As tension continued to mount before a race that would set the tone for the upcoming year, presidential candidates Bill Durkin and Michael Benson circled the room, bridging the gap between “party” lines.
Each candidate for Student Government Association (SGA) president smiled and joked with everyone he passed, attempting to forget the months of whispers and conversations which had already divided the senate.
When the gavel finally fell, both stood behind their podiums, looking out over a senate that would decide their fate. After two hours of intense, sometimes accusatory questions, it was Benson who came out ahead of the incumbent Durkin with eight votes between them. Benson won with 44 votes. Durkin received 36 votes, and two no confidence votes were cast.
“The senate had two very important candidates, and the senate did its job and chose the best,” said Benson, who sat on two previous executive boards as the vice president for financial affairs. “And I am thankful they chose me.”
However, as Benson looks to the year ahead, he will face the challenge of bringing together two sides who have spent the months before his election pushing farther apart — and will have to convince half the people present Monday night that he is, in fact, the right choice to lead an organization still struggling to find itself after a tumultuous year.
A house divided
On Sept. 23 of last year, SGA President Andres Vargas was forced to resign his position after being suspended by the university for hosting a party where there was underage drinking – throwing the senate and the organization into a state of turmoil.
Durkin, after having been a senator for one year and vice president for academic affairs for four months, decided it was his time to take the reins.
“I think as a leader you need to put others before yourself,” Durkin said. “It wasn’t easy to run for president, but I was the most qualified and I needed to step up.”
Durkin defeated Vice President for Student Services Nicole Martino, and was quickly thrust into the role of reenergizing the executive board.
In his six months in office, Durkin fought for extended library hours, against the University Accountability Ordinance and for more funding for the Night Owl bus service.
But it was not his external efforts that were under scrutiny in Monday night’s debate. It was the internal dynamic of a senate that included new members trying to gel with those who have spent years in the senate chambers.
“I think that I personally have always known there has been a division in senate and I think it’s there because older senators have lived through a lot, have seen a lot,” said Martino, who is giving up her position after sitting on two different executive boards. “Older senators are the power of the organization and where the knowledge of the organization lies. They remember what worked and didn’t work.”
Durkin said he also saw the differences come into play, and said it was mainly due to loyalties in the senate to specific e-boards, past and present.
“I think we saw a clash of the old administration with the new administration this year,” he said. “We’ve seen a major change in the composition of senate as a whole. I think we’re going in one direction and I think that rubs some of the old members the wrong way.”
For Vice President for Financial Affairs Ali Barlow, there was a clear line, but it was not necessarily drawn based on age.
“I think there is a division but it’s a division caused by a lack of respect for one another. I think e-board members and sometimes senators forget they are students and we need to respect each other on a student-to-student level,” Barlow said.
Regardless of the reason for the battle lines, they were undoubtedly present, and the cohesion of senate as well as the executive board would be a main focal point in the election of the new president.
The great debate
Despite inklings of possible dissension among the senate ranks, what transpired during elections Monday night left several members of the organization with a sour taste in their mouths, including Barlow.
“I think the senators did an injustice to their constituents,” Barlow said. “The presidential election was dirty, people took advantage of their power and said things that are not supposed to be said.”
The debate started out tame, with a four-minute opening statement by each candidate. SGA advisor Gerry Herman then presided over the debate portion, asking each candidate questions pre-submitted by senators.
Then there was over an hour of question time, where the floor was opened to anyone present who wished to ask either Benson or Durkin a question. Both addressed questions ranging from transgender issues to financial aid to outreach to minority groups on campus.
However, many of the questions posed dealt with specific issues regarding the character or merit of each candidate. Most were marked by thinly veiled digs or long, emotional preambles to the questions, either attacking or praising one of the candidates.
Council for University Programs President Allyson Savin, who sat on last year’s SGA e-board, told the senate she did not feel welcome in the senate chambers this year, which “broke her heart.” Sen. Heidi Buchanan cited the “strong lack of trust between the senate and the e-board.” Former Sen. Sam Klarr took a stab at Durkin’s “money tree” efforts during the fight to keep this year’s tuition increase low.
“I, for one, was not happy hearing we were going to have a massive tuition increase and the response was a tree,” he said, drawing some stifled chuckles from the crowd.
Durkin said he felt many of the questions were a direct attack on his character, something that undermines the integrity of the race and the organization as a whole.
“The debate opened with pertinent questions followed by a good discussion between my opponent and me. However, it just as quickly turned into an underhanded personal attack on my character,” Durkin said. “Pent-up personal discontent and carefully orchestrated questions prefaced by lengthy editorial statements changed the focus of the debate from the issues to personal attacks.”
