SGA Presidential Debate

The SGA Presidential Debate occurred this past Wednesday, November 7. In the debate, the candidates for President and Vice President of Operations had the opportunity to answer some questions from the moderators, from a survey, and from the audience. This article aims to highlight some of the key differences between the tickets noted over the course of the debate, including primary goals and specific paths of development.

The SGA President and VPO are perhaps two of the most influential offices a student can hold here at Stevens. There is a recent tradition of transformative tickets in the office. Matt Hunt began the SGA’s transformation four years ago, followed by Thomas Daly, and continued to this day in the work of Lucas Gallo and Rami Kammourh. The bar for these new candidates to meet is high, that much is certainly clear.

Opening Statements

The first ticket is Jason Chlus for President and Ryan Tom for VPO. Their tagline is, “Creating better opportunities through accountability, efficiency, and communication within the administration, faculty, SGA, and student body.” Chlus emphasized in his opening statement the pressure he and Tom intended to lay against the administration to improve the student experience rather than just focus on the school’s ranking. One initiative that they have is to push the administration to be more transparent with its finances. Another initiative was to remove curves from classes — professors use it so that their students can have good grades, yet they may learn nothing in the course. A third initiative is to reinstate the Wednesday academic break from 1 to 5 PM, as the Gianforte Academic Center will allow more simultaneous class sections. Their final specific initiative is to make the SGA the role model for efficiency and clarity for other clubs.

The second ticket is Mark Krupinski for President and Alex Murtagh for VPO. The first issue they aim to tackle is that the SGA does not tackle the issues faced by the student body at large and instead focuses on those felt by student leaders, in their opinion. They have divided their campaign into three major pillars: Living, Learning, and Social. For Living, Krupinski claimed that one of the issues that could be addressed is living in Student Leased Housing. Partnering with a realtor for discounts on Hoboken apartments, along with expanding the residence options with other students, could rectify the prices paid by students for SLH. The Learning pillar is their effort to focus on educational opportunities both inside and outside of the classroom. Inside, one of their primary goals is to establish undergraduate TAs, who would have a more immediate recollection of pertinent knowledge. Outside, they aim to revitalize the link between faculty and students. Another of their issues is the expansion of the Co-op program to beyond just computer science and engineering majors.

The third ticket is Jon Darlak for President and Timothy Barrett for VPO. Their tagline is “Striving to Improve, Together.” One of their initiatives is to improve sustainability on campus; compost piles, clothing donations, and others. They were cut off in their opening statement.

Questions from the Student Body

What past experiences within the SGA or in other leadership positions prepare you to represent the interests of the student body as a whole within these positions?

Darlak and Barrett was the first ticket to respond to this question. Darlak emphasized his current collaborations and initiatives as chair of the Campus Life Committee as evidence of his ability to advance the institution. Barrett believed that, as VPO, the manner with which the office is carried out shapes his ability to represent the student body. He offered that he would have an objective stance toward dealing with issues. He enjoys receiving and giving constructive criticism for finding solutions.

Krupinski and Murtagh’s primary leadership experience comes from being on the E-board of The Stute. One of the things they emphasized was the ability to work with a wide array of people to incorporate all the affected parties’ opinions into a solution. Murtagh expounded on his founding of the Martial Arts club as an excellent source of contacts and experience with handling the new organization process and attracting interest in a new club.

Chlus, as a sophomore, said that his initial trepidation as a freshman led to a distinct lack of leadership experience during his college years. However, he believes that his service on his high school’s SGA for four years gives him insight into being a leader and allows him to quickly and easily adapt to his new environment. Tom has a much larger well of experience to draw from; he is an SGA veteran and is heavily involved in a variety of committees and other positions of responsibility outside of the Student Government.

For the Vice President of Operations: What about the SGA’s internal structure are you looking to improve?

Murtagh said that the SGA is highly inefficient in their proceedings. He claimed he knew Robert’s Rules very well due to prior experience with clubs, so tightening Robert’s Rules is one point of efficiency. Another point of his is to arrange committee meetings to produce more concise results and get things done in committee rather than tackle them as the whole Senate.

Tom notes that in the most recent SGA meeting, one which Murtagh attended, the Senate utilized the impeachment process for the very first time. Elaborating on that specific procedure, he intends to revamp the guidelines so that it goes more smoothly. In addition, he would like to adjust the requirements for Senators so that they are more focused on their initiatives instead of being “email robots.” Finally, he would like the Senate meetings to be focused on the Senate’s proceedings, and not have the cabinet’s reports take up most of the two hours.

Barrett agrees with Tom, but further qualifies that the cabinet’s reports are vital. He argues that the reports should be constrained on time, but otherwise that they are acceptable as they stand. Barrett likens the role of VPO to that of an IT department; “If you don’t hear a lot about it, it’s probably going pretty well.” However, he explains that even though things are going well, that does not mean they cannot be improved. One such point is in the bottleneck between clubs, cabinet members, and committees. Another term for this bottleneck is simply unresponsiveness from the clubs.

What SGA initiatives do you think are worth carrying forward? Which should be let go?

Darlak reiterates on his experience on the Campus Life committee and advocates for the maintenance of the sustainability initiatives. Barrett, for his part, would like to expand upon existing initatives to improve how mental health is handled at Stevens. He lists several issues that have been noted with the CAPS scheduling program.

Krupinski claims that the senators, ultimately, should continue pursuing their initiatives because they are the ones who are most passionate. However, the ones that should be addressed are those that have an immediate impact on campus. The immediate impacts mostly fall within their initial pillars. An issue that Murtagh points out is the placement of senators on committees for which they have no passion. He appears to believe that senators should assign themselves to committees, rather than that responsibility resting with the VPO.

There was a brief dialogue between Krupinski and Darlak, after which the moderators asked the second question of Chlus and Tom. As such, their responses do not exactly contrast with the other tickets.

Chlus believes that a handful of initiatives are minor relative to students’ concerns. Among those, making more residential living areas, putting in more rooms for activities, and creating more lobby areas for students to hang out. As the chairman of the Oversight Committee, Tom explains that some of the freshmen senator initiatives are ambitious, and quite possibly unfeasible. These should either be restrained or let go.

The cycle apparently restarted with Chlus and Tom, focusing on this second question.

Darlak’s initial response to this question was, “None,” but he altered this perspective upon further consideration. While the senators are influential enough to carry out their own initiatives, he points out that feasibility becomes an issue.

Murtagh claims that the majority of the initiatives being pursued by the SGA are valid, but one initiative he points out is the effort to get an undergraduate student on the Board of Trustees. (This initiative is not currently being pursued by the SGA but was simply a matter of miscommunication between Murtagh and an individual he was interviewing for Stute.)

Questions from the audience were largely on specific matters or were addressed briefly in other areas of the debate.

All the candidates were well-versed in the issues they wanted to address and how to go about addressing them. They all seem to be capable people and no matter how this election goes, I believe that the student body will be led by an individual with passion, with dedication, and with intelligence. The Presidential candidates are charismatic, with an eye for the details and the wherewithal to handle issues precisely and efficiently. The VPO candidates are all taskmasters in their own way, capable of leading, directing, and organizing the Senate itself and shaping it into the best version it can possibly become.

The debate can be viewed in its entirety on SITTV’s YouTube channel at youtube.com/sittv.