Recently, questions have been raised on the misuse of funds by autonomous organizations. Some strongly argue for the transparency of financial records to the public, while others worry that such intervention will be a hindrance and vulnerability to the organization and its activities. The KAIST Herald takes a look into both perspectives.

 

Recently on ARA, KAIST’s online forum, the expenditure records of the cheerleading organization ELKA has risen as a sensitive issue. Abridged, students of KAIST demanded detailed records after a claim reported a misuse of funds, which ELKA has given no reply to. Some netizens supported ELKA claiming that autonomous organizations have no obligation to do so. Although the topic and cases have yet to become official, the greatest remaining debate is whether the financial records of autonomous organizations should be publicly accessible or not, and the public consensus is that it should.

Despite what the title means, we must care not to imbue excessive meaning to the word autonomous. The main purpose of an autonomous organization’s existence is to provide the student body the opportunity to execute functions of greater importance or symbolic meaning to the community while representing the student body with political independence from the university. However, self-funding such activities is realistically nearly impossible and usually requires sponsors. Now, money represents more than materialistic worth; it is the result of someone’s labor and efforts to improve their financial standings. Therefore, when one spends what is not self-earned, due respect must be paid to the providing party. In KAIST, autonomous organizations are funded by the students’ tuition fees and taxes of Korean citizens. Every concert and business trip a member participates in is under the expense of his or her peers and parents, and naturally, an implicit obligation follows that the members are sincerely carrying out their duties. The financial transcripts are proof of innocence from wrongful actions; a mutual understanding with the public that the organization recognizes their responsibilities when claiming for funds. Then, in the duration that autonomous organizations receive their funds from KAIST, disclosure of respective financial records to the student body is in fact a public duty. If demand of records is offensive to an autonomous organization, then it must reconsider how to pay for its actions.

Furthermore, financial transparency is a powerful mechanism for internal monitoring and inducing scrutiny. One bad apple can spoil the batch, and filtering out all the rotten ones is not always possible. Under no restrictions, one may be able to lift funds from the autonomous organization’s budget under false pretenses unbeknownst to the public and deceiving to colleagues. However, if all the organizations were required to report their financial expenditure, with all transactions recorded and outflow tracked, checking whether the money was used correctly becomes a matter of following records. Consequently, the bookkeeper has greater incentive to meticulously keep accurate records at hand such that an alibi may be available in cases of misunderstandings and false accusations. The failure to locate the funds implicates the organization of potential dishonesty and obvious inability to keep its own records. Accepted, transparency is not the only way nor foolproof, but it is definitely a course of action that requires much less effort compared to other methods that provide the same functions.

On an extended note, fund misallocation is not necessarily the autonomous organization’s liability. As an example of how KAIST funds autonomous organization, KAIST Orchestra invoices the council for each purchase and payment rather than receive an allowance all at once. Although laborious, the invoice evaluation on each occasion reduces the chance KAIST Orchestra unknowingly uses the funds for unacceptable purposes. College students usually have little understanding in bureaucratic practices and may not always have the experience to know what is right or wrong. In particular, if KAIST simply handed out ELKA bulk money without any screening, then the one who agreed to the funds has as much responsibility as ELKA in allowing the funds to be misused. Open records not only allow those providing the money to check on those using it, but also the ones handing it over.

Financial transparency presents little hindrance to autonomous organizations in good action. It is only the few who may participate in illicit acts or accidently tread over the line that transparency tries to halt and prevent. Most importantly, displaying trustworthiness is a duty to the public as well as a mechanism for self-correction. From both an ethical standpoint and logical consideration, it is only a natural conclusion that financial transparency should be required for autonomous organizations.

The recent controversy regarding financial transparency for autonomous student organizations at KAIST, has by now clearly illustrated the problem with the freedom in accounting that the university had granted these groups. Up to now, KAIST had permitted these organizations to operate independently, all the while unaware of when, on what, or how much of the funding given to these groups was being spent; now, with the organizations’ members unable to account for all of their expenditures - or in some cases, even admitting to questionable avenues of spending, many have begun to question how this status quo was upheld for so long. However, all those involved with this issue, either directly or indirectly, should not reach a hasty conclusion that complete transparency for all organizations is the best solution. As necessary as it is for the university to resolve the problem regarding appropriate and sensible spending of organizations’ funds, the full transparency option is one that promises more drawbacks than it does benefits.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, the biggest problem in pushing for financial transparency is that these autonomous groups would become prisoners of popular opinion. Organizations at every level of society must deal with public obligations of some form, and student organizations at KAIST should expect no less. However, such obligations should only involve informing the student body of what the organizations’ activities are, or demonstrating how they contribute to student life at KAIST. A decision opting to reveal the monetary aspects of autonomous organizations would be equivalent to allowing the student body, many of whom hold no stakes in the organizations’ welfare, to greatly influence how the organizations are run. Even those who have no affiliation to the organizations could easily find a point of contention in how group members utilize their funding, and it could easily be used to turn public opinion against the organizations. In effect, there would be too much influence from those outside the organizations, and much of this influence may be far from constructive. It would hinder the organizations’ ability to either function as effectively as before or proceed with the sense of direction previously shown.

Another way in which financial transparency would hinder organizations’ activities is that it would add to the number of tasks they would be obliged to deal with. In the case of implementing financial transparency, significant changes would then become necessary, including spending more time on the administrative aspects of organization operations and recruiting additional members in order to deal with the increased workload, among others. Knowing that all students involved in these organizations are also full-time students at our notoriously demanding university, adding to their burdens seems detrimental, arguably to an extent that would far outweigh the advantages that transparency could engender.

A final point to contend is how financial transparency would undermine the organizations’ authority and image. How the organizations are perceived and what they signify to people will be affected by this proposed change; for example, newspapers and radio broadcasts would lose their readership and audience. Even current and potential members will perceive the organizations in a different light. There even lurks the danger that, discouraged by the organizations’ impotence, members will feel less inspired to invest their time and effort and consequently, future recruitment could take a toll.