On Feb. 18, I attended the Ashland University Student Senate meeting.
Nowadays, I do not always attend Student Senate meetings, but I was tipped off about the Activities, Budgets, and Charter Committee, better known as ABCC, and some concerns surrounding it.
It is a subcommittee of the Student Senate.
The committee oversees the allocation of funds to different clubs and organizations.
Concerns have surrounded the committee for a while due to its closed-door meetings and how money is allocated to clubs and organizations.
Students pay an activities fee each year, which funds the organization.
Full-time undergraduate students pay $280 annually in student activities fees.
According to the AU Student Organization Handbook, the “committee is comprised of students, faculty and staff; the chair of the committee is the current officer of activities, budgeting, and chartering on Student Senate, four other Student Senators sit on the committee, at least two faculty members representing two of the four colleges, respectively.”
A committee of about seven members is deciding how to spend each full-time undergraduate student’s activity fee behind closed doors.
This already does not sound great.
I am a full-time undergraduate student, and I am curious about how much of the fee is divided among clubs and organizations, considering that money funds events these groups host on campus.
I am well aware that not the full $280 goes directly to clubs and organizations and that it is allocated to other areas of campus. However, there is no breakdown of what those other areas are.
But what I find most peculiar is the closed-door meetings.
On Feb. 25, Student Senate discussed the ABCC funding process further with Director of Student Activities Liz Keller. Senators asked questions about it, and the questions were answered.
But the one question that had no answer was: Why the closed-door meetings?
In my capacity as managing editor of The Collegian, I see great value in transparency.
I believe it is a great way to create trust among students, work to solve problems, and hold those in charge accountable.
On the flip side, I do understand the need to keep certain matters quiet in the interest of protecting individuals or if the information is sensitive.
But this is about numbers and money.
It is factual, concrete information that should be easily accessible to students.
If the meetings were open to all, students might attend to advocate for their organizations or to engage in discussions and get their questions answered.
By keeping ABCC meetings closed, more concerns have arisen than solutions, leading to a lack of trust.
The closed-door meetings are not reasonable for the long-term success of fund allocation to students.
A solution needs to be found to establish trust among the organizations receiving this funding and ensure accountability for those allocating the funds.
