Janel England

News Editor

On March 10, the results for the 2017-2018 Campus Council election were released. The four at-large representatives will be Jordan Griffith ’19, Eric Guberman ’19, Matthew Hartzell ’19 and Natalie Walsh ’18. The Racial and Ethnic Diversity representative will be Ethan Barham ’18, the International Diversity representative will be Marina Adams ’19, and the Gender and Sexuality Diversity representative will be Vrinda Trivedi ’18. In addition, the Service and Civic Engagement representative will be Koral Kasnyik ’20 and the Selective Organizations representative will be Bryan Robb ’18.

Griffith stated, “I was glad to see that turnout had increased from last year, as almost 800 students voted in this election cycle. I think the increased presence Council has had this year as well as the election reforms we put into place brought more people into the process.”

The results of the election, however, were not without controversy. Prior to voting, a group of candidates bonded together to form the Progress Coalition. Altogether the Coalition was formed of four at large candidates, two Gender and Sexual Diversity candidates, and a single candidate for the remaining constituency representatives.   They campaigned with handouts detailing a short bio of each student on the ticket, as well as a social media campaign and a Viewpoint in the Wooster Voice about their overall message and the importance of voting.

In response to the Progress Coalition, a complaint was filed on March 3 by an anonymous candidate on behalf of the other candidates who were not included in the Coalition. The student emailed Secretary of the College Angela Johnston, Dean of Students Scott Brown, Director of Student Rights Responsibilities Jess Etell, Director of Lowry Center & Student Activities Julia Zimmer, and Director of Residence Life Nathan Fein. The student claimed in the email that “the organization has been promoting policies…that are not in the jurisdiction of Campus Council as stated in the Memorandum. This includes, however, is not limited to protecting group charters from administration, reclaiming charter review process procedures and numerous others as state in [the Coalition’s platform].”

The student further asserted, “This dishonesty is not apparent on campus as of now because Campus Council as an organization [sic] has been a relatively unknown group on campus. The dishonesty that this coalition is promoting will cause problems and distrust in the future.”

The student was also concerned that the Viewpoint article “actively promoted the members of the coalition, an organization acting as an exclusive group on campus, and attacks the candidates not affiliated with the coalition.”

Finally, the student claimed that they have “private documentation” that the Coalition was promoting “an environment of exclusivity,” although none was provided in the email.

On March 9, Campus Council discussed the complaint during their weekly meeting. It was agreed upon that there is nothing written within the memorandum explicitly prohibiting the formation of a coalition or making false claims while campaigning.

Johnston also noted, “Campus Council has the authority to make recommendations to any department or to the president or to the board. Someone brought up well, they don’t have authority over meal plans. Well, no, but they can make a recommendation. And if it’s a goal then I don’t see that is anything that is dishonest.”

In addition, current Representative for Gender and Sexual Diversity Heather Smith ’17 added, “what we saw in the [open forums held prior to the election], a lot of candidates didn’t know what Campus Council does anyway […] So no one was really telling the truth. So I don’t think it’s fair to call out this coalition for something that all of the candidates were guilty of.”

Regardless of controversy, the elected representatives seem enthusiastic about the upcoming year. Barham stated that although there was confusion around the election process, “I strongly believe that the student body ultimately chose whom they believed were best qualified to represent them.”

All the candidates that responded to inquiries from the Voice noted that they were grateful and honored to be elected. Adams said, “In this upcoming year, I hope to not only assist international students as they navigate through campus policy, but also improve our overall experience in Wooster by working on new policy initiatives. It is my sincerest wish that this newly-elected council can serve a term full of hard work and concrete change.”

Barham stated, “I cannot wait for the opportunity to move towards making Wooster an even more diverse and accepting campus for students from all backgrounds. I believe through empowering and providing further resources for the many cultural groups on campus, The College will benefit from the display of diversity that those who attend Wooster have to offer.”

Kasnyik said, “I hope that by holding this new position with Campus Council, I can help facilitate the way in which Wooster students embody the college’s graduate quality of community service.”

Robb stated, “I’m happy that I got reelecteted [sic] this past election because I can continue the projects I have been working on for the past year. I am also happy that there is a variety of new council members for next year. New members allow for new perspectives, which is necessary for the success of Campus Council.”

Griffith added that he hopes “students hold their representatives accountable so that they’re doing the job they were elected to do.”