Home » News » University »

Two vying for SGA presidency

By on March 19, 2010 4:15 am in University / 11 comments

 
email

The Student Government Association Presidential Election will feature a familiar face as well as a newer one.

Current Vice President Brittany Mouzourakis and Troy junior Evan Agnello are running for the position. The two will square off in a debate at 7 p.m. March 30 in the Charles V. Park Library Auditorium.

Troy junior Evan Agnello will be joined by vice president hopeful Jessica Richard, a Highland junior. The two jointly have three years of experience in SGA, though they are not in SGA currently, and are focusing on SGA funding and restoring tailgating.

The pair is using the slogan, “We Deserve Better.”

USE YOUR VOICE

- Voting takes place April 5 through noon April 11.
- Connect: vote.cmich.edu

“Student budgets are going up while everything else is going down,” Agnello said. “Everybody’s hurting — we’re just trying to lead by example.”

Agnello said there needs to be a new face leading SGA.

“We think there should be new leadership,” he said. “We also feel we are up for the challenge.”

Mouzourakis, a Garden City senior, is campaigning with Muskegon senior David Breed as her candidate for vice president. Breed has three years of SGA experience, currently as membership officer and academic liaison to the senate.

Their mission statement is, “Unrivaled SGA experience, coupled with a proven commitment to students.” Mouzourakis intends to focus on student advocacy, making strategic alliances with administration and a dedication to diversity.

“We want to help protect the campus programming fund and look into using renewable energy,” she said. “By having solar and wind energy, the state recognizes the benefits and the funding will go up.”

Both candidates made light of student stipends, which pay for SGA members’ salaries.

“These bonuses come out of student fees,” Agnello said. “We’re hoping to give back to the students by forming a scholarship with the money.”

For Mouzourakis, the decision is not that easy.

“The members who are economically challenged wouldn’t be able to do anything,” she said. “Stipends will be trimmed down, but we won’t get rid of them.”

Both candidates can spend up to $350 of their own money to campaign, through methods such as signs, chalk, T-shirts and table tents in the cafeteria. Campaigns started Monday.

Voting takes place April 5 through noon April 11. Students can vote at vote.cmich.edu and will be asked to use their global identification in order to vote. A winner will be named April 12.

 

Tags

, ,

Related Posts

 
  • DJ

    It’s time for the Student Government Association to represent all students, and not just the tiny percentage that serves on the SGA E-Board.

    Tuition rates are skyrocketing. Students all across campus are finding it difficult to pay for school. We need leadership that will make sure student tuition money is being spent wisely, and someone who won’t accept bonuses for a job that should be about service and putting the interest of every student first. Every dollar SGA spends on bonuses comes at the expense of the price we pay for college.

    Unfortunately, Student Government leaders right now are more concerned about being pushovers for the administration. When it came to tailgate, a tradition woven into our culture at CMU, SGA caved into unfair rules without even putting up a fight. Students, R.S.Os, and the Greek community are not properly represented when SGA is run by a tiny clique. That’s just not fair.

  • Jeremy Rook

    SGA deserves to get paid cash. They do a lot of hard work. Bike Share programs don’t just come out of nowhere people! And remember the Tailgate advisory committee?

  • RealityPains

    $14,000 that’s just ridiculous!

  • Jim DeMint

    Does anyone else notice how all of Mouzourakis’ plans involve some other group she is a part of? Doesn’t sound more like a proven commitment to herself.

  • Bobby

    Nobody wants the Bike Share program. Everything you need as a student is on campus and the farthest walk is only 15 minutes. If you are that lazy to not walk the 15 minutes, GET YOUR OWN BIKE. I do not want to pay for your bike.

  • Response to Jeremy

    The money doesn’t pay for the bikes, it goes to students to come up with a bike idea. The money also does not go towards the employees that will run the bike share program. The program is a dud and a waste of time and money. In these tough times I do not want to pay for SGA officials to run around and pretend to be in charge. I think Evan gets what the students want and that is less Bureaucracy. Students are sick of having to ask permission to do everything on this campus and want freedom, and the deserve it because they pay for it!

    Evan has my vote!

  • Response to Jeremy

    By the way the Tailgate advisory committee failed horribly…. Hence the name “Failgate”

  • Mike

    I might agree that the stipends are a bit too high, but Evan’s usage of “bonuses” and $14,000 is questionable.

