No matter how many speed dating events there are or how many fruits sold in the farmers market, some students still remain blissfully unaware of Associated Students Inc., the non-profit multimillion dollar organization they shell out $44 to each semester.
It’s been a long-time hurdle for students to become aware of the organization’s role and efforts within the university — nevermind the job performance of the people who control the organization’s pocketbook and represent them.
But fear not students, the current administration has found a solution.
This year’s executive branch has proposed an internal policy change, one that they say will keep representatives accountable.
In the new internal review system, members of the executive branch will review one another and be reviewed. The evaluation also extends to the legislative branch in which ASI Vice President Jonathon Bolin will review the Senate.
The goal is to make sure that all representatives are held accountable to students.
A tentative rubric sheet for senators was released to the Daily 49er Tuesday, and while the goal of internal policy change may seem well intended, the grading criteria opens the door to possible power misuse.
The rubric shows that Bolin will grade senators not only on measurable, objective criteria such as attendance in meetings but also subjective goals such as “going above and beyond expectations.”
This is where the problem lies.
The tentative rubric measures pertinent responsibilities of an effective senator both in and outside of the Senate Chambers. Each category is worth up to a certain amount of points.
But the methodology of who grades who, especially in times of an upcoming ASI election, gives too much power to the executive branch.
For example, if the already two-time executives and previous running mate duo Bolin and John Haberstroh decide to make another run for office, the evaluating procedure could make subjective grading criteria even more murky.
Bolin would be evaluating senators who could also be potential competitors, while he in turn would be graded by Haberstroh, a good bet for a running mate if both decide to run for office again. Not to mention, Haberstroh would also be grading Bolin.
I wonder how harshly grading criteria such as “going beyond expectations,” worth up to five points, would be evaluated that month.
I urge senators to bring forth a discussion of who is grading them and what they should be graded on.
At least some of the material used in the rubric for senators can already be evaluated through the recorded meeting minutes. These documents show quantitative data and the quality of a senator’s actions.
The problem is accessibility. A recent examination of the ASI website shows only four documents posted to the Senate meeting minutes subcategory.
While ASI is looking to provide students with a quick and dirty version of each individual’s performance, it fails to post public documents that could provide a fuller and less biased picture.
ASI should redirect its efforts from keeping its representatives accountable and instead hold itself accountable by providing meeting minutes online.
While grades including how often a senator contributes to a discussion or adds an amendment to a resolution (worth up to 10 points!) can be valuable, it does not measure the quality of those actions. And like all cheat sheets, you have to wonder how much it leaves out.
Kasia Hall is a senior double major in journalism and political science and a contributing writer at the Daily 49er.
