, Bhula said, “It is imperative that we contact our representatives to voice the student concerns in order to impact their budget proposal… It is imperative that we stay in constant communication with both houses until the short session ends.”

And lest anyone think that Bhula was not serious about remaining in constant communication with members of the General Assembly, in a May 1 email, he implored all members of ASG “to be contacting legislators before and throughout the short session.”

In another email, entitled, “Reply Req’d: Q from President Jones re Lobbying @ NCGA on 02/11,” then President of UNCASG, Greg Doucette, said that he would “love to get a caravan… down to the General Assembly.” Additionally, on several occasions, Doucette encouraged the members of ASG to contact members of the General Assembly for the express purpose of influencing votes on proposed budgets and tuition changes in the General Assembly.

In several cases, Doucette claimed credit for influencing legislation in the General Assembly. In a June 2010 email, Doucette said, “Earlier today the General Assembly gave preliminary approval to… a repeal of the 8% student tax that was adopted last summer- a success you and your predecessors spent most of the last session getting enacted.” Such open attempts to influence legislation clearly qualify as lobbying under North Carolina state law.

In line with these efforts, Doucette outlined a three-phase plan in May 2009, whose ultimate goal was “to influence how the budget turns out.” This plan consisted of a “Targeted Advocacy” campaign “to help contact members of the House Appropriations Committee leadership,” a “Preparation” phase “to put together a team of students who can advocate on students’ behalf,” and a “Broad Campaign” whose goal was “to contact each of the conference committee members from the time they convene until the budget is adopted.”

Doucette also encouraged ASG members in April 2010 to seek out help in their efforts to fight cuts in the University budget. The resource he encouraged members to contact was none other than Anita Watkins, the UNC System’s top lobbyist. Why would ASG need to seek advice from a lobbyist if their actions do not constitute lobbying?

An episode of particular interest is a January 2009 meeting between ASG and then-Senate Majority Leader Tony “King” Rand. The ASG Vice-President of Legislative and Public Affairs, Chazz Clevinger, described the meeting as “a good opportunity to mend some fences.” He said it was a chance “to impress upon Senator Rand the fact that college students are capable of holding elevated and mature discussions on education policy,” and an attempt to gain his support for Senate Bill 849, which Mr. Rand (rightly) opposed and would have given the ASG President a vote on the UNC Board of Governors. This meeting could otherwise be described as “Developing goodwill… to influence current or future legislative or executive action,” and a clear-cut case of lobbying.

There is also the issue of the existence of the ASG Advocacy Corps, described by Doucette as “the folks who will be taking the lead in lobbying the NC General Assembly.” Does much more need to be said here? ASG has demonstrated a clear and consistent pattern of lobbying public officials outside the regulations prescribed by law. The preceding examples are but a sampling of ASG’s lobbying activities and clearly demonstrate that ASG’s paid officer-lobbyists surpass the 5 percent threshold established by state law.

But should any shred of doubt still remain, one only needs to look at Doucette’s own blog for further clarification. In a March 2010 post, he declared, “And yes, advocacy happens to be one of those [ASG’s] core operations. When an Association official, delegate, Student Body President, or anyone else affiliated with the organization goes to a Board of Governors meeting to advocate for students (as they’ve done for almost every month for 2 years), or heads to the General Assembly to lobby (as they’ve done almost every month for 2 years)…”

Doucette also kindly estimates the amount of influence that ASG had on last year’s budget bill, in the same post, “If UNCASG was only 2% responsible for that legislative success- a number that I think downplays the significance of student input…” The implication here is that his army of student lobbyists had a significant impact on the budget, which surely could not have been accomplished if they only devoted 5 percent of their time to advocacy.

Furthermore, Doucette’s August 2009 Facebook Note, An Open Letter to the DTH Editorial Board, says, “After numerous conversations with dozens of legislators, I am convinced our work influenced the budget debate in a positive direction.” Doucette’s September 2009 Facebook Note, A Quantitative and Qualitative Review of “Enough is Enough ASG” in the UNCCH Daily Tar Heel, defines ASG “first and foremost as an advocacy group [emphasis his]. It’s an organization of student lobbyists designed to network student leaders and collectively promote student causes.”

Along those same lines, he justifies ASG’s salaries because “people need to be compensated for their time if they [are] going to do a good job.” If ASG’s core mission is lobbying and advocacy, then Doucette’s statement can only mean that ASG’s officers, et al are being compensated for lobbying (i.e. their “job”). This is but a sampling of Doucette’s boasting of ASG’s influence on state policy (more examples are available on my website). It should be clear by now that ASG pays its officers, most of whose duties involve lobbying, and since they are unregistered and lobbying, they are in violation of state law.

But let us assume for a moment that none of this constitutes lobbying (outrageous, I know). The ASG is still guilty of unregistered “solicitation of others.” North Carolina state law defines this as “a solicitation of members of the public to communication directly with or contact one or more designated individuals for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence legislative or executive action to further the solicitor’s position on that legislative or executive action” (NCGS 120C-100.13). Solicitors are required to register when they spend more than $3000 during a 90-day period (NCGS 120C-215). Given that that is a mere rounding error in ASG’s $200,000+ budget, an allegation of illegal soliciting would not be hard to prove. One could argue that last year’s budget petition signature drive, an email campaign, most of the examples cited above, and more could all constitute illegal solicitation.

The evidence is clear and, the time for debate is over. ASG’s actions for the past several years have put it in direct violation of state law. Its illegal activities demonstrate that it lacks both responsibility and diligence, further undermining its already tenuous credibility. This is all the more reason why UNC should cut ties with the organization. Already rocked by an NCAA investigation, we do not need any more bad publicity or any further connection with illegal conduct. ASG has tried to play in the big leagues and found itself way out of its league. They are discovering that they are not in the sandbox anymore. The childish misadventure that is ASG would do everyone a favor if it just died a nice, quiet death.

Author’s Note: All emails, documents, and other references can be found at www.marcseelinger.com/documents.html