Spring Break
Home > Commentary
Senate's unprofessionalism is unacceptable
Editorial
by Emerald Editorial Board |
PUBLISHED ON 3/14/07 IN Commentary
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.
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.
Be the first to comment on this story