Sometimes, getting the answer to a question has the unwanted effect of bringing more questions with it. Such seems to be the case in an ongoing battle between the ASUO’s Executive branch and the Sexual Assault Support Services group.
For the second consecutive year, SASS will be the last student group to have its yearly contract finalized. In a story in Monday’s Emerald, ASUO President Emily McLain said negotiations between the two bodies were nearing completion. But even by her estimates, the process has been anything but by the book.
SASS was created with the aim “to provide services to survivors of past and present sexual assault, and to change societal conditions that allow oppression, especially sexual violence, to exist.” Its programs include support services for survivors of sexual assault, and community education and outreach programs. It also offers a 24-hour crisis intervention hotline.
But SASS has yet to receive any money from the ASUO during the 2007-08 school year. It took two meetings between SASS and the ASUO’s Programs Finance Committee for the PFC to make a ruling on the proposed funding level for this year. And even when a ruling was finally made earlier this month, it was in accordance with the Executive’s recommendation for the group – a more than 11 percent decrease from the last year’s total budget.
It would appear this situation has revealed two disconcerting weaknesses within the ASUO. At least one senator on the PFC expressed frustration about the way both sides were expressing their arguments. That it took two budget meetings to advance each side to where it currently stands would seem to indicate the PFC is in over its head.
A new committee has been proposed, one that would deal exclusively with ASUO contracts. It is to be voted upon in a special election later this term. This new committee is greatly needed to increase the fluidity of the administrative process. Creating it would address the first weakness within the ASUO.
The second weakness cannot be resolved through the creation of any new rules or committees. McLain and SASS Director Maria Paladino must be more forthright with one another, and especially with the members of the PFC, in making their arguments clear. When each group lobs criticisms at the other, as has been the case, it has a polarizing effect. There become two distinct sides, with seemingly little hope for a middle ground.
Few would argue against the value SASS brings to the University and greater community. But if it did indeed fail to disclose information to the ASUO, as McLain said it did, then it cannot continue to operate without some sort of fiscal consequence. Likewise, the Executive should recognize that SASS provides a valuable service to campus and should do everything within its power to ensure the University can benefit from that service. Both sides need to figure out how to go on serving the community, while respecting the monetary regulations of the ASUO. They owe nothing less to the people whom they’ve pledged to support.