Every year, The News-Letter interviews each ticket and endorses candidates for the Student Government Association (SGA) Executive Board.
PRESIDENT: LIAM HAVIV
The three candidates running for Executive President of SGA are all qualified, but only one has a clear vision for improving student life. Therefore the Editorial Board is endorsing Liam Haviv for Executive President.
Haviv, a junior class senator, is both qualified and prepared to fill this role. Haviv has done his research on policies as well as talked to students, faculty and administrators. Although he has ambitious proposals, he has put immense thought and consideration into them. He clearly knows how the University operates and has identified many key areas for improvement.
Haviv is concerned with the impact of the upcoming influx of students, with a larger Class of 2020 adding a net of 400 students to the Homewood campus in the fall. After midnight, the majority of buildings on campus are closed to students and no food is available. Brody Learning Commons stays open but is often full, especially during exam periods. Haviv has brought up these valid concerns to the relevant administrators and has already received positive feedback from both the Facilities and Dining offices to begin a pilot program. This program would leave some buildings open later in order to give students more spots on campus to study and hang out. His plan includes opening Levering Hall late for $1 pizza nights to revitalize campus and provide students with late-night sustenance.
Unlike the other tickets, Haviv has highlighted the new student center. As a member of the research committee, he has visited student centers at D.C. universities and is dedicated to making sure that students’ voices are heard. The Editorial Board is confident that Haviv will lead the effort to make the new center fit students’ needs. Haviv understands how the administration works, and knows that it listens to money and persistent, expressed interest. His plan to demonstrate support for the student center by selling bricks engraved with donor’s names on them is a profitable way to show financial support and encourage student input in the construction of the new student center.
All of Haviv’s plans come from a genuine desire to improve the Hopkins community, even if some are improbable or misguided. The Editorial Board thinks that it is unlikely that the SGA could rewrite their constitution given that the proposal would need support from two-thirds of the entire student body. But Haviv has ambitious ideas, straightforward and clear policy proposals, and is eager and passionate. Students constantly complain that SGA does little but hold unattended events and waste money. The Editorial Board believes that Haviv will inspire students to care more about student government and empower students to take a more active role in making University-wide decisions.
Charlie Green serves as the current Executive Vice President. Green is undoubtedly qualified for the role of Executive President, but her vision isn’t the fresh take on SGA that students need.
Her best ideas are difficult to implement and are not of significant importance. Green proposed $9.99 discount Fridays at FFC, but upon further questioning, she conceded to an inexact number of discount days for a limited amount of students until an arbitrary quota was hit. Moreover, we do not see the $5.00 reduction as enough of an incentive for students and feel that it instead may just waste the SGA’s funds. Green also proposed adding laundry to meal plans, which sounds good initially, but because the laundry and dining services are run by two separate companies, it is unlikely that this plan will come into fruition.
Green’s plan for making SGA more efficient is to create extra layers of committees and bureaucracy. While these committees will streamline debate in general body meetings by screening out bills likely to fail, they will make SGA a more bloated, less transparent body.
While Green intimately understands the SGA and has worked closely with both Dean of Student Life Terry Martinez and Associate Dean for Student Engagement Tiffany Sanchez, these people do not run the administration. Unlike Haviv, Green has neither a comprehensive understanding of the University-wide administration nor does it seem like she has established working relationships with upper-level administrators who have the power to enact change.
John Hughes is competent and extremely well-informed. While he is not on SGA, he has a profound working knowledge of SGA and has even passed bills in support of Active Minds, the mental health organization he leads on campus. His position that the Counseling Center needs to remain off-campus to retain anonymity for its visitors showed profound consideration and understanding of students’ needs.
Despite his knowledge, Hughes’ policy priorities fall flat. While his focus on Hopkins’ impact on Baltimore is admirable, the Baltimore community is not his constituency — the student body is. Hughes would only have one year to implement his agenda, and he must prioritize the needs of students above all. There is a place for the SGA to address Hopkins’ impact on Baltimore, and the SGA should make an effort to listen to the needs of the community, but this is not their primary job.
While the Editorial Board is convinced that all three candidates are qualified, only Haviv has the concrete ideas necessary to change campus for the better coupled with the connections and drive to see them through.
