Transparency is key to new USG term


Even after the summer break, the words “Austin-Morgan” still conjure up a feeling similar to “Hillary 2016;” it was written previously in this publication that the USG presidential race rocked an already election-sensitive campus. Past the doubled trauma of watching yet another inexperienced outsider go head-to-head with another surreptitiously deceptive heir-apparent, the most important distinction lies in the fact that Austin Dunn and Morgan Monahan actually won their race.

Competitions of the past and election trauma aside, it seemed that the lasting takeaway from the spring race was that there were very few students on this campus who had been able to track, or attempted to track, the success and progress of the Edwin-Austin administration. The Austin-Morgan ticket very wisely leaned on a laundry list of accomplishments or accomplishments-in-progress — many of which were initiatives trotted out during the election, but never mentioned prior. Thus, the key question becomes one of accountability and follow-through. Dunn and Monahan wanted it, and now they’ve got it. USG cannot be allowed, and cannot allow itself to once again disappear into obscurity until the next campaign cycle.

The Austin-Morgan ticket had a total of 35 different platform points over five separate categories. These included everything from an all-inclusive active-shooter preparedness program to the installation of speed bumps on the Row. Their victory made for a cheery Valentine’s Day, and since, radio silence from our freshly elected leaders. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s application cycle for speed-bump requests ended over the summer. While Dunn and Monahan posit the necessity of ice machines in residence halls, the floors of USC Village’s new residential colleges don’t even come equipped with water fountains.

Still, a few points of their platform stand out as obvious priorities, and are the only platform points likely to get any real traction in the new administration. Tuition transparency, the famed and mysterious “fall break” and  improved DPS transparency were generally shared across the platforms of the three competing tickets, and stand as universal wins across all student groups. Any of the three would be a marvelous accomplishment on its own. However, whether senior administrators will actually enact any of these motions is subject to speculation.

Taking tuition transparency as an example, the University’s M.O. seems to be to issue a bland statement about the most recent tuition hike without even the most basic attempt at an explanation. If education is to become a commodity purchased by the affluent to maintain their socioeconomic grip, it would seem this is a shoddy way to treat one’s customers. However, assuming we have become the customer, since rumored explanations for tuition hikes generally hover around “paying for things,” and, on a more abstract note, supply and demand. What things, the student body asks? The University leaves it up our imaginations. It is at this point that Dunn and Monahan should be outlining what they plan to do about it. Where is the detailed policy initiative of steps to be taken, actions and impact? In all likelihood, we won’t receive one — and worse than that, history shows that Dunn and Monahan will probably be left to triumph or fail in the din of another type of opacity: their own.

Where is the dogged grit of our student journalists, and when will they turn their scrutiny toward student government? When will we discuss where that $2 million budget is going, or what these elected leaders are doing? Two years ago, former student body president Rini Sampath made her own waves, and drew her own thunder. Quieter administrations — like Edwin Saucedo’s — were allowed to fall quietly into the ether.

Dunn and Monahan need to begin their administration with a commitment to transparency — and not just the glossy We-Did-It moments, but the real kind, the point-by-point plans, the updates, the messaging. Student groups committed to such transparency — our media outlets — must concentrate on the grit and detail of the administration’s progress, not just the general talking points of dull Senate meetings. Finally, the student body must recognize that there is no glory in doing any of these things, either for student government or student publications, if they are speaking to an audience that is not there to hear them. By voting in the last election, no matter the candidate supported, an investment was made in the success and vitality of our student government. Make good on that investment. Pay attention.