Student Government Association officials promised transparency to students. Recently, this has not happened.
There have been multiple incidents of mistrust in student government recently, such as Student Activity Council’s “Night at the Plaza,” an event that had a higher turnout than expected and ran out of supplies quickly. Students later expressed their irritation with SAC on social media, saying they did not understand certain stipulations of the event, such as needing a special coupon from volunteers at the event to receive free items. SAC members tried to ease tensions, but students were less than impressed.
Another incident of this was a virtual Student Senate meeting Nov. 6. To decide on a time-sensitive bill submitted by the Ethics Debate Team, senators voted via email, giving students no way to view the proceedings.
While being proactive isn’t a bad thing, it is a breach of transparency to conduct a meeting without the opportunity for students to attend. When a meeting is conducted via email, the student body does not have access to any information being discussed or voted on, causing suspicion of malfeasance. Even if there weren’t any improper proceedings, it still appears shady if students are not able to see it themselves and ensure accountability.
SGA President Jordan Tarter based her presidential campaign on transparency, and this is the opposite of transparent. If SAC were more transparent about the possibility of not having enough coupons for Night at the Plaza, fewer students would’ve been disappointed. If Senate hadn’t chosen to conduct a meeting with no students present, there would be less suspicion about senators’ intentions and credibility.
While these representatives may have disappointed students, the student body should demonstrate a level of maturity when responding. A failure to live up to promises made to the student body should not be excused, and students need to address this issue in an effective, mature way. While ranting on Facebook may be a good way to temporarily alleviate the irritation caused by miscommunication, a better solution would be to contact officers directly and offer constructive criticism in a helpful and productive tone. Transparency goes both ways.
Making mistakes is part of improving as an organization, but so is making up for those mistakes. If SGA and SAC want to be trusted by the people they represent, they need to deliver on promises they’ve made to their constituents.
Leave a Reply