The ASUO has the institutional memory of sperm. Student government isn’t organized in a way that allows its members to remember what has taken place in the past. Inevitably, this leads the ASUO to make the same common mistakes year after year. This year’s student government isn’t perfect, but it has made attempts and paid lipservice to accountability, and many of its members within the executive, the Programs Finance Committee and the senate have extensive ASUO experience. They know what the problems are, and they seem interested in solving them.
Currently, the ASUO is thinking of restructuring the Athletic Department Finance Committee so that its members can handle the allocation of incidental fees to contract groups, like OSPIRG or LTD, and departments, such as the Student Recreation Center. This is a step in the right direction.
The ASUO deserves a round of applause for its desire to review the fund allocation process. The process, as it operates currently, is imperfect to say the least. Over the past 10 years, the ASUO has attempted to reform the process, and these reforms have generally helped streamline student government. At the moment, the ASUO wants its review process to create an open dialogue between “interested” students and members of the ASUO. Students should hope that this process interests people outside of the ASUO bubble – students who are concerned about the fiscal impact of the incidental fee.
The ASUO allocates approximately $10.5 million, one of the highest amounts in the nation. Although it doesn’t appear likely that the ASUO (or the University) would allow this amount to decrease, it is admirable that student leaders recognize problems within the structure of the ASUO. The PFC has far too much power, and the fact that it oversees the allocation of student group money, contract group money and department money inevitably leads to a lack of accountability. The funding process often acts as a “rubber stamping” process, and part of the reason is because the PFC is expected to spread itself too thin. The primary concern is that this restructuring could add a level of bureaucracy. However, an open, student-reviewed process could help alleviate these concerns. What the ASUO needs at the moment is a strong leader (or perhaps leaders) who can “think outside the box” – as cliche as that may sound. The ASUO receives a lot of criticism, but it deserves credit for recognizing its own failings and wanting to involve students to solve these problems. There is no shame in admitting that changes need to occur. In fact, that self-rumination deserves accolades because it implies a level of honesty not always present in student government. Now, let us hope that the ASUO follows through on its promises, thereby gaining a greater trust from the students because it might never again get the chance. The problem of lack of institutional memory will remain.