Editorial: Recording USAC meetings would be a step toward transparency

At a recent weekly meeting, the undergraduate student government council discussed the possibility of live streaming its meetings online, but displayed an incomprehensible reluctance to simultaneously record these sessions.

Avi Oved, the internal vice president, proposed at a meeting late last month that the Undergraduate Students Association Council use Google Hangouts or some similar technology to live stream their public meetings without restriction online. But he immediately specified that no recordings of the weekly meetings would be posted online.

For an internal vice president who ran on a platform of transparency, the move to sidestep creating permanent records of council meetings is inexplicable. But even more astounding are misgivings some councilmembers voiced at the meeting, which highlighted a widespread misunderstanding of the purpose and capacity of USAC as an institution.

At the council’s final November session, External Vice President Maryssa Hall expressed discomfort over the live stream because USAC meetings can be a personal space. This contention contradicts the nature of USAC as a public body: While personal anecdotes are common in USAC meetings, that doesn’t make the event a private space, and responsibility for what is shared rests with the speaker.

Community Service Commissioner Omar Arce said he was concerned public commenters could be vilified for their statements. True, but vilification is a hazard speakers – and public commenters – take on when they stand up at an open meeting.

Finally, President John Joanino said the idea raised an “accessibility issue” saying the prospect of being recorded might make some people too scared or nervous to speak before USAC. But this is hardly a good reason not to move forward with a measure that would increase the accountability of all speakers, whether elected, appointed or otherwise, at USAC meetings.

The misgivings of these councilmembers are as well-intentioned as they are unfounded. The USA bylaws – in Article I, Section A, no less – contain a clear explanation that council meetings are open to the public, with only very specific exceptions.

When candidates decide to run for USAC office, and when students ask to be recognized for public comment, they immediately step out of the private sphere and into the public one. This is a fact that members of USAC should have internalized by now, and it’s shocking they need reminding.

USAC meetings should undoubtedly be recorded. Putting meetings online for review later makes student government more accessible and transparent – a goal to which most members of council have at least paid lip service.

What is a student to do, for example, who would like to hear what their elected officials are saying but cannot attend a meeting or watch a live stream because of another engagement?

The segment of the California Government Code dealing with government meetings grants any person “the right to record the proceedings with an audio or video recorder” so long as it doesn’t disturb the meeting. If USAC seeks to stake out a position as a legitimate governing body, there is no better model to imitate than prevailing state practice.

After approving increases to their own compensation this summer, the USAC council has had difficulty proving it can abide by principles of good government. Here is a chance to take an easy, unambiguous step in that direction.