Judging decision making in leadership

I am just so thankful when I come across smart, reasonable, leaders who just really care about the community and want things to be right.
This is a big overstatement, but I feel like campus leaders probably understand politicians and the media a lot better than students who have never been put on the spot to make decisions that affect other peoples’ lives.
I think that people like SGA cabinet members, Honor Board members, and media organization members have experience that enable us – or strengthen us – to be able to relate to politicians who have to deal with being talked about and having our decisions judged. We have to make tough decisions and then justify our actions to Stevens administrators and the community.
Recently, SGA President Matt Hunt vetoed a bill that was passed to add an academics position to the cabinet and also change the titles of cabinet positions. I’m pretty sure something like that hasn’t happened in a few years, and many members of the SGA were probably upset because they had spent so many meetings discussing and finally voted. Now, a lot of people outside of the senate are hearing and questioning the decision. My point is that being a well-known, campus figure affects how people think of you outside of your jobs or roles of club meetings.
This can work both ways, though. This past week I found out that the Student Life Newsletter post for Spring festival ideas had the wrong submission deadline. However, I emailed SGA Treasurer Jacob Vanderbilt and he mediated the situation by opening the Ducksync form until Sunday. I respected how reasonable he was in the extension, and I felt happy that he was either easy-going or just understanding enough to make-up for the error.
When it comes to the Honor Board, just this past week, one member pointed out during his first meeting on the board, we were considering a case for which the penalty guidelines suggested expulsion. The best part about the Honor Board, though, is that it’s a small, confidential group of people. Even though the meetings are intense and serious, we don’t bring that discussion and voting out of the meeting and onto a personal level. We respect the decisions made in the room, and we are able to bond outside of our meetings.
On the whole, I feel like it’s too easy to judge people’s decisions when they’re super visible. I know that my decision to publish last week’s Letter to the Editor was highly critized, but I understand that it just comes along with territory as being Editor-in-Chief. It’s okay that people don’t agree with my decision, and I’m pretty used to it now. It’s just a challenge I accepted when I became EIC, just as other students should understand and expect in their important leadership roles. And I just think it’s something you really can’t understand until you’ve been here.