    You can find SGA’s budget under SGA’s document section of their website, http://sga.cmich.edu/documents.html

    Evan Agnello apparently cannot read a budget. Check out the cell C12, which clearly shows $9,714 in stipends, not bonuses. This is another point he is really confused on: a bonus literally means “in addition to regular pay.” So you are saying they are also getting paid underneath the bonuses too? Can you explain where $14,000 comes from?

    If he can really prove they gave out $14,000 in stipends, I’d be happy to support him.

  • Margaret

    Before commenting about SGA, you should become informed about the real issues and situations being discussed.

    Tailgating was a fail this year, however the ADMINISTRATION made this change, not SGA. The current SGA leadership met with, and discussed the policies regarding tailgate and voiced the concerns of students. Ultimately, the fate of tailgating rested with the administration and the local authorities, not SGA.

    Tuition is increasing, and yes this is very troublesome to students. Again, this issue is a lot bigger than SGA. It relates to the administration and state officials.

    SGA does not receive “bonuses” of over $14,000. If you would like to see the money spent by SGA, then check the website. Stipends are paid to the officers for the time and effort that they put into their jobs. The positions are very time consuming and demanding, whether you realize it or not. Also, this is not anything new this year- this has been done by SGA for many years. If you disagree, fine, but at least know what you are talking about.

    Finally, Agnello and Richards are positioning themselves on lies. Combined they only have ONE year of SGA experience. Check their attendance records. Their platform is also ridiculous…changing tailgate and tuition fees? True, SGA has a voice to the administration, but these policies are not in the control of SGA.

  • Colleen McNeely

    The comments regarding the bike share program are inaccurate. Bobby, when and if a bike share program is to be initiated, the bikes used would tentatively be coming from the former “Project Greenbike”, which attempted a bike share program until plans fell through. These bikes were the ones abandoned on racks around campus and went unclaimed, and thus, the CMU police cut the locks and confiscated them. SGA would look for assistance from the CMU police in providing bikes in this way, as the process happens each year, in order to provide the bikes for students – especially since not all students can afford a bike, and whether or not we have a small campus, students should have access to bike transportation if they want it. The bikes obtained through this method, of course, would be checked for any problems and fixed if necessary – the Mt. Pleasant Bike Co-op, a student organization, has been gracious enough to offer COST-FREE assistance in bike maintenance for cases such as this. Furthermore, “Response to Jeremy”, though you were correct in stating that the money doesn’t pay for the bikes, your statement that it goes to students to come up with a bike idea couldn’t be further from the truth. When I came up with the idea of a bike share program, I was serving as Legislative Affairs Committee Chair – an entirely unpaid position. Seeing that the initiative would not only improve sustainability but also student health across campus and student life (especially for socioeconomically disadvantaged students), the idea that it would be a waste of time and money is absurd.

    Due to the negative comments, that was necessary, although the topic is totally unrelated to the article at hand. Thanks for the opportunity to talk up this great idea, though! I will enjoy continuing to work on it.

  • Paul Sullivan

    I would like to make a comment on the three issues that Evan Agnello is platform is based upon:

    1. Lowering Tuition: First of all SGA can discuss the belief about lowering tuition as much as they want, but facts are facts. The financial situation is too dire for cutbacks. With talk of cutting funding of On the Fly Productions already decided and the fate of the Leadership Institute, I find it insane to believe the university would ever voluntarily decrease their largest source of revenue, no matter the level of our dicontent.

    2. SGA Bonuses: While cutting the bonuses is a legitimate option, the facts of 14,000 is bonuses is blatantly false, as already stated it is not for the President and VP, but for the other E-board member and the figure is state above which is not 14,000. President and VP money comes from the Office of the President, not from SGA.

    3. Tailgating: Once again, as much as SGA can try to impose its will on the adminstration, they can not force them to do anything. Some restrictiions that were previously enforced, where removed, and I do not see how these two will fare any better. Not one piece of information proves to me that they have a magic capacity to change their mind.

    One of the most important characteristics in these positions is trust and I can not trust a campaign that has lied to the campus community. Not just lies that were unintented or on the border of truth and falsity, but blatant lies that can be proven by budgets and the university administration.