Through our interactions and interviews regarding the coming ASLC elections, and from watching the first debate, the Review concludes that juniors Colin Jones and Sarah Spranger are the best candidates for ASLC president and vice president, respectively.
Elections are being held from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. March 9. The lack of overall candidates has resulted in the absence of a primary election, which means the election process is whittled down to a single round of voting. Also, without a primary election, students do not have as many opportunities to get to know the candidates.
But, while students may have trouble learning about the candidates, the Review has been working hard to do just that.
Jones has shown extreme dedication to his campaign. It seems that he wants to do great things for the school. Students may consider him less legitimate than his opponent, junior Shelby Simmons, because he is running as a write-in candidate, but perhaps the opposite is true.
Jones decided to join the race after hearing that Simmons was the only nominee — he knew it was a disappointment for someone to run unopposed. Jones had the opportunity to graduate early next year, but he chose to stay and attempt to make Linfield a better place.
Without noting Jones’ sacrifice, though, he still has an outstanding list of qualifications and experience. Throughout his college career, Jones has been active in Senate and ASLC and has coordinated events and worked with nonprofit organizations in McMinnville. He also has a public speaking and communication background. We certainly want a president who can skillfully articulate student opinions to the higher-ups in Linfield’s faculty and administration.
Jones has the qualities that will help him best represent the student community, and that’s exactly what students should want from their ASLC president: someone who will best represent us.
On the other hand, it does not seem like Simmons will represent and fight for students as much as Jones would. She has held several leadership positions, but when it comes to implementing real improvements, we’re not so sure she has what it takes.
In her interview with the Review, Simmons claimed she would not focus on change. She explained that it would be better to look at positive aspects of the school and improve on them rather than change negative issues. In reality, though, what’s more positive than fixing what’s negative? Simmons comes off as someone who would just make the best of the situation rather than fight to improve it.
Jones seems much more capable of standing up for students when their opinions are ignored, such as with the changes in Fall Break and diploma distribution.
“The reality is that what’s best for the students is what’s best for the college,” Jones said during the March 1 debate. “Now, what’s best for the students isn’t always what’s easiest for the faculty.”
We want someone like Jones to be our president because he would rally for change, especially when student opinion is ignored. Simmons just does not share Jones’ tenacity.
Spranger has the appeal of an ideal leader as vice president. She is enthusiastic about reworking Senate to increase its efficiency and publicity. We all know that Senate could use some improvements, and Spranger seems as though she would be the most active in making these improvements to make Senate better for students. Based on her interview, Spranger seems willing to work hard for her goals.
Her opponent, sophomore Katie Patterson, seems to have good intentions, but we’re not sure if she is a candidate who will follow through on them to the fullest.
The Review has been trying to arrange interviews with Patterson for stories in this week and last week’s issue. She was unable to meet for an interview last week’s, and this week’s she only responded to questions via e-mail on the day of production. We were not able to talk with Patterson in-person, or even over the phone. We realize that students are busy, especially if they’re running for office, but one would assume that a candidate would work hard to make a strong connection with the student body through the school paper if given the opportunity, or, in this case, multiple opportunities.
This is anything but the approachable, available-to-students vice president that we would want to elect.
On that note, it is worth mentioning that each candidate was offered the opportunity to write letters to the editor for this week’s paper. Jones, Spranger and Simmons all sent in letters (some later than others). Patterson did not submit a letter.
We applaud any candidate’s attempt to connect with the student body through the Review, since we share a similar responsibility to the representation of the student body. Patterson does not appear to have this dedication to connecting with her potential constituents.
Also, Spranger and Jones seem to be the only candidates posting publicity so far, leaving us to question: Who is really working to reach us?
March 8 is rapidly approaching. When it comes, we encourage you to vote for the two candidates who seem more apt to represent and connect with students: Colin Jones and Sarah Spranger.
Don’t just take our word for it, though; read about our interviews with the candidates on page 6 and watch the second debate at 7:30 p.m. March 8 in the Fred Meyer Lounge. We are confident that Jones and Spranger will prove themselves to you, as well.
-The Review Editorial Board