If El Consejo Atenista were a car, surely the student body would hope its windows were transparent and not tinted black—or moreso, removed.
Issues of transparency have never been absent in any governing entity. Whether it is Elle Woods’ sorority Delta Nu or the Philippine Government, constituents constantly wonder if the organization they are part of or that serves them is honest, accountable, and effective. El Consejo Atenista is no exception, and it should know and take no offense that it is not. Aside from its usual valuable projects and services, ECA has not publicly engaged to any malpolitics such as extortion, influence peddling, and embezzlement—and for these reasons, it is considered transparent. Indeed, ECA’s windows are untinted; however, if the student body wished that these be removed altogether to encourage more openness, would it be willing to do so even at the cost of its secrecy and privacy?
Sometime earlier, an anonymous John Doe emailed The Beacon Publications their plea about El Consejo Atenista. According to them, there was a lack of transparency in the departure of the latter’s officers.
Firstly, there were resignations, but not all memorandums were posted in the social media. Although those not posted belong to ex-officers in the lower positions, shouldn’t the same guideline of posting apply? The student body has the right to know, and doing so denotes equality regardless of position and contribution. An organization with several consecutive resignations does create an unfavorable facade, but the vulnerability that comes with such honesty only fortifies its relationship with its constituents for people respond to authenticity. Moreover, students chat among themselves, speculating whether the series of resignations suggests that ECA is not a unified student government and is experiencing internal strifes. Whether ECA responds to such stories beyond what is stated in the memorandums is up to how open it wishes to be with the students.
Secondly, there were inconsistencies in the information regarding the roster of ECA officers during the General Assemblies with the different Academic Organizations. If an officer has resigned, he should no longer be identified as an active member of the organization—moreso, introduced to other orgs as one. This lack of veracity could be a simple mistake, but it could also imply a number of things such as indifference, negligence or even dishonesty, especially that we live in the age of information. Furthermore, a follow-up and apology should succeed such a fault. Though publicly there were none, hopefully privately there were.
The mentioned acts do not diminish El Consejo Atenista’s transparency as an organization. ECA is not corrupt and unforthcoming, and the students should be grateful that there is a student government that creates projects and renders services for the benefit of all. However, this is to be expected, and it does not hurt to go beyond expectations. Is ECA willing to be more transparent even at the cost of its secrecy and privacy? Are there any untold stories from the inside that could resolve the questions the students have in mind? Is ECA valiant enough to show its more fragile vulnerabilities, if there are even any? Is ECA bold enough to be intimate with its constituents, held publicly accountable, not appear perfect, and not question its professionalism?
If ECA were a car and its windows were removed, not only would it be the student body’s pleasure to see what’s inside, but the fresh air that would gush in could be the start of a newfound innovation, creativity, and change. Incoming ECA, take notes.
