SIPASA Board, new and old

The results are in:  Lauren Quillan and Saptarsi Bandoypadhyay were elected today into SIPASA’s top positions as MPA and MIA class presidents. This year set a new standard for creative and aggressive campaigning for mostly the top spots, as the hallways of the International Affairs Building were flooded with posters, 6th floor lounge tables were scattered with leaflets, supporting students were adorned with buttons, and even sidewalks were covered with chalk messages.  Surprisingly, not many of these visible campaigners ended up winning.

Quillan, hailing from the University of Virginia, attributed her successful campaign to the flash mob of 15 students who invaded the foyer yesterday blasting tunes and removing their jackets to reveal, “Vote Quillan” emblazoned across their chests. “I propose a SIPASA that fosters a deeper student community,” Quillan writes in her election statement.

Bandoypadhyay’s mild illness didn’t stop him from doing what was necessary to win. Instead of shaking hands with passerbys in the IAB, he resorted to the internationally recognized “fist pump” to show his affable nature. “I’m honored to be the MIA president for the class of 2011 and I look forward to serving in the best interests of students and faculty,” said Saptarsi. Compared to the other candidates, his election campaign statement was, well, broad. “Overall, improving upon the already good student life will be important and ensuring cohesion between both the faculty and the student body will be essential in maintaining SIPA’s prestige,” was the closest thing to a goal I could interpret.

The rest of the elected SIPASA Board includes:

• Vice President:  Bethany Young
• Treasurer:  Derek O’Halloren
• Senator: Scott Saverance
• Publicity: Neha Kumar
• MPA in Development Practice Representative: Ashley Henderson
• MPA Social Chair: Chelsea Stone
• MPA Student Outreach: Ayelet Haran
• MIA Social Chair: Ethan Arrow
• MIA Student Outreach: Melissa Zaccagnino

You might notice the drastically smaller size of this year’s SIPASA board compared to the incumbent 2009 board, namely, empty spots for both MIA and MPA Internal Affairs and in both MIA and MPA Alumni / OCS Representatives. Another alarming fact:  only 59% of the MIA student body participated, just slightly better than the startling rate of just half of the MPA student body showing up to the polls today.  The new MPA in Development Practice (MDP) puts the rest of us to shame with their 100% participation rate.

The hidden story behind the SIPASA election results reveal weaknesses in the SIPA student body that the new board needs to pay attention to. Without a strong student body voice, we are collectively vulnerable to potentially damaging decisions made unilaterally and unchallenged by the administration. Consider the effect of having no voice at OCS. Do you really think the professional development course is useful? Do you like the way those information sessions are being run? If the answer is yes, all the time, then perhaps accountability is unnecessary. But let’s consider a more likely scenario: you have an idea on how to improve access to alumni and OCS tells you they’re too overworked and understaffed to respond. I thought we cared about our professional lives after SIPA.

Board, what happens when your office gets swamped with complaining students and there aren’t enough SIPASA board members to address the complaints?

A public policy school, of all places, is supposed to be chock-full of motivated individuals passionate about civic participation. While we spout dialectics about the efficacy of political processes, is no one concerned that we stand passive in our own education? Now, it’s not entirely anyone’s fault. The problem is systemic; students have so much piled onto their plates that a demanding position on the SIPASA board with meager perquisites just isn’t worth it. It might also be indicative of what happens among large student bodies with such diffuse interests. But either way, a weak student body benefits no one. The administration won’t have a strong voice pressuring for student interests, so they’ll make decisions averse to student preferences. As a result, student complaints will go up. The administration will then be forced to generate more bureaucratic rules and procedures to process (or circumvent, depending on how you see it) these individual complaints.   This will only necessitate more complaining, which will be under-represented and so the cycle perpetuates.

SIPA students all have different interests and passions, that we know. What we share, though, is a common investment in this degree – and that asset stays with us well beyond the two years spent within the walls of the IAB. A strong SIPA brand and network that attracts top students each year will only benefit us in perpetuity. I welcome the new SIPASA to address these concerns, and challenge them to consider what their specific contributions will be to the SIPA legacy. The 2009 Board brought us happy hours, friendly email names, better food at Alice’s Cafe and more microwaves. What will you do?