The all-campus senator race started with 11 hopefuls in the
ring, but after three candidates threw in the towel the eight slots became —
like the top four offices — unfortunately uncontested.
Competition makes every candidate work harder, but with
nothing driving these contenders they’ve proved regrettably status quo. And
though a few bright stars stand out in the pack, it’s disappointing to see this
motley crew have their positions handed to them.
Babek Etesami, Jesse Cabanas and Meghan Clair — ever the
responsible leaders — didn’t even bother meeting with the Guardian to discuss
their plans for the future. Meanwhile, the other five candidates appeared
careful and slate-positioned: each addressing a different node of campus,
though each with significant weaknesses.
Possibly the weakest candidate, Devapratim Sarma, is
strictly interested in funding for student organizations, particularly, funding
for cultural organizations and those he is personally involved with. Students
who participate in cultural orgs determine a lot about campus politics; they
are often the loudest and most active sector of campus, and Student Voice! is
intimately linked with their causes. So it’s to be expected that they would be
a little overrepresented on council. But Sarma, who has no council experience,
threatens to push the favoritism too far. Student org funding looks to be a hot
issue next year, and while this board would love to see all groups funded to
the fullest, the reality is that the council is operating on a limited budget
and incoming members should be ready to govern with the best interests of
students — not themselves — in mind.
Covering SV!’s commuter constituency is Emily Chi who, while
knowing commuters’ issues in and out, remains sadly single-minded. Fortunately
for students, commuters make up a giant bloc of the population and their needs
deserve appropriate attention. With a history of rallying for commuter
interests, Chi has the experience in her field to go head-to-head with
obstinate administrators. She just needs to reconnect with her constituency;
she plans to connect commuters by meeting with the leaders of various commuter
boards, when instead she should cut out the middle man, step out of her office
and strive to reach out to students directly.
Natalie Fowler brings possibly the most applicable
experience to the table; though never working on the A.S. Council she currently
serves on the Sixth College Council. Because she’s already involved with
student government, her perspective is unique from the other candidates: Fowler
wants to improve campus not by creating new resources, but by connecting
students with already existing ones. But she unfortunately also represents a
weathered, complacent side of the council that next year’s bunch should work to
overcome. She was unable to speak about Sixth College activities that didn’t
directly fall beneath her position, and her concept of senator duties is
limited to individual projects, her ideas for which are uninspired at best.
While this semi-veteran should bring some interesting goals to council, her
approach still needs some help.
Handling SV!’s environmental-sustainability and fair-trade
interests is Chris Westling, who seems well-informed and ready to fight fiercely
for his cause. Though he lacks council experience, he has already worked in
depth on environmental-themed projects and has an appropriate understanding of
UCSD’s bureaucracy. Another strength is Westling’s plans to incorporate
eco-friendly options across university departments. The only problem? Westling
admits that all his future projects will be extensions of his current work —
this means that as senator he won’t necessarily be taking students’ needs into
account. And while environmental sustainability is definitely important, only a
small group of students would choose this as their absolute top priority.
In an unusual twist Garron Engstrom, a virtual no name (he
has no council or committee experience), appears to be the most competent
candidate. While he lacks specific process know-how, he shows an impressive
understanding of the council’s various layers and rightfully realizes that a
senator’s dedication to and participation in committee work is more important
than the sporadic and ill-defined senators’ projects. An all-campus senator
should be concerned with students’ interests in all of their decisions, not
just while completing a few projects. And though he, like many others, runs the
risk of unfairly funding pet projects, he is the only candidate who truly
understands the job as one of civic service.
Uneven — and some blatantly weak — on their own, all of the
candidates contribute something different to the race. This board just hopes
they can bring the best out of one another and let go of their personal
interests to best support the student body they will serve.
