As this long, strange trip through student politics comes to an end, students are faced with the prospect of making their final decision: Who shall become the next ASUO executive?
It would be ideal if students had the opportunity to choose between two diametrically opposed yet ideologically sound executive tickets, but we don’t have that with this year’s election. Do not become dejected; we rarely have this in ASUO elections. Usually in the ASUO, candidates play the agreement game, in which they agree with almost everything the other candidates say.
Generally, the two sets of executive candidates agree more than they disagree on issues. But it is how they disagree, and on what issues, that is most important in determining who the best candidates are.
Although both sets of candidates are bright, motivated and intelligent, Sara Hamilton and Athan Papailiou have a more tangible vision for the future of the University. Their “EMU Master Plan” is an ambitious initiative that would dramatically revamp the student union. While costly, the plan could ultimately save the EMU money in the future by making it more energy efficient, not to mention a more enjoyable place for students to work and socialize.
Unlike candidates who cling to the trite ASUO political talking points – increasing accountability, promoting affordability and emphasizing education – Papailiou and Hamilton have delineated their complex issues convincingly and succinctly. It is clear that they have done a generous amount of research investigating issues like electronic tickets, the aforementioned EMU Master Plan and reconfiguring the incidental fee distribution process; not only can they talk a good game, but they also have the evidence to support their findings.
It is important that ASUO executives be problem solvers, investigators and researchers. Instead of merely telling students what they want to hear, which often amounts to loud, Tourette’s-like outbursts of “lower tuition costs,” ASUO executives must narrow their focus and work to make the small changes that will, in the future, pay dividends for students. For this reason, Hamilton and Papailiou our the best candidates.
But this is not an easy decision. Emily McLain and Chii-San SunOwen are qualified candidates as well, and they have little political baggage – a rarity among ASUO candidates. But their most important initiatives are similar to Hamilton and Papailiou’s, while their ancillary initiatives are not tenable. Both McLain and SunOwen specialize in lobbying, but next year the Oregon House of Representatives will only be in session for one month. Further, according to the Health Center, McLain and SunOwen’s plan of restructuring the Health Center’s insurance billing system – changing the system to a direct-payment method, rather than the current indirect method – would be more costly to students in the long run.
Ironically, Hamilton and Papailiou are running on the “Campaign for Change” slate. These two candidates are two of the most visible fixtures of the ASUO; if they do not win the election, they could just as easily become the ASUO’s tandem mascot. In past years, this may have worked against these candidates, but both Hamilton and Papailiou have proven themselves to be clear-headed leaders who can put personal differences behind them.
The University will see interesting changes in the next couple of years, so it is important to elect leaders with a progressive outlook toward advancing the goals of the University and its students – laying the groundwork for the future. By all accounts, Hamilton and Papailiou can lay this groundwork.