Eitan Hochster
“Wouldn’t life be easier if we didn’t have classes?” asked Senior Bobby Jones, considering how he could improve next semester as Student Union Vice President. Three months into the school year, the other SU executives agree.
“The four of us spend more time a week working on SU stuff than most people in the real world spend working on their jobs,” said SU President Paul Moinester of himself, Jones, Secretary Susan Land and Treasurer Jason Lewis. “I am amazed and proud to be working with them.”
While the executive board does have their work cut out for them, the learning curve for this year’s quartet was especially steep; coming in, the officers had only one year of Senate or Treasury experience between them. Billed as “outsiders,” the four pledged during their campaign to bring experience into SU from the Congress of the South 40, Class Councils, and the Social Programming Board, all while remaining open to students’ ideas.
As of now, the executives say, they have done well, creating resources for student groups, expanding University technology and improving environmental action on campus.
“So far we have had very good direction in accomplishing the things we wanted to accomplish when we started off this year,” said Moinester, a junior. “We did a good job in starting off quickly.”
Moinester bases his praise on, essentially, a series of meetings that have taken place over the past couple of months, where he has tried to create communication between groups in the same field.
“I have been working on putting everybody in the same room,” he said, referring to technology officials at the University. “We’re going to give them feedback about what needs to be changed.”
When talking about concrete accomplishments, however, Moinester geared his language more toward what SU is planning to do rather than what they have already done. And while Moinester pointed to Ruckus as a success, it was not his, but last year’s, administration that installed the music service.
The same holds true for SU’s environmental action this year, where, so far, there has been more talk than walk.
“The University has a desire to move forward,” said Moinester, after meeting with most of the student environmental groups. “We are looking for the potential to make the school carbon neutral. We want a larger scale picture of what the environmental issues are on campus.”
The vibe of things SU is “looking to accomplish” perpetuated itself with one notable exception. Between the work of Lewis and Land, SU has effectively morphed into an available resource for student groups. Lewis noted the increase in funds given to groups this year, and added that he has worked to create a space for student groups to work on campus.
“We are turning one of the rooms in Umrath into a computer center for groups that put out publications,” he said. “We are more proactive with the student groups.”
Lewis also saw Treasury as more efficient this year with its budgeting technique, being more communicative with groups’ leaders while giving them more funds.
“The Treasury has been a lot more open,” said Lewis. “They had a bit of a financial crisis last year, but this year Treasury has budgeted their funds better so there will be money throughout the year.”
Land, with her revamped Public Relations (PR) committee, has picked up where Lewis left off in terms of helping student groups. As secretary, she has changed PR from a do-nothing body to an organic think-tank set on creating novel ways for groups to get their messages out.
“Overall we have been doing well on establishing ourselves as a resource,” said Land. “We are kind of like a creative sounding board for marketing techniques but we can also help out with specific marketing campaigns. So far [groups] have been very responsive.”
Land, with her work on PR, has seemingly made good on one plank of her slate’s campaign platform of last April, transforming an ambitious vision of remodeling a committee into a reality that works well for the students while improving SU’s image.
The same cannot be said for Jones’s work with student groups. Last spring Jones spoke of applying his experience on the Social Programming Board to SU by, as he said in April, seeing the “campus come closer together as a unified community.” The realization of that goal, at this point, looks lacking. And while Jones has set up a meeting between several campus groups, he even seemed to retreat from his words of last spring.
“I am trying to remember what my platform was,” said Jones. “The issue of establishing new programs on campus when you work between groups seems counterproductive.”
Jones instead focused his words on the job he has done within SU, where his recruitment efforts have been more successful than in years past.
“We have a lot of new members,” he said. “We are sparking a little more interest in the younger crowd so that Student Union will have future representatives. It is good to get some freshmen and sophomores so they can make an impact on campus.”
Jones’s effectiveness in internal affairs is certainly a welcome trend, but it reflects a motif present within the SU executive that runs contrary to the mandate on which they were elected. The outsiders have, in practice, become another set of the old SU faithful, hesitant to make the changes in appearance that last year they seemed to embody, something that they are willing to admit.
“The ship was on the right path, and we wanted to keep it steady,” said Moinester, referring to last year’s SU officers. “Our predecessors did a great job so we did not have anything major to fix.”
One of those predecessors, former Speaker of the Senate Jeff Zove, echoed Moinester’s view of the consistency between this year and last, and was even critical of the lack of new ideas.
“I have not seen much change within Student Union this year,” said Zove, a senior. “It has been the continuation of similar initiatives. I like to see a leadership strive for improvement and for change and progress.”
Perhaps most shocking is how unapproachable the executives feel they are perceived to be, after running on a platform of greater openness on campus.
“It is harder than it seems,” said Moinester of keeping an approachable profile on campus. “It is not an issue of us being more popular, but I want students to come to me with more problems on campus.”
Moinester added, though, that some of the blame for SU’s lack of presence within the student body lies with the students themselves.
“We try to be as proactive as possible, but it is a matter of people following through with it,” he said. “We need to do as much as we can to be exposed, but it is also about the students being out there and willing to give feedback.”
Junior Benjy Katz, co-president of Amnesty International on campus, qualified Moinester’s claims by saying that though he has not seen much of the executives on campus, the dealings he has had with them have been satisfactory.
“Jason Lewis was pretty responsive,” he said. “I have had positive interactions with Paul Moinester so far.”
Despite their deficiency in approachability, the SU executives seemed to think that their best bet for the year’s remainder would be to stay the course, being pleased with the job they have done so far.
“There is always ambition to improve, I just do not have a concrete answer,” said Lewis of how he plans to do his job better. “I cannot think of a goal I have been going after. My goal is to make sure I am doing my job as I have so far.”