On Jan. 27 the Associated Student Government (ASG) held an unofficial meeting against their own policies over Zoom to discuss an ongoing issue. 

The meeting was held to figure out where the funding was going to come from for the Center for Reflection because the original funding was pulled.  

The Criterion found out about this meeting because two of its editorial board members are a part of ASG. Our Business Manager and Accuracy Manager are both members of the Senate.  

There are two problems with this meeting, one being it goes against the ASG policy to not conduct a meeting in the first week of school. Two, the Center for Reflection was supposed to be paid for by donors.  

ASG is supposed to be the role model on campus for all other student organizations. They are supposed to lead by example and set the standard for the rest of us.  

Why are they asking us to uphold our own rules and policies if they can’t uphold theirs?  

ASG tries to emulate the practices of the state and national government, but if they were to do this in a real government setting, there would be huge consequences. It is illegal to hold unofficial meetings without minutes.  

The Colorado General Assembly states the Open Meetings Law, “generally requires any state or local governmental body to discuss public business or to take formal action in meeting that are open to the public. A ‘meeting’ refers to any kind of gathering, convened to discuss public business, whether in person, by telephone, electronically, or by other means of communication.”  

The Colorado General Assembly also states for both local and state bodies, “Minutes of meetings must be taken and promptly recorded and are open to public inspection.”  

Not only did ASG violate their own policy, but in a real government setting, this would have been illegal.  

Amid all this, the ASG President Angel Bautista sat with The Criterion to discuss the unofficial meeting.  

As Bautista sat down with us, he admitted that ASG was wrong to have held the meeting. He went over what was discussed in the Senate meeting and was fully transparent with us.  

Bautista wasn’t required to be fully transparent nor was he required to even have the discussion with The Criterion. He could’ve lied, he could’ve denied it, and he could have even tried to shift the blame away from himself. 

Instead, Bautista chose to admit that he made a mistake and was open about his transgressions. He answered all the Criterion’s questions and gave us information that was unknown at the time.  

Bautista’s openness and transparency are something that all of us should aim for. It is the example that we look for in our ASG.

We at The Criterion now ask our readers to hold us to the same standard of accountability that we held Bautista to.  

It is our job to strive for and accomplish this level of transparency, and it is something we hope to continue for as long as we are around.