Vote Connect Columbia

As is often the case, the two parties campaigning for this year's Columbia College Student Council Executive Board elections propose similar platforms with only minor differences. That leaves leadership style as the key decisive factor for voters casting their ballots beginning Wednesday. Experience Columbia has advanced innovative policy proposals and exhibits a good relationship with the student body. But Connect Columbia is better suited to take the helm of CCSC, thanks to its disciplined ticket, its interest in coalition-building, and its familiarity with the mechanics of the council.

After a year of lackluster CCSC leadership, Connect Columbia stands the best chance of effecting real change in student government. Connect has displayed a willingness to reach out to the other student councils, and its view of CC as one of four co-equal undergraduate schools will endear the party to students outside of its constituency. Connect recognizes the need for broad coalitions that unite disparate groups of students behind a common cause. Its understanding for the University at large and its bureaucratic processes would serve it well in mobilizing support behind its platform as it lobbies the administration for policy changes. The party's approach has been honed by prior dealings with the Columbia administration, and its candidates—three of whom currently serve on the council—are well-situated to continue this year's efforts. Nonetheless, building broad coalitions is easier said than done. Moreover, Connect's candidates should take care lest their close relationships with administrators become too cozy, whether in appearance or in fact. CC students deserve advocates who will always keep their best interests front and center in dealing with the administration. The new CCSC board must act as a conduit for its constituents' concerns, even when council leaders believe the ideal solution is too expensive or out of reach.

While the Experience candidates, too, can boast some familiarity with the University's administrative channels, they seem disjointed as a ticket and slightly less prepared to get to work in the fall. Further, whether or not Experience's presidential candidate George Krebs took more credit than he should have for the completion of the off-campus Flex project, he has not adequately rebutted the suggestion that he did. The controversy casts doubt on the otherwise-admirable centerpiece of his party's campaign: that Experience will bring transparency to the labyrinthine byways of CCSC. This issue notwithstanding, Experience Columbia offers several inventive solutions to the issues facing students. The party has smartly patterned its proposals after examples from other universities. Among its most attractive ideas are a Columbia student Web site modeled after the University of Pennsylvania's PennPortal and a disciplinary system similar to Harvard's.

Whether or not Connect wins this week's elections, CC students should insist that their council be more open with them and take a collaborative approach to student government. In the past, too much dealing has taken place behind the scenes. Publicizing the council's work will restore credibility to a council that is often met with skepticism, and will also interest students in what their representatives do. But the council will also have to rack up policy successes if it is to regain student confidence, and for that, Connect is the better bet. A successful council must draw on the experience and expertise of both its members and the students it serves. It is with this in mind that we endorse Connect Columbia for CCSC Executive Board.