For any democracy to fulfill its sworn duty, its government must be accessible. From meeting minutes to open forums, every good government owes its constituents an opportunity to engage with it and make their voices heard.
Earlier this month, Wichita State’s Student Government Association announced that it would suspend live-streaming services for Student Senate meetings, citing increased prices of livestreaming and captioning.
This move would save SGA $20,000 for the year.
In light of this recent development, why is accessibility within Student Government approached with an all-or-nothing mentality? Is transparency worth the associated price? In this case, SGA chose to cut costs.
As a governmental body of the university, SGA has an obligation to provide both accessible and equal opportunities for constituents to observe or participate in meetings.
It’s the price of democracy for an informed and engaged citizenry. But pricing and attendance concerns have realigned the priorities of these representative forums.
The Student Government Association abides by a policy requiring livestreams to be captioned for accessibility purposes.
When the university-contracted livestreaming service increased its fees, SGA chose to suspend business with the company and, subsequently, livestreaming as a whole. But should an increase in captioning prices result in the elimination of some students’ only means to actively participate in student affairs?
Student government leaders and advisers said that the choice made the most sense financially. SGA continues to record its meetings and post them on YouTube the following day, but it is not enough to ensure students have access to information that affects them — information they need immediately.
Moreover, livestreams are the only way to provide a record of the meeting as it happened and prevent any potential manipulation or cutting of the video the following day.
In the case of the Student Government Association, financial limitations within the body are a reasonable concern, but there are many alternative options rather than completely scrapping an invaluable resource.
And it’s difficult to imagine an already absent student body — now with even less access and opportunity to become informed — engaging with its government.
SGA isn’t the only governmental body on campus questioning its digital availability. Both Faculty and Staff Senate members pitched earlier this month that Zoom and Teams calling services should be scrapped.
Many said that doing away with virtual means of attendance would encourage faculty and staff to attend meetings in person. Instead, an attempt to put more butts in chairs could result in even less interaction between members of the body and those it aims to serve.
This is incredibly inconsiderate given that many faculty, staff and students can have legitimate reasons to not show up in person, such as health concerns, caregiving responsibilities or simply a conflicting schedule that prevents them from attending a live meeting.
Not attending a meeting does not necessarily mean that people do not care and taking away a needed service does not automatically add up to more in-person attendees.
Removing virtual access effectively excludes some students from participating in important discussions and decision-making processes, continuously diminishing the inclusivity and transparency of campus governance.
Regardless of the scale or size of the governing body, accessibility takes precedence.
Livestreams are just one reasonable way to provide such reassurance, and, if the reward is democracy, it seems a fair price to pay.
