David Bruen’s tenure has been successful and he’s leading an experienced re-election ticket

A recent letter to the editor claims that David Bruen should not run for student union president again for a multitude of reasons, primarily because Bruen was an architect of the new constitution, accomplished nothing real value to students and that Bruen’s presidency would be best served as a transition. 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 the drafting of the new constitution. The new constitution was mainly drafted by the parliamentarian from the previous session and a few select members of the committee. After it was passed by the assembly, Bruen took on the role of managing the campaign for adoption of the constitution, which was more of a ceremonial role, as all members of the SA needed to be involved in getting students to vote for the constitutional elections. Beyond that, the author makes specious and irresponsible inferences about Bruen’s ethics as a former Chairman of the Board of Elections and as Speaker of the House.

The president holds little or no power outside of running the assembly meeting. And, as Chairman of the Board of Elections, he proved to be fair and ethical. This is from people who were investigated by Bruen. The author’s ignorance on these issues may seem innocuous, but it only harms the ability of the campus community to make an informed decision in the upcoming election.

Second, the author claims that nothing worthwhile has been achieved in the past year. Obviously the author has decided to omit or is unaware of the changes made by this session. Under the leadership of Bruen and Darnelle Stinfort, the students saw an expansion of the menstrual product program and the creation of a grocery cart program, as well as SA’s commitment to becoming carbon neutral and promoting the creation of a college website for survivors of sexual assault.

Considering the power the SA has unilaterally, these are all great achievements. As leaders of a campaign that yearned to “bring it to the administration” and ruffle feathers, we know how little that sometimes accomplishes. Our administration spent most of the session trying to change that and was unsuccessful.

Finally, the idea that Bruen’s term as president should be transitional is ridiculous. Nothing prepares someone better to be president than to actually be president. From experience, we can confirm that a mandate of president and vice-president is essentially divided into two stages: the first is learning to do the job and the second is preparing to leave it. David’s experience in this position would only make him more effective than he has already been this year. Administrations that do not have significant SA experience (at the cabinet level or above) are at a severe disadvantage when starting out. Bruen wouldn’t have that problem if he were re-elected.

If you want someone who will dedicate all of their time and experience to helping the student body, you should vote to re-elect Bruen as president and elect Santos vice president. This is by far the most experienced and easily prepared post in recent memory. If you want to endorse a different campaign, that’s perfectly fine. But slandering someone whose only interest is to create a better campus for all students should be ruled out. Resorting to this at the start of a campaign not only shows a limited arsenal to choose from, but is unwarranted.

Former President Justine Hastings and Vice President Jeremy Golden

Michael J. Chiaramonte