The Associated Students of Madison has two candidates for position of chair: Tyler Junger, the former Student Services Finance Committee secretary, and Brian Benford, a former Madison alder from District 12. Friday’s meeting resulted in a deadlocked vote between the two, but in order to solidify leadership in ASM, the council will need to choose someone for Tuesday.

In order to push ASM in the right direction, we endorse the candidacy of Junger based on a number of factors.

However, the main debate over the chair lies in who is most qualified to bring a fair mix of experience and change to ASM. Junger has argued his time on SSFC and distance from the constitution debacle and inner workings of ASM have given him a health mixture for reform; Benford touts his City Council experience along with his thrust for an “end to divisiveness” as being the right approach for students on this campus.

Of course, Benford’s record on City Council does not exactly support a harmonious approach. He was one of a few sponsors for a sister city program with Rafah, a Palestinian city in the Gaza Strip, which was hardly necessary business and provoked one of the most divisive debates on City Council in recent years. Furthermore, as a former member of the Alcohol License Review Committee, he was one of the few people tasked with forwarding the Alcohol License Density Plan on to City Council. Given there are no recorded objections from Benford when ALRC decided to pass on its recommendation to City Council by acclimation, we are skeptical of a paternalistic attitude as chair.

Junger, on the other hand, has been tasked with a neutral position throughout his time in ASM, as SSFC requires viewpoint neutrality in all decisions. When asked about his role as chair, Junger said it is simply to speak on behalf of Student Council and, therefore, work on behalf of the student body as a whole rather than pushing his own viewpoint, and we couldn’t agree more with this approach.

Benford has pledged his attention will be focused on ASM, but considering he has a job at the Canopy Center and four children — three of whom are still under the age 20 — we are skeptical his full attention can remain on ASM. Junger has a similar problem, but a part-time job at Liz Waters is far less involved than raising a family.

And at the end of the day, despite claims from some new Student Council members that the day-to-day operations seem like “common sense,” the six-hour debacle that was Friday’s meeting should prove this sentiment is far off base. While there will be a learning curve with either Benford or Junger, Junger’s understanding of the convoluted nature of ASM’s internal structure and intention to improve communication in and out of the organization — including his suggestion of a initial, open-air, open-forum meeting of SC in September — seems to be the right move.

So, while we endorse Junger, we must make it clear: There is no room for further error. Outreach must be consistent, SC must get up to speed on their duties and the body must identify key issues — tuition lobbying, finding a path to chart after Plan 2008 and advocacy on a number of crucial student/administration clashes — and act on them.

We sincerely want ASM to succeed. We just need proof from someone that it can.