There’s no doubt ““ Anica McKesey is the best
candidate for president.
McKesey will bring to the president’s office the
comprehensive perspective it sorely lacks. No other candidate is as
focused or has worked on addressing issues affecting the entire
campus ““ such as student fee hikes and decreasing student
services ““ more than McKesey.
McKesey has refined her leadership by actively participating in
an array of activities. She is the chairwoman of the African
Student Union, one of the largest and most active groups on campus.
She also has experience dealing with students directly in her role
as a resident assistant with the Office of Residential Life and as
an apartment coordinator for the University Apartments.
The ability to build coalitions between student groups in order
to address student issues is key to the success of any student
government president. McKesey, more than her opponents, has
coalition-building experience.
Over the years, she has been an important part of the
Affirmative Action Coalition, Students for Global Peace and Justice
and the campaign to repeal SP-1 and 2, the University of
California’s anti-affirmative action measures.
Protecting outreach and student retention programs, which many
candidates mentioned as vital, is a part of McKesey’s
platform as well and she has hands-on experience doing so. McKesey
chaired the Student Initiated Outreach Committee and has served as
a peer counselor for the Summer Readmission and Retention
Program.
McKesey’s involvement with student issues also extends
beyond the campus. She has served as a representative to the United
States Students Association and the University of California
Student Association, a key lobbying group in the effort to stop
student fees from continuously increasing.
Unlike McKesey, Andrew LaFlamme and Adam Harmetz both currently
sit on the Undergraduate Students Association Council, but having
sat on council is not a prerequisite for excelling in office. Some
of the more successful presidents in the past were not previously
councilmembers ““Â Karren Lane (2001-2002) is an
example.
LaFlamme, the current financial supports commissioner, places a
strong focus on making USAC officers accountable to students and
the rest of council. He also believes in making USAC more
accessible to the student body. But ensuring accountability and
visibility is something any president should already do. These
should be subsidiary to a focus on issues that more extensively
affect students.
McKesey has promised to work on solving the issue of
USAC’s obscurity by periodically allotting time at council
meetings when students and student groups can critique council,
promoting interaction between council members and students, and by
continuing to bring USAC meetings to the Hill. These goals are in
conjunction with the stronger emphasis she places on keeping fees
down, safeguarding services, and increasing outreach.
Harmetz, currently a general representative, stresses the
importance of visibility, saying it’s the primary focus of
his slate, Students United for Reform and Equality. But his
approach to visibility is misguided for the same reasons as
LaFlamme’s. The first duty of a USAC officer is to advocate
and to work on behalf of students by seriously engaging
student-relevant issues. Visibility, despite its extraordinary
significance, comes second.
McKesey prioritizes correctly.
Furthermore, McKesey, LaFlamme and Harmetz all agree on what
many of the big issues for next year are: student fees, a diversity
requirement, the Racial Privacy Initiative, and the minimum
progress requirement. Since a year’s time is far too minimal
for any president to satisfactorily address multiple, difficult
issues, an exceptionally effective individual is key.
The performances of LaFlamme and Harmetz on council this year
were nothing extraordinary. LaFlamme’s apartment index, which
meant to provide students with comparative information on
off-campus housing prices, was an excellent idea, but he
underestimated the work it would take to launch the index.
Subsequently, the product is mediocre. Now, LaFlamme is excited
about becoming president and creating a more effective council, but
he created a slate that includes many weak candidates, especially
those running for general representative.
Harmetz, meanwhile, said his general representative’s
office would study growth this year, in light of the thousands of
students expected to enroll at UCLA because of Tidal Wave II. While
Harmetz did produce a report on Tidal Wave II, it is unclear how
this report will have a positive effect on campus.
Harmetz approaches the office of the president enthusiastically
on paper, but does not convey much energy in person. He is
diplomatic, but doesn’t exude the personality necessary to
command control of council or to excite student masses. If wider
participation by the student body in USAC is important to him, he
needs to make students feel empowered by being a more commanding
leader.
McKesey is this type of leader.
LaFlamme and Harmetz certainly possess strong characteristics.
LaFlamme, more than his two opponents, demonstrates impressive
knowledge of the communication and cooperation difficulties the
current council faces because of slate influence. He has
extensively studied council and has formulated methods by which to
keep USAC officers productive during the year.
Harmetz has demonstrated he is truly interested in reforming
USAC politics and making it more a part of the average
student’s life. A testament to this is his development of
“The Seven Principles of S.U.R.E.” and “The
Kerckhoff Doctrine,” documents aimed at restoring key ideals
and ethics to student government. This is especially important
given the recent fiasco involving current president David
Dahle’s internal memo detailing political manipulation as key
to approaching student government. Harmetz’s own documents
reject this approach.
But McKesey, coming from a slate often accused of being
uncompromising, has expressed a willingness to work with
others’ ideas.
On the important issue of student fee allocation, McKesey
applies a rational mentality to an idea originally proposed by the
S.U.R.E. slate. She stated that she agrees independent student
groups should be eligible for funding so long as USAC is provided
adequate legal counsel ““ especially if the UC Office of the
President does not provide guidelines settling the legal issues
involved with reasonable haste. McKesey says that regardless of
whether funding other groups might mean less funds for the large,
established groups ““ ASU, which she heads, for instance
““ fairness is supreme. She will ensure council develops a
funding process that, while fair, is not negligent.
Passing council resolutions, like the Student
Empowerment-initiated stance against war in Iraq, was also a
contentious issue this year.
McKesey believes resolutions were often passed in a rushed
manner and said she will work to make sure all resolutions brought
to council have received an appropriate level of dialogue with the
student body.
LaFlamme and Harmetz offer similar promises, but when it comes
to placing issues in the right perspective and having the
organizing, coalition-building and advocacy experience necessary to
reach set goals, McKesey is the best choice.
She has earned her right to be president.