The Georgetown University Student Asssocation and the Student Activities Commission are at a negotiating standstill—it’s time for them to resolve this conflict.
After months of political wrangling and debating, GUSA demanded SAC adopt its reforms before GUSA would approve the organization’s allocation from the Student Activities Fee. Out of the six reform points, SAC has currently agreed to five—including reducing reserves and allowing lump sum funding—but still refuses demands to implement the sixth: holding open votes.
Under SAC’s current rules, commissioners vote privately, a process SAC Chair Ethel Amponsah (NHS `11) claims protects them from receiving flack for the occasionally controversial funding decisions they have to make. SAC sometimes deals with hot-button issues—this month, for example, SAC decided to fund a pro-choice panel hosted by the United Feminists—and Amponsah says she does not want individual commissioners to be attacked for their votes.
Amponsah’s argument is cowardly and illustrates SAC’s twisted conception of leadership. SAC commissioners—who volunteered for the positions—should publicly stand behind their funding decisions instead of hiding behind anonymity. Doing so would prove that they have confidence in their own decisions, while providing the transparency necessary to build a healthy relationship with the clubs and student leaders who regularly interact with SAC.
While SAC’s justification for resisting open votes is aggravating, GUSA is not blameless in the matter either. If they had adpoted a more conciliatory tone throughout the process of SAC reform, they might find the organization more willing to comply with its reforms and avoid the likely process of seeking out an impartial administrator to dictate the terms of the relationship between the two groups.
With time running out before the final budget must be approved, SAC commissioners should step up to the demands of their positions and embrace a new era of transparency and accountability. If they can’t handle the public scrutiny that comes with such powerful positions, perhaps it’s time for the commissioners to reconsider whether they are suited for the job.
