At the risk of exaggeration, this Spring’s Student Government campaign has been one of the saltiest and most dramatic in the history of this campus. Now that it’s all going down, it’s high time we go public with our party endorsement.
The Editorial Board endorses the Access Party.
Let’s preface this by saying the men and women on each ticket clearly want what’s best for the Student Body, and their dedication is reflected in their platforms. Both are strong, and would make UF a better place to live and learn.
One thing stood out to us about Access: their commitment to accountability. They would require student senators to hold town hall meetings and office hours throughout the semester as well as open up all student organization funding records for students to browse. But they would also — this is what really got us hot and bothered — give up the $50,000 salary split by the top six SG officials. This wouldn’t be a statutory change; the candidates, if elected, would choose to opt out of the payment and hope future leaders follow suit.
They’re also pushing for online voting and a Chief Diversity Officer as an addition to the UF administration. This officer would exclusively handle inclusivity of minority communities — an aspect that both parties agree needs work on campus.
Swamp’s platform has its own points of merit. It was well-researched — a product of the candidates’ years of experience knowing what is and is not feasible in SG. Most notably, the idea (not listed in the official platform) to include a “Platform Tracker” — as explained by presidential candidate Joseph Michaels as an online tool that would illustrate platform progress — is an excellent way to hold student leaders accountable. We also appreciate the emphasis on student safety, and hell, they want to make hammock rentals a thing.
But the important thing to remember is this: This election isn’t just about platforms. Both are solid, and making a choice on that alone would be tough.
A look at SG’s history is enough to give the extra push in Access’ direction. Swamp has proven repeatedly to be a party that is, bluntly, corrupt, and mainly serves the interests of those already involved in prominent student organizations. Though we support some points of its platform, we cannot endorse a party with a history of such unethical and undemocratic behavior as Swamp’s and its many iterations.
Access’ candidates believe they’re fighting the good fight. Their idealism is refreshing, even if we fear it may be a weakness down the line. For now, though, this sort of perspective is exactly what SG needs. We sincerely hope the Access candidates, if elected, continue striving to represent all students and avoid disillusionment from the bureaucracy that is university politics.
Regardless of your thoughts on this endorsement, we urge you to go vote. As is said every year, SG controls millions of your dollars. But unlike past years, there is a legitimate competition here, with two qualified parties with qualified candidates and platforms that, if implemented, can improve student life.
What SG needs to achieve the levels of transparency and accountability students are promised is a change in mentality, a change in status quo and a change in leadership.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 2/23/2015 under the headline “Endorsement: Access Party"]
