Professionalism and the ASUO. Two words that don’t always go together.
But sometimes, the members of the ASUO keep their promises, and for this they deserve kudos.
The Programs Finance Committee, which had the unenviable job of sticking to a 2.5 percent benchmark, deserves a pat on the back, as the committee came as close as possible to this goal.
Nevertheless, not everyone is happy, including prominent members of the ASUO Senate, the branch of student government charged with deciding the PFC’s benchmark.
At the March 9 Senate hearing, Senator Nate Gulley exploded at PFC members over the relatively low increase to student groups: “This is a fucking joke. I’m sorry, I think that what’s going on here is more offensive than a swear word,” said Gulley, rhetorically striking a blow against what he perceived to be the anti-swear contingency within the ASUO.
Senator Jennifer Lleras stated that the Senate should have been informed about the ramifications of the 2.5 percent benchmark. But what, exactly, did she think the ramifications would be? Did the Senate believe that the PFC would not follow through with the Senate’s wishes?
The PFC was tasked with a difficult job this year. Contrary to the prevailing and cynical belief that the PFC was not up to the challenge of adhering to the benchmark, the committee did an admirable job attempting to adhere to the stringent standards set by the Senate.
But apparently that is not good enough for the Senate. Or perhaps the Senate never intended for the PFC to meet its benchmark, which is an even more cynical outlook. Regardless, the Senate’s current attitude seems to indicate that it is shocked that the PFC took its job seriously.
The PFC did not perform perfectly, however; it still gave an increase to OSPIRG after initially level funding it. Nonetheless, it is heartening to see the PFC take its job seriously, even if some warts sprouted along the way.
Instead of reprimanding the PFC, the Senate should be congratulating the committee on a job well done. The benchmark was, after all, the Senate’s idea. If senators were displeased with the level of the benchmark, the time to discuss it had passed long before March 9 hearing.
The PFC reduced the funding of certain groups and level funded many others in order to maintain the 2.5 percent benchmark. Clearly this was a difficult duty for the PFC, yet it was, nevertheless, its primary duty. But the Senate did not view it this way; they threatened to veto the entire budget, which would have forced the PFC to redo the entire budget – over the course of one week.
Both Senator and PFC member Chii-San Sun Owen and PFC member Wannita Nualgam broke into tears after the Senate threatened to send them back to the drawing board. Although it was unprofessional of SunOwen and Nualgam to exhibit that level of emotion during a Senate meeting, it was not entirely unforgivable. If the Senate had concerns, legitimate or otherwise, it should have expressed them previously. Waiting until the last minute to express concerns about incidental fee dispersion, after PFC members worked so hard to appease the Senate’s own standards under dire constraints, is unconscionable.
Gulley’s lack of professionalism hit a monumental low on Tuesday when he wrote in an e-mail, “Hopefully we can all keep our focus on votes that are actually contentious, like the racist attacks Senators Daniels, McKenzie, Hamilton, Papailiou, Kinsey, Rosenberg, Sherrick, Trippe, Ebner, and Justice continue to make against programs. I’m sure there will be more grievances filed against me in the near future, but for the record, Ted Niedermeyer can kiss my ass.”
The ASUO and its leadership should be embarrassed by Gulley’s unacceptable behavior. If there is a climate in the ASUO that is accepting of such loose-lipped comments, it a climate that needs to change. There must be repercussions for a Senator who expressly goes on the record to say something so vitriolic.
The March 9 meeting was an epic maelstrom of backbiting, childishness and emotional instability. Our student leaders are quick to mention the lofty responsibility that comes with controlling so much student money, but if they want the student body to take them seriously they must act professionally. Loudly swearing, threatening to renege on the hard work of PFC members and indignantly insisting that other members do not care about students because they are simply attempting to do their job has no place among rational deliberators. This is the behavior of spoiled children. The PFC – in addition to the students the Senate represents – deserves, at the very least, a modicum of respect.