The executive ticket will do a good job if elected, but they could do more
By The Newswire staff
This year’s Student Government Association (SGA) Executive Election had only one ticket. Community, Passion and Progress (CPP), is comprised of Thomas Wehby, Mahnoor Zahra and Michaela Townsend.
Because there is only one ticket, they must receive at least 50% of the student vote plus one to be elected. If they do not receive the proper amount of votes necessary, they will not be elected.
The Newswire interviewed the ticket in addition to moderating a public forum and reviewing their platform to prepare an evaluation of the ticket. Contrary to last year, the Newswire did not have to choose which ticket to endorse, but rather whether or not to endorse CPP.
Based on our evaluation as an editorial staff, the Newswire has decided to endorse CPP. However, we do have minor hesitancy, which will be expanded upon below.
This decision was based on a predetermined scoring system and entailed careful deliberation. This endorsement does not reflect the opinion of one editor, but of 10 members of the editorial staff.
Below is the official evaluation of the ticket in terms of Passion, Feasibility, Professionalism, Balance and Representation, along with a short explanation.
Passion: B-
Passion concerns how the members of the ticket communicated their investment in their platform and enthusiasm for the roles of Executives. CPP showed clear interest in the work that they hope to be doing and passion about a few aspects of their platform. Most importantly, each member of the ticket had something that they were the most passionate about and were excited and able to speak on. However, they did not seem to be overwhelmingly passionate about all aspects of their platform. There seemed to be certain sections that
were included needlessly.
Feasibility: C
Feasibility concerns the likelihood of the ticket’s platform being executed. Many of CPP’s platform points are feasible as stand-alone projects, akin to what an SGA Senator might pursue. When asked about projects such as providing menstrual products across campus, the candidates were ready to provide examples of where this has worked at other colleges, but seemed uncertain about how get them to work effectively at Xavier. The ticket lacks a clear sense of priorities needed to guide their time in office. When asked what the first project they would pursue if elected, the ticket responded that they would try to do everything, which is unfortunately impractical.
Professionalism: C
Professionalism encompasses not only how the members of the ticket conducted themselves during the interview and debate but also how they prepared and presented their platform. CPP was notably unprepared during their interview with the editorial staff. Their platform relied heavily on what the candidates had heard from the student body — and the Newswire commends their efforts in connecting with students, which is often overlooked by candidates — but it was not apparent that CPP communicated with stakeholders in administration, such as ConneX and Physical Plant. Additionally, information pertaining to their interests had been made available in previous editions of the Newswire, yet was not reflected in their platform. However, the members of the ticket conduct themselves well. Even though their platform was turned in late to the Newswire, for instance, they did communicate with proper advance notice. Additionally, they were respectful in their interactions with the Newswire editorial staff and with students at the public forum.
Balance: A–
Balance refers to the equal distribution of work and time within the ticket and their platform, in addition to their ability to work together as a team. In some instances, the enthusiasm of a campaign appears to depend on one candidate or that the candidates are simply on the same ticket and not a team. This was not the case with CPP. In both the interview and forum, the candidates of CPP treated one another with respect. Each candidate carried their own when answering questions from students or the editorial staff and all three candidates were capable and competent in these regards. When looking at CPP’s platform, there was equal effort put into the platform. Concerns across campus were included.
Representation: B
Representation evaluates how well the ticket reflects the interests of the student population at Xavier. While it is impossible for three students to reflect all of campus fully, CPP covers a wide range. The members of CPP exhibit majors in the arts, STEM and political science and come from diverse backgrounds. Additionally, CPP brings in the perspective of an international student and they do seem to represent a good deal of campus concerns in their platform. In spite of this, we are hesitant that they are able to truly represent many students’ experiences on campus. When they listed their involvement, there was a lack of participation in a variety of identity-based clubs and they seemed more focused on their involvement in larger groups that have only have a great deal of interaction with students, instead of involvement.
Students can vote through a link on the student hub or a link in their email.
Final Grades:
Passion B-
Feasibility C
Professionalism C
Balance A-
Representation B-
Average B-