When the watchdog fails

The media needs to play the essential role of watchdog, informing the public of a problem or issue of interest. In re- cent years, we have failed to be the watchdog that our campus needs. In just the last two years, we’ve seen a very restrictive protest policy and a Town Hall meeting go by with just one news article addressing each; no editorials, no opinion pieces, and certainly no examples of investigative journalism that would have answered some still looming questions.

While we cannot predict the next major, or even spontaneous, event that will need us to serve in this role, we can make pledges about what is al- ready on the schedule: the Student Government Association (SGA) meetings and election.

It isn’t a stretch to suggest the SGA’s most impactful job is managing student organization budgets. According to the Spring 2016 Budget Allocation document posted on the SGA website, $107,376 out of a possible $117,847 was allocated; in other words, $10,471 (9 per- cent) of SGA’s portion of the Student Activities Fee was not allocated directly to clubs. No publicly available document explains where non-allocated money is placed. The lack of transparency regarding that significant amount of money is startling. The Weekly should— and will—be the watchdog for SGA’s financial allocations and decisions.

In the interests of full disclosure, The Weekly is one of the many clubs that receives a bud- get from SGA (although that money is allocated by SGA, the money itself comes from students). Despite this potential conflict of interest, we are committed to upholding our standards of journalistic integrity. In truth, we have even more of a responsibility to inform the Muhlenberg community about the often less than transparent bodies that govern it.

On November 21, two weeks after we choose the next U.S. president, our study body will be tasked with selecting the next student body president. In September 2009, The Weekly reported on SGA’s changes to its own structure that allowed the president to speak freely in meetings and “to be their [the students’] voice to the body and the administration.” The student body president is anything but a figurehead, and the election to fill the position should not be a simple popularity contest.

Last year, the policy platforms for the candidates were not publicly released until an email was sent to students on the morning of the election. This year, The Weekly will play its role as watchdog, and be an active participant in the election process. We plan to interview each candidate and publish the contents of the interviews in the newspaper and our website. As the actual election nears, we will endorse the candidate best fit to serve as president.

This time around, things will be different.