Undergraduate Students Association Council member Andrew
LaFlamme formally detached himself from the Students United for
Reform and Equality slate almost two weeks ago. LaFlamme, the
current USAC financial supports commissioner said the reason for
his separation was to better serve students as an independent
because his slate affiliation was a hindrance to working with the
entire council.
But now that LaFlamme has worked with other students to form a
new slate known as United Independents for which he will be the
presidential candidate during the upcoming elections, he may be
switching his top priority from better serving students as an
independent to being USAC president.
The idea of forming a slate of independents directly contradicts
the idea of being independent. Although it is logical for students
with like-minded ideas to pool their resources and run as members
of a slate to increase their chances of getting elected, LaFlamme
had previously stated that ideally, USAC should be free from slate
influence. His formation of a new slate will not help USAC move in
that direction. Instead, U.I. could further complicate and increase
the power of slates in USAC, contradicting his originally stated
beliefs.
The prospect of having three slates vying for power itself will
be messy. LaFlamme’s new slate will likely split votes
between S.U.R.E. and U.I., since they will have to mold their
agendas such that they can attract a constituency ““ and
it’s not likely they will be getting any of the groups
supporting Student Empowerment! The result could be increased
difficulty for either slate to get candidates elected, giving
Student Empowerment! an ideal chance to pounce on both of them and
take control of council.
A similar situation existed two years ago, when Student
Empowerment! candidate Karren Lane faced three opponents, Dusan
Miletich of S.U.R.E, David Ehrenberg and John Haerptyan. Though the
latter two ran as independents, Ehrenberg had widespread Greek
support. Ehrenberg and Miletich received about 20 percent of the
vote each, while Lane saw 52 percent. Haerptyan was an outsider,
garnering only 3 percent. LaFlamme and Adam Harmetz, current
general representative and S.U.R.E. presidential candidate, could
very likely provide the campus with a repeat of this scenario,
since LaFlamme and some of his informal supporters belong to
fraternities and can develop a Greek base.
LaFlamme’s backpedaling creates a certain amount of doubt
about his intentions. If LaFlamme left S.U.R.E. with the purpose of
forming a new slate all along, he might as well have stayed in
S.U.R.E. and worked on his own, as he essentially did this year.
LaFlamme said when he separated from S.U.R.E. that he did not agree
with many of S.U.R.E’s central ideas for over a quarter. He,
like others, just used S.U.R.E. to ride into office.
It’s understandable why LaFlamme would be weary of running
for president as an independent. When he ran for financial supports
commissioner in 2001 as an independent, he only earned 13 percent
of the vote. Hopefully, though, LaFlamme will retain his stated
philosophy that students come first as he runs under the oxymoronic
“United Independents.” It would be very disappointing
in the end if his motives turned out to be fueled by selfish
interest in power.