The 2009-10 scholastic year has been defined by budget cuts, protests, furloughs and rallies. And now with the semester drawing to a close, it’s imperative that the act of transparency not be lost as we move toward the summer months.

Embroiled in a multi-billion dollar deficit handed down from the state, the California State University, University of California and California State Community Colleges have been under increased scrutiny following a litany of executive pay raises and alleged misappropriated funds.

The solution most often suggested is to pour billions of federal dollars into higher education, but it’s more important that we look beyond financial reform. If we want to rebuild Fresno State it begins with demanding greater transparency.

Earlier this month, several CSU campuses began posting information about contracts with vendors, external audits and financial statements in an attempt at increased transparency.

The push for greater oversight and transparency, however, has been slow and erratic. Some pockets of information at the university level still do not appear to have made any concrete changes.

For instance, in the wake of massive budget cuts, universities like CSU Stanislaus have failed to disclose information involving expenditures. Last month, the university’s foundation signed a contract to bring Alaska ex-governor and former GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, but did not open its financial records to the public. The university has also been accused of shredding documents that revealed the amount the university paid for her speaking engagement.

But this instance is emblematic of a larger problem within the structure of the California’s higher education system.

According to Californiawatch.org, a 2009 executive order from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger required state contracts of more than $5,000 to be posted online, but most CSU sites appear to list only contracts of more than $50,000, the website charges.

At Fresno State, a member of its foundation received a no-bid contract connected with building the Campus Pointe project—the member held a financial stake in the project.

California’s public universities control more than $1 billion in several nonprofit foundations. The public, however, has limited access to information about how that money is spent.

However, transparency comes in varying degrees and means many things to different agencies.

Transparency, in essence, is a misnomer.

Still, at the center of the situation is the balance between preserving the universities’ image and the serving public’s right to know. The best approach is to protect legitimate needs of the university while rejecting those that are made in the name of public relations. Although universities are responsible for answering to accrediting agencies, for higher education departments as well as state and federal agencies, protecting students’ right to know is most important.

Rather than treating transparency as just another buzzword, students need to take action. It is not enough that lawmakers and lobbyists demand that all records be made open and done under the light of day, but students must become proactive as well.