When it comes to running a student government, graduate students could learn a lot from Georgetown undergraduates.

As a Ph.D. student in political science, I find most political life interesting, be it great-power statecraft or the intricacies of committee behavior. And so I’ve watched Georgetown University Students Association executives and senators — several of them students in courses for which I’ve been a Teacher’s Assistant — cope with the challenges of devising a new student group funding system.

Whatever your views about the final outcome of the GUSA reform, there can be no doubt that the months-long process was taken seriously by all concerned. And as new candidates for GUSA’s executive board promote their platforms for its future, the availability of a vastly increased budget means that undergraduate student government on the Hilltop can entertain much more ambitious plans.

Graduate students could — and should — learn from their example. GUSA’s budgeting process is relatively transparent, and the group’s website has easily navigable copies of resolutions, minutes and other documents. On the other hand, the Graduate Student Organization, GUSA’s counterpart for Ph.D. and master’s students, allocates its budget without any transparency or accountability.

Last Monday, the GSO disbursed nearly $13,000 to graduate student clubs in a closed session that lasted less than 20 minutes. Fewer than a dozen people — none of them popularly elected — voted on the budget. No minutes were taken at this meeting, and no copy of the organization’s budget is available on its website. Worse, numerous long-standing student groups found themselves cut to the bone or denied any funding at all. The GSO’s leaders steadfastly refused to hold any debate on the allocations whatsoever on the grounds that doing so would take too much time.

I’m not writing out of sour grapes. In fact, my group received the full amount it requested. But I find something wrong with a process that yields clearly unjust outcomes without due process or deliberation. Students in the government department, for instance, will each receive less than one dollar in GSO support, while other groups receive dozens of dollars per head.

GSO’s arbitrary budget decisions threaten important parts of the fabric of graduate student life. Research is a more collaborative process than many realize. Graduate students come together in seminars and workshops to share their findings, critique each others’ projects and learn the newest tools in their discipline. These sessions are the lifeblood of a superior academic experience — the kind for which Georgetown should be known.

GSO has threatened these groups’ survival. First, GSO limits the funding available to independent clubs by choosing instead to sponsor cocktail parties and happy hours. These events receive university funding but somehow still serve free alcohol — something that other student groups are not normally permitted to do. Moreover, they occur at times and places that make it difficult or impossible for older and married graduate students to attend. A sizable chunk of GSO’s total budget goes to these events, which mainly benefit GSO’s executive board.

Second, by disbursing club money without any openly announced criteria, GSO makes it impossible for organizations to plan events in advance or to have any reasonable expectation about their chances of receiving money. Groups invest hours in their budget submission, only to see it dismissed in minutes.

Students deserve better. At a minimum, the GSO ought to maintain a website that allows graduate students to keep tabs on what their representatives are doing. That is a low standard, but it is one the current organization fails to meet. Fixing this should be a priority for GSO leaders.

But that would be only a start. More far reaching changes are necessary. Sparsely attended GSO-organized social events should be cut in favor of subsidizing far more popular club events. Groups’ budget allocations should reflect their contribution to the university community, as determined by the size of their membership and the worthiness of their mission. And executive perks, like the president’s $1500 annual stipend, should be reevaluated in light of the organization’s tough budgetary situation.

Lastly, given that requests for club funding routinely exceed available funds by 100 percent or more, the organization should also consider advocating for a grad student activities fee. Even $5 or $10 per student per year would relieve the pressure immensely.

Marge Simpson once said that graduate students weren’t bad people, just people who had made a terrible life choice. In the same way, GSO is not a bad organization, but it is a group that has made some bad decisions. Changing the group’s direction may mean changing its leadership, but at the very least it requires an open and full debate. The time to begin that conversation is now.

Paul Musgrave is a Ph.D. student in political science.

To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact [email protected]. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.