The Behrend Student Government Association’s Tuesday meeting brought to light some clubs’ aggravation at the SGA’s transparency. The first week of budget appeals brought four clubs to the SGA meeting: The Society of Automotive Engineers, The Behrend Gaming Club, The Behrend Fencing Group, and The Plastics Engineering Club. Two of those four were granted full funding from their appeals.

​

The method by which the SGA decided the outcome of their allocation appeals has fallen under scrutiny by several of the clubs. Each club’s representatives were given several minutes to explain why they feel they deserve the funding outlined in their appeals, but were immediately removed from the room for the actual decision. Only the members of the Senate and the executive board were allowed to stay in the room for the discussion.

​

Vice President Andy Sanford explained the rationale for this method of voting in an email discussing its constitutional outline. “Some clubs and organisations will feel unhappy that they didn't get fully funded,” Sanford said, “to protect my fellow senators from the negative conversations, as well as tough decisions that must be made at these meetings, the voting must be held in private.”

​

The previous Behrend SGA constitution, made available by advisor Kristina Torok, made no reference to the privacy of votes regarding budget appeals; this clause is now found within the powers of the Senate. Similarly, the Gannon University SGA’s constitution has no mandate for a private vote on the matter of budget allocation. While the policy may be different in practice, Sanford’s use of a constitutional basis to bar members of the public from the discussion has only recently gained substance.

​

Members of the student body had much to say about what this means for the transparency of the organisation. Zachary Lowery, Vice President, and Kevin Lu, Secretary, of the Behrend Gaming Club, were outspoken opponents to the closed door voting.

​

“The thing with SGA is that they promote the fact that they are transparent, but what this is right now is not transparency,” said Lu, when asked how he felt about being removed from the room. “We don’t know what they’re talking about. I’m not saying they’re talking shit, but they could be talking shit,” echoed Lowery, voicing his uncertainty about his own removal.

​

“The closed-door meetings aren’t an issue, but the lack of communication between the SGA and a lot of clubs is a problem sometimes,” said Jesse Brandon, Social Media Coordinator of The Society of Automotive Engineers, when asked for his feelings on the private voting. Following the Sept. 11 adoption of the budget, Sanford announced that he would personally be contacting the clubs to inform them of the amount and reasons for their funding, or lack thereof. As the director of the budget committee, the vice president is responsible for contacting the recipients of the allocated funds.

​

Members of the SGA had their own opinions about these methods. Sadie Myers is a member of the SGA’s budget committee, the group that outlined the final funding allocations for organisations on campus.

​

“There are certain things that I know I would feel uncomfortable talking about in public and I understand the constitution statements [that say] certain things should be private,” said Myers. She singled out the budget, saying that discussions can “get heated.”

​

“There were four clubs that did not get funded in full, and they were not happy about it. [The private vote] allows the Senate to have an honest conversation, it allows the Senate to have an uninterrupted conversation, and it also allows a fair decision to be made, without bias. I think it’s important that they become transparent, and continue to be transparent, but I also think it’s important to keep some things in turn,” Myers concluded.

​

Some students appear to reject the whole notion that the SGA’s vote comes and goes without predisposition, however. “ I'm not saying people are biased, but people are biased, some people will just not fund stuff because they don’t like you,” argued Lowery, before the outcome of the Gaming Club’s appeal. He did not cite any specific information to reinforce this claim, but felt very strongly that this was the case. The Senate went on to deny the Behrend Gaming Club the funding that they requested in their appeal. The club promptly held a raffle to raise non-allocated funds. Events and other club activities that use non-allocated funds are not under as much scrutiny by the SGA, but it is obviously much harder to accumulate.

​

The main point of the conflict seems to be the argument surrounding whether or not clubs would disrupt the voting process if they were allowed to stay, and what dangers that could pose for the members of the SGA. “I can see who [votes] from the window. They don’t cover it, they don’t block it,” Lowery said, using this as evidence that simply being in the room is not an important difference. “And you can be mad without being unprofessional. You can disapprove, but you shouldn’t jump up, point scream, and run,” responded Lowery, when asked if he believed that clubs pose a risk. But the opposition to this firmly believes that this claim is not founded.

​

“I don’t think all clubs would [be unruly], and I don’t think they would do it intentionally, but I think that they have emotional investments in the topics at hand. So it is important to keep them private,” said Myers, when asked whether clubs would pose a risk to the integrity of the voting.

​

While this policy has not created incredible outrage within the Behrend community, it is clear that clubs that are already facing being denied funding are very willing to criticize this method of voting. The transparency of Behrend’s SGA may very well come under close watch from the rest of the clubs and members of the public who hold an interest in their funding.