By In a move that could likely increase transparency within student government at Cal State Long Beach, Associated Students Inc. will implement an internal review system.
At the 2013 annual Convocation, ASI President John Haberstroh said that the internal review system aims to bring a new standard of accountability to ASI.
Although we like the idea of holding ASI elected officials accountable, we do have some concerns about the review system’s preliminary grading rubric for ASI senators.
For example, one of the rubric’s criteria includes rating the senators based on “going above and beyond expectations,” according to the rubric provided by ASI Vice President Jonathon Bolin.
How can a review system be entirely objective if a question like this is asked?
If the rubric is to be completely objective, questions like the aforementioned one should be eliminated.
Still, we find some value in the review system.
We agree that holding ASI elected officials accountable is extremely important, and a periodic review of those officials could lead to a more effective ASI.
According to ASI Chief of Staff Joseph Phillips, the review system will require all executives and senators to be reviewed once a month.
In addition, Haberstroh will be reviewed by the other executives, Bolin and ASI Treasurer Agatha Gucyski, as well as his appointed cabinet members, Phillips and ASI Chief Programming Officer Irving Barcenas.
We wonder, though, why an objective third party won’t conduct reviews on the executives and senators?
An objective third party would help to free the review system from bias.
ASI is a close-knit community, and the possibility of positive or negative bias creeping into the reviews could spell bad news.
If one executive disagrees with another, there is nothing to prevent that executive from giving the other a bad performance review.
We’re also concerned about the ASI executives’ desire to have the reviews published in student media, namely the Daily 49er and the Union Weekly.
True, publishing the reviews could further encourage student representatives to not slack off.
But, while we understand this stance, we don’t believe student media are the best outlets to publish the information.
The Daily 49er is supposed to provide unbiased information to its readers. If any sort of bias appears in one of those reviews then we would be held responsible for publishing biased information.
All concerns aside, we are eager to see the review system implemented and think that holding ASI elected officials accountable is still a step in the right direction.