Vice President for Administration and Public Relations John Guilfoil said the gossip leading up to the election and the amount of personal attacks during the election are things that belongs on a playground, not in senate chambers.
“As far as personal attacks go, they do not belong in our respected student organization. They belong in middle school student council debates, they belong in petty high school drama, and the people who decided to make personal attacks [Monday] night are not representing the student body.”
At one point during question time, Martino stood and referred to an AOL Instant Messenger conversation she printed out that was found on an office computer, in which Durkin allegedly spoke poorly of senators and said he wanted to “kill Niki.”
This elicited gasps and murmurs from the crowd, and visibly rattled Durkin as he responded, “I’m sure that was said with sarcasm.”
In the aftermath of elections, other e-board members questioned Martino’s ethics in her decision to bring up the AIM conversation.
“Vice President Martino’s comments were inappropriate, disrespectful and cast a shadow on everything she’s done in office these past two years,” Guilfoil said. “She allowed her personal feelings about President Durkin to come out, she made an attack on him that was barely short of slanderous. She embarrassed the organization as a whole and should be ashamed of herself.”
Having sat on both last year’s and this year’s executive boards, Martino said what she did was necessary to show senators the difference between a functional e-board and one without good relations.
“I didn’t make a personal attack on [Durkin], I called him on conduct unbecoming of a president. To me that does not foster executive cohesion and if you look under our constitution that is one of the president’s jobs,” Martino said. “Bringing that up was controversial, I’ll be the first one to admit it, but I’m not at all ashamed of telling senators what happens in that office.”
Both Martino and Buchanan admitted collaborating with the “older senators” of the organization to ask specific questions which would bring up topics they felt needed to be addressed.
“There were issues this year, and the senate wanted answers,” Buchanan said. “I think [Benson’s win] was a large part of old senators being cohesive. We shared a vision for the organization, and we knew that [Benson] would be the one to fulfill that.”
Barlow said because of the amount of lobbying being done for one candidate or another, many members of the senate as well as the e-board have lost sight of the greater goal of SGA — serving students.
“I feel like I have come in and used my personal integrity as a basis for how I performed in this job and I feel like other people have turned it into a circus,” Barlow said. “A lot of senators forget it’s about what we’re doing to advocate for the student body and not personal gains within the organization.”
The road ahead
For President-elect Benson, who will take office in July, the focus must now turn to uniting a senate.
“One of my top priorities is to reach out to the 36 people who did not vote for me,” Benson said. “Of all the e-board members I have the most work to do in the senate, and I look forward to that challenge as I hope the senate looks forward to working with me.”
Besides the task of producing a more cohesive senate, Benson must also follow through with many of the campaign promises he advertised during his run for the presidency, including monthly meetings with senators, presidential advisory councils and lobbying for “every issue, not just the glamorous ones.”
Direct elections also remain an issue in the upcoming year, as the five-part charge Durkin assigned to the Senate Nominations and Elections Committee is still in the process of being implemented. Benson also said he is going to edit the charge, adding parts that would prepare the student body as well as the senate for the responsibility of direct elections.
At elections, senators said Benson must also strike a balance between recruiting new senators and making them feel welcome, as well as tapping into the resources more experienced senators have to offer.
Martino said most importantly she would like to see an e-board that is not necessarily best friends, but respects one another and stands together on all issues no matter what.
Due to the diverse dynamic on this upcoming e-board, Benson said he expects once the group meshes it can begin the large amount of work which lies ahead.
“One of my main focuses over the coming three months before my executive board takes office will be to work as a group and to set goals,” Benson said. “We will have a great deal of work next year and we need to hit the ground running.”
Vargas, who laid the foundation for this year’s senate before being forced to step down, said he trusts Benson to continue to take SGA down the path he had originally hoped to navigate.
“The biggest hope I have for the organization is the faith I have in Michael Benson,” Vargas said. “I think Benson can bring the organization back on course.”
Regardless of any lingering resentment from what proved to be one of the most heated SGA elections ever, Benson said next year will be “a year of hope.” Right at this moment, he said, the Northeastern undergraduate population is stronger than it has ever been, and thus next year holds an immense amount of promise.
“This is a new beginning, and we need to take it as such. The future is bright. Every year President [Richard] Freeland tells us he has admitted the best and brightest class ever, so now we have five of the best and brightest classes NU has ever seen. And together there is nothing we can’t accomplish.”
-Staff writer Michael Naughton contributed to this report.
