Coffee and Conversation offers a forum each Friday for students to discuss their concerns about Boston University. But when the Allocations Board and Student Union used last week’s time slot to address a hotly contested funding proposal, the Board forgot what it means to have a conversation.
In a letter from the Union printed in Thursday’s Daily Free Press announcing Friday’s meeting, it called for students to “voice their questions, concerns and constructive ideas” and encouraged the press to attend.
But at the conversation, AB members wanted to keep all the talks off the record.
The AB did more to dictate than discuss. Whenever the proposal was questioned, AB members went on the defensive and became argumentative rather than seriously discussing each suggestion.
Many are upset with the AB’s proposal because it puts too much power in the hands of an appointed group of students. The Board must consider amending its structure to include more people.
But it is adamant on maintaining the status quo. AB ombudsman Tyler Ramaker even said the system was not up for discussion.
But it should be. The AB is considering allowing the Union treasurer to be a voting member of the AB, but members said that is as far as it is willing to go. Especially if the Board’s funding proposal goes through, the AB should adopt a democratic system. As several attendees asserted Friday, it is vital to have checks and balances on such a small group vying for tremendous authority.
The Board argues against making membership available by claiming the AB has been successfully run for many years with the current system. But with fully controlling students’ money comes a lot more responsibility, and even if current AB members are qualified, electing members would ensure a more representative Board.
As it is, the group itself appears very cliquey. Given the inside nature of the selection process, the close-knit attitude its members present makes sense. But it can be intimidating.
Group leaders who need to request funds could feel threatened by such a powerful group of friends. And it is possible that if AB members have a problem with an organization’s head, that group is out of luck.
If the student body voted on AB members, the group wouldn’t be as much of a unified front, and hopefully there would be more debate on how to allocate funds.
And it’s suspect that Soren Hessler is also the president of the UNI student government. This creates a conflict of interest, and when UNI needs money, it’s hard not to think the AB will be more willing to grant it.
The Board also said it wishes more students understand what it does. For this to happen, members need to put themselves on the radar screen. The budget comes out annually, but the AB never publicizes it. The document itself might confuse many students, and others may be apathetic toward it, but at least it would be a step toward transparency.
But for students who are concerned about the proposal, the AB must do more than just print the budget if it is going to control students’ money. Like the Union, leaders of the AB must become faces on campus.
They must make their actions public. The way they announced their proposal shows the ineptitude of their public relations skills. The statement came out via an email from the Union — not the AB.
And the decision was made without consulting many people whom it affects. Many CAS Forum members found out about the possible changes by reading The Daily Free Press.
The AB’s proposal will have a significant impact if it passes, so it must be carefully constructed before being announced. The best way to do this is to consult many people before finalizing anything. This would allow the appointed Board to conduct itself more democratically without altering its structure.
And the AB must recognize its decisions could be unwelcome. Anytime money is involved, emotions run high. And when people are removed even further from their finances — as this proposal would make a reality — people are going to protest.
When the backlash comes, the AB must be responsive. If Board members are set in their ways and are not willing to bend, as they seemed to be Friday, the public’s views aren’t represented. And because it is the students’ money in question, they deserve to have their voices heard.
To say something is not up for discussion, like Ramaker said of the AB’s structure, when holding a conversation about the Board and its proposal, is ludicrous — especially when students are complaining about the Board’s organization.
South Campus Residence Hall Association Treasurer Ariel Gold represented the student body’s voice well when she told AB members, “We don’t want to be convinced. We want to actually have a conversation.”