The Mav Awards, the Associated Student Government’s annual award show, was intended to showcase and acknowledge Colorado Mesa University’s best and brightest; instead, it has shown that the truth is not on ASG’s agenda.
Transparency, transparency, transparency.
President Ben Linzey and President-elect Beau Flores have wielded this word as if their life depended on it, and yet, when a request for documents that could have shed light on bias allegations was submitted, the student government sealed them without reasoning.
And Flores and Linzey, nominees for the awards’ highest honor, Maverick of the Year, are deafeningly silent. It seems odd for a Maverick, an unorthodox or independent-minded person, to be running with this silent pack.
Cultural Diversity Board director Shelby Cerise resigned because she felt the process was biased, and Student Life, CMU’s department of student involvement, cannot seem to remember what it was that caused them to remove a student leader and her organization from the list of finalists.
However, it was certainly not biased — trust them.
ASG Vice President Gabby Gile, ASG Director of External Affairs Chrystina Meador and Manager of Student Life Operations Julienne Stump decided they could change the results of the student-paid award ceremony — but they don’t believe those students deserve to know how and why the decisions were made.
Gile’s blasé attitude about documents disappearing after the issue was initially reported on is deeply concerning.
If anything, this ridiculous moment in time has at least shown that if Mav Awards are to continue, guidelines need to be set in place.
Gile has shipped this responsibility onto the next administration, but, time will tell if they remember to make the change for next fall, or if history will be doomed to repeat itself.
The current administration should take the time to ponder: Who has the final say in Mav Award finalists, the Fee Allocation Committee (an ASG sub-committee) who thought it did, or Student Life officials and ASG executives?
What matters most to name one a finalist? The number of nominations, the quality of the descriptions or the judges’ perception of that club or organization?
These are all questions raised by the investigation into the alleged bias of this year’s Mav Awards and, without answers this year, not only will next year’s administration likely forget to set guidelines in place after a long summer erases this year’s memory, but this year’s awards will leave one with a sour taste.
Students should feel pride in earning a nomination, finalist spot or Mav Award, but when officials make questionable decisions in closed-door meetings, those awards lose their shine.
Instead of ending the year with what appears to be secrecy and misdirection, ASG can — and should — strive for the transparency and fairness they have touted as cornerstones of their body all year.
