Leah Hennig The Campus Saint-Jean (CSJ) forum on February 25, followed by the Augustana forum on February 26, gave students a clearer picture of the vice-president (operations and finance) (VPOF) race.
VPOF candidates Armaan Singh and Logan West are offering varying approaches in their platforms, suggesting two different interpretations of what this job is about.
Singh’s message has been consistent across the first three forums. He opens with numbers, suggesting that $500 of student fees are optional. His framing is simple: students pay large fees for services they do not understand. His campaign rests on four pillars: financial transparency, fighting food insecurity, generating more non-student revenue, and creating an anonymous sexual assault reporting website. Regardless of the feasibility of his financial claims, his computer science background may give him the technical understanding to deliver on the latter pillar.
“This role isn’t about spreadsheets, it’s about trust,” Singh said at the Augustana forum, reinforcing that transparency and safety are “real issues students face every single day.”
Additionally, he has made expansive promises. At Augustana, he pointed to the SU’s North Campus businesses. He noted that the SUB cafeteria generates $1.3 million annually, and argued that Augustana doesn’t have a comparable space. His solution is to expand business operations and revenue beyond North Campus. However, Augustana and CSJ buildings are not owned by the SU. Diversifying revenue streams will depend on feasibility, not promises.
West pressed Singh about encouraging students to opt out of dedicated fees like the Access Fund. His response was that he isn’t telling students to opt-out, rather he’s encouraging awareness around the cost and use of the fees.
These forums further exposed the central theme of this VPOF race. Singh presents himself as a reform candidate who will expose and manage inefficiencies. West presents herself as an operator who understands the limits of her power.
Following Singh’s commitment to expand revenue streams beyond North Campus, West simply said she wouldn’t make the same commitment because she wanted to keep it realistic. Instead, she spoke of increasing access to FlixBus for better transportation between campuses. However, the FlixBus Pilot program ended over a year ago due to a lack of ridership. Another option, a smaller and less frequent shuttle, has been explored. But FlixBus’ failure exposes problems with increasing a service that isn’t consistently used.
At CSJ, West focused on smaller promises: translating CSJ handbooks into French and improving prize delivery systems for SU Perks. She underlined the importance of making the CSJ campus feel welcome through bilingual options for materials and other key touch points with the SU.
West has been building her pitch through credibility. As current vice-president (student life) (VPSL), she repeatedly references committees, task forces, and formalities she has worked through. Repeatedly referencing trust and fulfilled promises, she is clearly attempting to build herself up as a pre-determined, socially-proven SU veteran.
Singh’s campaign speaks to feelings of frustration. Many students are struggling financially and are unsure exactly where their fees goes. His repeated emphasis on opt-outs resonates emotionally; however, some of his proposals rely on assumptions that may not reflect how the funds actually operate.
West makes fewer sweeping commitments. She rarely promises the structural transformation that Singh suggests. Instead, she positions herself as someone who understands how things move through the SU and which buttons she can actually push. When challenging Singh on the Access Fund opt-out, she framed the issue on disproportionate impact, asking whether encouraging cash-tight students to blindly opt out could disadvantage the very students who may need the Access Fund’s financial assistance.
Both candidates so far have been consistent in their messaging. Singh has repeated his pillars near-verbatim at every forum. West consistently references her track record and institutional know-how.
This varying philosophy is exactly what makes this race so interesting. Do students want a VPOF who aggressively pushes for structural changes, without regard for feasibility? Or do they vote for a VPOF who works within the limits of the role, promises less, and relies on incremental gains?
Neither approach is wrong, but they do represent different voting behaviours.