VICE PRESIDENT: CHRISTINA KILGARIFF
The Editorial Board endorses Christina Kilgariff for the role of Executive Vice President. Throughout our interview with Kilgariff and Haviv, she exhibited her approachable, composed and competent leadership style. We do not doubt that she can and will overcome her relative inexperience with SGA and learn all the parliamentary functions required of the role of Vice President. It is clear from her demeanor that Kilgariff works well with others. One of the pillars of the Vice President’s job is to efficiently coordinate meetings and work in conjunction with the rest of Senate, and we are confident that Kilgariff is more than capable of fulfilling this duty.
While Anna Du certainly has the SGA experience to do the job and has shown her familiarity with the Student Affairs administration, her agenda, which aligns with Green’s, does not reflect the kind of substantive measures that we believe next year’s Executive Board should prioritize.
Furthermore, we see Haviv and Kilgariff as a cohesive team that would function extremely well in the two leadership roles. Kilgariff is realistic and practical, which complements her running mate’s idealistic optimism and enthusiasm. Moreover, their dynamic was exemplary. The pair answered each question fully and cohesively, building off of one another. The cohesiveness of the SGA Executive Board is essential to its success, and we believe Kilgariff and Haviv will collaborate effectively.
Since the Haviv-Kilgariff ticket has an ambitious platform, we believe that the Executive Board is going to need a skilled pragmatist to realize these proposed goals. Christina Kilgariff is the right choice for the role.
SECRETARY: CHRIS BECKMANN
While the position of Executive Secretary was uncontested, we are confident that Chris Beckmann will do an excellent job. The SGA currently suffers from a transparency problem, without clear and succinct information on their activities accessible to the student body. The organization’s website is old and malfunctions, while their social media presence is almost nonexistent.
Beckmann has promised to keep detailed notes and relaunch SGA’s Facebook and Twitter pages and has additionally pledged to publicly release the agenda for SGA meetings before they occur, which would also motivate students to attend meetings because they’d know their interests were being addressed.
Beckmann’s work experience in communications and social media further strengths his qualifications for the job. The Editorial Board expects Beckmann to make SGA more transparent and accountable to students.
TREASURER: NO ENDORSEMENT
Despite the position being uncontested, the Editorial Board chose to not endorse John Tycher for the role of Executive Treasurer. Tycher, a member of the Green Ticket, did not seem to have the same drive and passion as his peers did about their respective roles. Tycher came across as having underestimated the responsibilities associated with the role of treasurer, especially the crucial job of leading the Student Activities Commission, which distributes funds for all student groups.
Additionally, it was difficult to obtain concrete estimates on the costs of the proposals from Tycher’s ticket. This is a critical, central role of the treasurer, and it is disconcerting that Tycher did not have these answers or explanations.
The Editorial Board recognizes that since Tycher is unopposed, his not being elected would result in a vacancy for the office of Treasurer. We trust that next year’s SGA could fill this vacancy.
ON LAST NIGHT’S DEBATE AND DIVERSITY
At last night’s debate, the Black Student Union (BSU) Vice President Tiffany Onyejiaka interrupted the forum to ask about including the topic of diversity in the debate.
Hughes spoke up in response, vowing to remain at the lectern until the students were able to have their questions answered.
In the moment, Haviv responded that the debate should have “possibly” included questions on diversity. Following the debate’s conclusion and backlash on social media, Haviv posted on his campaign’s Facebook page apologizing for his mistake and explaining what he should have done: given the microphone to Onyejiaka and allowed her to ask her questions. He vowed to never make the same mistake again and announced that he would make himself available to students the following morning. While his Facebook post was admirable and humble, a candidate’s reaction in the moment is much more telling.
Green remained silent when the issue arose during the debate. After the debate, her ticket posted on Facbeook recognizing the need for action on diversity and announced it would hold an open forum on the issue next Tuesday at 6 p.m. in the Charles Commons Salon A.
Considering all of the issues that have happened this year, we believe that diversity should have been a topic of the debate. We hope that in the remainder of the campaign and in their future roles on campus, the candidates spend time on these issues.
Editor's note: Due to space limitations, the version of this article that appears in print does not include a passage on vice presidential candidate Anna Du. The paragraph has been added to this online version.
