A recent letter to the editor claims that David Bruen should not run again for Student Association president for a multitude of reasons, chiefly because Bruen was an architect of the new constitution, has accomplished nothing of real value for students and that Bruen’s presidency would be best served as transitional. While every student is entitled to their opinion, as people who have held these positions, we have our own.

First, Bruen was not significantly involved in drafting the new constitution. The new constitution was primarily written by the parliamentarian of the previous session and a select few committee members. After it was passed by the assembly, Bruen took on the role of managing the campaign to pass the constitution which was more of a ceremonial role, as all SA members were expected to be involved in getting students to vote in the constitutional election. Beyond that, the author makes specious and irresponsible inferences about Bruen’s ethics as a former Chair for the Board of Elections and as Speaker of the House.

The Speaker holds little to no power outside of managing the assembly meeting. And, as Board of Elections Chair, he proved to be nothing short of fair and ethical. This is coming from people who were investigated by Bruen. The author’s ignorance on these issues may seem harmless, but it only serves as a detriment to the campus community’s ability to make an informed decision in the upcoming election.

Secondly, the author claims that nothing of value has been achieved in the past year. Clearly the author decided to omit or is unaware of the changes this session has brought. Under Bruen and Darnelle Stinfort’s leadership, students have seen an expansion of the menstrual product program and the creation of a grocery store trolley program, as well as SA commitment to becoming carbon neutral and advocation for the creation of a university website for survivors of sexual assault.

Considering the power that the SA has unilaterally, these are all great achievements. As the leaders of a campaign that aspired to “take it to the administration” and ruffle feathers, we know how little that accomplishes at times. Our administration spent most of the session trying to change that and came up short.

Finally, the idea that Bruen’s tenure as president should be transitional is ludicrous. Nothing prepares someone better to be president than actually being president. From experience we can confirm that a term as president and vice president are essentially split into two stages: the first learning how to do the job and the second preparing to leave it. David’s experience in this position would only make him more effective than he’s already been this year. Administrations that have no significant SA experience (cabinet level or higher) are at a significant disadvantage when starting out. Bruen would have no such problem if reelected.

If you want someone who is going to devote all of their time and experience to helping the student body you should vote to reelect Bruen as president and elect Santos vice president. This is by far the most experienced and readily prepared ticket in recent memory. If you want to endorse a different campaign, that is perfectly fine. But maligning someone whose only interest is making a better campus for all of the students should be off the table. Resorting to that at the outset of a campaign not only shows a limited arsenal to choose from but is uncalled for.

Former President Justine Hastings and Vice President Jeremy Golden

Published on March 6, 2022 at 10:18 pm