The Undergraduate Student Government Senate passed a resolution during last night's meeting demanding that the University Park Allocation Committee open its meetings to the public.

This is on the heels of UPAC's recent rejection of the exact USG proposed policy.

"As far as I'm concerned, if you're handling that much money than you had better be public," Town Sen. Rick Smith said. "If we did that here in senate, people would rightfully break down the door with an axe."

The measure also gives Senate President Sean Clark the power to appoint a UPAC liaison.

Clark

This person's responsibilities would include obtaining weekly agendas of all allocating subcommittees within UPAC, reporting the amount requested by groups and the actual amount distributed.

The liaison would then compile this information into a weekly report to be posted on the USG Web site and would make a printed copy of the weekly allocations report available in the USG office.

Currently, UPAC information, including individual allocations and the rationale behind each decision, is available in the UPAC office.

Smith said that publishing this information on the USG Web site would be more convenient for students.

"If UPAC has nothing to hide, then there should be no problem," Town Sen. Jason Covener said.

However, not all senators endorsed the proposals.

Town Sen. Bridget Van Osten said she agreed that UPAC meetings should be made public, but disagreed with the timing of the legislation.

"It's the end of our term — we have three meetings left — it's not right to pass our policies onto the next congress," she said.

Van Osten also added that UPAC has exhausted its $2.1 million in funds for the 2001-2002 academic year.

UPAC Chair Jason Lane had different reasons for not making meetings public.

Lane cited the March 2000 United States Supreme Court decision in the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth.

The ruling determined that in order for a student activity fee to be constitutional it must be allocated to viewpoint neutral programs.

Lane explained that by opening meetings, the group's decisions could be influenced by the public.

"Our rationale in keeping meetings closed is that members of the committee must remain unbiased and not affected by external factors, like students observing our discussions," Lane said.