CSUMB Associated Student Mid-Year Review: New Process Adopted
Mary Freeman, Assistant News Editor
As CSU Monterey Bay students gear up for finals, Associated Students (AS) are going through finals of their own.
For the first year ever AS has reviewed all members. For the most part, the development of the process in which AS members are reviewed has taken place during the reviews themselves. The document outlining the process was officially adopted this semester immediately before the reviewing process began.
The process, conducted by the Internal Affairs Committee (IAC), is closely modeled after the IAC’s misconduct review process. It allows for the members being reviewed to inform the committee about their performance thus far, in their own words, and is immediately followed by a committee discussion of the information presented.
The AS mid-year review process begins with the member under review stating their goals, how they have met them, how they are revising them, what obstacles they have seen and areas they can improve in. The members goals were developed over the summer at an AS retreat and can be found online at the AS website.
Then, the member reports on all of the committees that they sit and/or chair. Following this, the IAC committee then asks the member questions about what they have just reported and comments on the information at hand.
Finally, the committee decides what report to give to the academic senate. These reports include a general performance analysis and recommendations. For example, for AS Public Relations Director Sean Swing the committee found that he was in compliance with his job responsibilities, but also had many different recommendations for Swing ranging from resurrecting the AS newsletter to establishing better connections with local media.
All review outcomes have been posted on First Class (the CSUMB email service), and can be found at The Source > Conferences > Associated Students > President’s Cabinet > Rules Committee.
The purpose of the reviews are to create transparency within AS, encourage the growth of the members, all the while holding them accountable for their actions. AS Legislative Director, Clint Weirick, stated of the process, “we seek growth [of the senator] and to make their work transparent.” AS Inter-Club Council (ICC) Chair Maria Ceja added that it is also, “to ensure that senators are doing their job and representing the students.” The reviews are held in public to facilitate the transparency and to comply with Calif. state laws.
Most AS members see the review process as a way to develop the organization and help it to grow. Weirick stated, “AS is going through a phase of change,” and continued, ““we are setting better foundations.” Otter Student Union (OSU) Chair Xana Hermosillo also agreed that the process is working, “I really like the structure of these general reviews to give recommendations and I think everyone is really accepting of the advice. It’s serving its purpose.”
So far, no member has received a negative review; however, some have received recommendations that will be reported to the Senate. In these instances the members are advised by the council to take certain actions in order to better serve students. Most recommendations are for members to make more reports to the senate or to start working with more people. If these actions are not met by the next review punitive measures may be taken.
Many members have cited that transition problems and staff changes have become large obstacles preventing them to efficiently do their jobs at times. By transition problems, the members mean that they have had few resources detailing what their jobs are and/or little support from former members in the past. The only two AS members to continue to hold their position are OSU Chair Xana Hermosillo and Upper Division Housing Senator Denise Huey.
The staff changes refer to the absence of Wendy Ruteledge, AS staff member. In past years, Ruteledge had assisted with AS accounting and was seen as the “go-to person” for most issues. AS members have refused to comment on Ruteledge’s present status within AS.
As performance reviews continued on Tuesday it was obvious the review process was still under development.
Delante Johnson, AS financial director, was the first from AS to get a “bad” review. Although, it was difficult to tell exactly what the committee’s decision was for Johnson. The language regarding the assessment of Johnson’s performance changed at least 3 times in the review.
Originally, the committee was putting people on a “good list” or a “bad list”, which Graham admitted was a joking reference to the upcoming holidays during an interview. After concerns were expressed the lists were modified into a sole “needs improvement” list.
Again, concerns were expressed over the message this language was sending, and it was decided to put members either on a compliance list or a non compliance list; however, by the end of the meeting members were simply given recommendations with no mention of being put on any list.
Overall, most recommendations have been for members to refocus their goals with special emphasis on student issues, as well as to get a handle on the AS budget, which in many ways is still unknown to AS themselves.
Communication, both internally and externally, was of great concern to the committee. AS President Robert Graham and AS Events Workgroup Chair Justin Stie were both brought up for review due to complaints about communication related issues earlier this semester.
While this did not present a problem for Graham in review, part of Stie’s review did involve email correspondence between the Otter Realm and Stie. Some in the committee, namely Huey, were very concerned with the unprofessional nature of the correspondence and therefore as part of Stie’s recommendations the committee suggested he make an effort to improve professionalism in his communications.
Johnson received a similar recommendation for emails between himself and the Otter Realm as well. All of these emails can be found online in connection to this article by the links below.
According to Weirick, certain reviews did not take place before the end of the semester due to members not signing up. Technology Senator Kevan Mah and Multicultural Senator Matthew Flores missed their Dec. 3 reviews. The reviews that have yet to be done will take place over winter break at or immediately before an AS retreat.