Every year, The Eagle interviews SG executive candidates and offers its endorsements the weekend prior to the election. Although we strongly believe the candidates we've selected are the best for the job, we encourage students to make their own decisions, scrutinizing candidates as they see fit and choosing those who best represent their interests.
President Seth Cutter
Thankfully, endorsing a presidential candidate this year was difficult. Unlike previous SG elections, the five candidates represent distinct, competing interests, and their campaigns certainly infuse the process with a long overdue sense of diversity - racial, ethnic, gender, academic or otherwise.
That said, it's the policies that matter most, and The Eagle believes that it's Seth Cutter who offers AU students the most realistic solutions to their most troubling concerns.
Cutter is energetic - he truly values his position as senate clerk - and, above all else, he is pragmatic. Of the many issues he discussed with us, he acknowledged his limits in pursuing reform, admitting that no well-intentioned president could facilitate policy making without first accepting the power of the Undergraduate Senate or the occasional stalwartness of the university's administrators. We greatly respect his honesty - after all, the only thing worse than a candidate with no platform is a candidate with a platform he or she cannot achieve - and urge future candidates to keep those limits in mind.
His policies are equally forthright. To start, Cutter reminded us of the SG's spending lapses; noting the approximate $40,000 student leaders failed to spend last year, he advocated reallocating financial resources and "spending until zero."
While at first this might seem like a monetary mistake, remember that organizations - the SG included - often lose money they fail to spend. If the resources are there for students, Cutter explains, it is thus senseless to waste them.
The other candidates largely missed the mark on this issue; Jason Cunningham offered to hold a referendum on increasing the Student Activity fee, while Jillian Rubino proposed increasing it to $100 per semester without first seeking voters' input. Either way, The Eagle is very much opposed to any policy requiring students to pay more - especially in light of next year's astronomical housing and tuition rate increases - making Cutter's campaign even more appealing.
We also appreciate Cutter's stance on the Student Bill of Rights, a topic we editorialized about last fall. During his interview, Cutter advocated the importance of such a document, and he offered two specific protections: a more specific guarantee of students' JAMS rights and an equal distribution of university facility space.
While Cutter's two suggestions aren't exactly what The Eagle offered in October, it's still more than the other candidates had to offer. Ohemaa Nyanin said she read the bill, but she only spoke ambiguously about including specific protections. Rubino, on the other hand, outwardly declined to comment on the matter. Tim Neal, the write-in candidate, only talked at length about ending AU's dry campus policy.
Cunningham, however, agreed with Cutter's JAMS protections and briefly mentioned the uselessness of Blackboard, but we could not get past his admission that comptroller vacancies ought to be filled by appointments. Although those bylaws are by no means a part of the Student Bill of Rights, we thought it was contradictory for a candidate to protect and overlook their voters on two related issues.
Finally, we admire Cutter's experience. Although students have spent the better part of this academic year pining for fresh SG faces, we realized during these endorsements that navigating SG processes is by no means simple. And while we would love an outside candidate as much as the next publication, even the "outsiders" in this race sadly miss the mark. Nyanin is perhaps the most personable, respectful, fun and outgoing candidate we've ever interviewed, yet she lacks the logistical knowledge needed to steer the SG ship. And Neal, the most on the fringe, has no understanding of university process whatsoever. So, if it must come down to choosing a president among the most experienced, Cutter is the best choice.
Cutter, of course, is by no means perfect. He occasionally gets caught up in his own rhetoric, much like Cunningham. He also might be a little too "insider" for some students' tastes, but so is most of the pool. Nevertheless, we still endorse Cutter for president, perhaps with Nyanin as a close second, though we encourage students to examine each candidate carefully.
Vice President Andrew Woods
The vice presidential nomination was equally difficult, although for a different reason. Unlike the presidency, in which there was a plethora of ideas and opinions, many of the vice presidential candidates merely echoed each other. Where there were diversity and ingenuity in the SG's top position, there was homogeneity in its second command. We were largely disappointed.
In the end, we're endorsing Andrew Woods for VP, perhaps solely because of his expertise. While his first opponent, Tazewell Jones, agreed that students should demand better programming from their vice presidents, Woods had ideas. Jones just supplemented proposals with a catchall "consult the students" stance that insufficiently explained how they'd accomplish that goal at all. Jones also preferred to focus more on policy than programming, which isn't the job of the VP. Meanwhile, Kristopher Kagan, the other VP candidate, had ideas similar to Woods' platform, just with half the depth.
Specifically, Woods caught our attention with his ideas for Spring Fling and Eagle Nights. We'd love to see bands playing on the quad, more movies and concerts in the Tavern and, most importantly, more return on our Student Activity money. Woods' attention to the university's space dilemmas is also incredibly perceptive; while we aren't sure he'll be able to implement the proposals to share Katzen's space among AU's groups, we appreciate his attention to the problem. We can only hope he fulfills his own goals next year.
Secretary Madeline Tomchick
We knew the moment Madeline Tomchick answered her first question that she loved AU, and we're pleased to endorse her solely because of her devotion to the secretary position.
It is no surprise that Tomchick, the SG's current director of Outreach, is campaigning on a platform stressing visualization and communication. We think she's done a pretty good job for a transfer student in her first year, and we think she's ready to take the next step as secretary.
As most students will decry, Tomchick has no opponent. The Eagle could have chosen to ignore her candidacy based on her inexperience, endorsing no one for the job.
But Tomchick made a great point during her interview: Even though she has no competitor, she still needs to compete for the student body's respect and trust. If every SG candidate embodies that wisdom, we're sure to have a functional, efficient and productive administration next year.
Comptroller Eric Goldstein
The comptroller position requires a great deal of financial experience, and we believe Eric Goldstein is the person for the job. Goldstein, a parliamentarian in the senate, has worked extensively with previous comptrollers. He's much more qualified than his opponent, Travis Smith, whose experience doesn't extend far past high school clubs and organizations.
And Goldstein's knowledge of the position is much appreciated, considering how many students don't really understand the comptroller's job. Thankfully, Goldstein understands this, and his promise to make public as many financial decisions and account summaries as possible is perhaps the first step in educating the student body about the SG's complex money matters.
