USAC candidates’ campaigns should stick with practical, feasible plans

The arrival of April means aspiring student government candidates will soon be preparing their campaign platforms. As they look for ideas, candidates should carefully consider the feasibility of their proposals and vet them with those who have experience in programming campus events and services.

It’s easy for candidates to appeal to students with popular ideas like lower textbook prices and new campus events. But many such inspired ideas have fallen apart after much time, energy and money have been sucked into them. Those resources could have been used more effectively elsewhere if candidates had done a thorough job of ensuring workability.

General Representative Emily Resnick’s farmer’s market, for example, was originally supposed to happen weekly, beginning in November. The original location, Bruin Plaza, was later discovered to be a fire zone and thus an unsuitable venue ““ something that should have been detected before campaign promises were made, not after.

Other unforeseen difficulties with vendors, funding and safety have pushed the date to April 20, meaning that Resnick’s office has spent eight months planning a fairly small event that will happen once, if ever.

General Representative Addison Huddy had similar problems last year with his seemingly modest proposal to film USAC meetings and put them online. Unforeseen legal difficulties eventually led him to instead post his own video summaries of meetings on YouTube, but he soon abandoned that as well.

Countless similar examples abound, such as External Vice President Chris Santos’ unsuccessful plan to bring gubernatorial candidates to campus for student question-and-answer events last year.

Prospective candidates would do well to follow the example of Financial Supports Commissioner Rustom Birdie and General Representative Matt Spring. Birdie’s proposals to improve USAC’s textbook loan system and increase textbook buyback value were endorsed by the offices charged with implementing them. Spring’s plan to expand evening van services built upon an existing program in a feasible way.

Both worked to increase the visibility of resources that were already available but not well-known amongst students. While this isn’t a revolutionary platform, it is one that maximizes USAC’s resources, costing little and ensuring that students take advantage of what is already available.

This year’s USAC hopefuls should similarly resist the temptation to promise grand, difficult projects to the student body. They should instead seek ways to more effectively carry out the duties of the offices they seek, ensuring something concrete to show for a year’s worth of expense and effort.

Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the editorial board.