From Impromptu Nominations to Nervous Laughs: GISA Elections Day 1 (Full report)

Spring has sprung in Geneva, bringing blue skies and, of course, the much-anticipated student elections at the Graduate Institute. For some reason every student we run into keeps saying “the spring has sprung”, whatever that’s supposed to mean, we are definitely stealing it. Still, one thing’s clear: election season is in full swing. This year, we’re back as your go-to source for all things election-related BUT with a fair warning: we’re dialing up the humor this time around. After all, let’s be honest, the race came pretty close to being flat. So, let’s jump into the candidates vying for Treasurer,Professional Development Committee and Events Coordinator.

Round 1 here we go!

The two candidates for Events Coordinator this year, Ada Göral (1st year MINT – Conflict Peace and Security) and Maria Elena Lugo (1st year MINT- Human Rights and Humanitarianism), took the stage to present their election manifestos.

Ada kicked things off by highlighting event organization as one of the most important pillars of GISA. She’s all about creating inclusive and accessible events that really speak to the diverse student body we’ve got here. Pulling from her undergrad experience running events, Ada wants to roll out new initiatives like “Study Survival” and “Study Buddy” (didn’t explain what these mean though) to offer both academic and social support. She also stressed improving communication between events and student initiatives so as to  get more people involved and keep the good energy flowing across campus.

Maria Elena, on the other hand, came in strong with her rich background in event organizing and her mission to build a sense of belonging on campus. She talked about founding the Latin Caucus during her undergrad, a clear sign she knows her way around community building and inclusive spaces. Maria also emphasized the importance of giving students the right toolkit  to actually enjoy and benefit from the events on offer (again didn’t explain what this is explicitly), which she believes can make those experiences more meaningful and long-lasting.

Both candidates leaned pretty heavily on their official platforms here, and we couldn’t help but feel they missed a chance to get a little more personal, leaving us  wanting for more. Yet, the debate moved on to questions from the current board, so we rolled with it.

One of the most memorable moments came from James Nyumu, our current Events Coordinator, who flashed his usual witty persona and asked how they planned to make events more inclusive. Ada jumped in first, saying she wanted to center on minority communities and give more space to queer events ( amazing!) and that got a big round of applause from the crowd. Maria Elena on the other hand focused on making communication more inclusive, suggesting multilingual Instagram posts so events are more accessible to everyone.

Then came the question of managing the stress and workload of the job, and… well, neither candidate really nailed this one. It would’ve been a great moment to get real about their personal strategies, or how they’d avoid burnout, something we know too well around here (yes, we see you, overachievers!).

On the practical side, when asked about managing room bookings and avoiding clashes, both Ada and Maria Elena proposed using a transparent Google form to track grievances and work more closely with housing. A solid idea for sure but honestly, they circled this point a few times, and it started feeling largely repetitive. This was a central issue with this round, lack of research and consultation was blatant…

When asked about how the Events Coordinator role could evolve toward advocacy, both gave pretty vague answers, again circling back to “better communication” with initiatives. While the intent was genuine, we wished more effort was put into framing their individual policies. 

From the student body, the hot topic was the lack of common spaces and how bookings get prioritized. 

Luca Ghislandi, a first-year IRPS student and Events Coordinator of QISA,  asked how they’d handle deciding who gets what space (how to divide the shares of the cake.  Maria Elena pushed for expanding into Grand Morillon and beyond just PCR and Fab, while Ada pointed out the general lack of student spaces and how the size of an event impacts its efficiency. Maria’s suggestion was well-received, but Ada’s sparked some side-eye, since it brushed up against an ongoing debate about how smaller initiatives, which can be really meaningful, often get overshadowed. Well, that conversation is still very much an open one.

And then the BIG one: the grad party! Cue the laughs, some nervous energy, and an awkward silence from the candidates. We don’t think the candidates expected this to be the central point of the discussion. As the current board put it, planning an excellent grad party is the premier job of the events coordinator (we felt this was an overstretch). James, trying to keep things light, teased, “Feel the pressure, by the way,” while reminding everyone that this is probably the most high-stakes part of the Events Coordinator’s job. Neither candidate had much of a plan here (might be time for a coffee with James, just saying).

Both Ada and Maria Elena agreed that a lot of the headaches in event planning come from communication issues with housing, something they both want to improve, the how’s were left unanswered, but we see the vision.

Round 2!! The money business – Treasurer Candidates

Yes, we’ve got three this year! Ryan Grad (1st year MINT-Sustainable Trade and Finance), Ahmet Haksever (1st year MINT-Human Rights), and Jackie Lee (1st year MINT-Migration) all threw their hats in the ring.

Ryan leaned into his accounting background, stressing the importance of making sure class reps actually use their budgets. As the current TechSec treasurer, he’s keen on boosting transparency and figuring out how to stretch GISA’s finances further. Ahmet brought in his experience managing finances at an NGO back in Turkey. He’s big on transparency (get ready, you’re gonna hear that word a lot) and wants to set up a public doc showing how GISA funds are spent. He’s also keen on speeding up reimbursements, which, let’s be real, would be a win for everyone. Jackie Lee sees the treasurer gig as a way to help GISA become an even stronger, more connected community. With her public accounting background and experience as treasurer for the Migration Initiative and events director for the Peacebuilding Initiative, she’s ready to make the money flow smoothly and responsibly.

The board, especially current treasurer Antony Toscano, didn’t hold back and honestly, we were not surprised! Antony pointed out that most of what they promised (like transparency) is basically the job description, not some revolutionary idea. Which was a fair thing to point out but we don’t think the candidates were aiming for that (Let’s cut them some slack, maybe).

“Transparency, transparency and transparency”. 

It became the night’s unofficial drinking game, but we wanted to ask: what do you all exactly mean by this?

Ahmet aims to make public how initiatives spend their budgets, a policy that needs more clarification and expansion. Ryan also sees transparency as a student’s right and wants clearer explanations around budget decisions. Jackie is more for periodic check-ins to avoid overruns, without necessarily making everything public. Ryan sees transparency as a student’s right and wants clearer explanations around budget decisions.

When the conversation turned to fundraising and the challenge of language barriers, Jackie acknowledged the issue upfront, noting that she’s currently at A1 French. She emphasised collaborating with the board to overcome these communication gaps and mentioned Deloitte as a potential fundraising partner, a specific example. Ryan agreed with the overall approach and said that he’s actively working on his French with his partner to better prepare for those kinds of conversations. As a strategy, he also added that partnering with local businesses and restaurants in exchange for advertisingsomething the PDC successfully did during their Easter Egg Hunt, could be a practical way to support student initiatives with food and drinks for Apero events. There wasn’t any disagreement, just a growing sense that the treasurer’s role is becoming as much about advocacy and outreach as it is about managing the books.

James chimed in again, pointing out that getting initiatives to agree on money matters is pretty difficult and that miscommunication can get personal very fast (cue the knowing eye rolls from people from the current board, yes we know the struggle). Jackie said that the first step in conflict resolution is to just listen, and the others agreed.

Luca Ghislandi raised an important issue around how to distribute the budget between large and small initiatives. Ahmet proposed the use of flexible funds to better support smaller groups, which could be effective if carefully implemented. Ryan suggested tying funding to factors like initiative size, event attendance, and the overall value they bring to students based on interest and engagement. This approach prompted a concern from Luca, who noted that some initiatives may lack the funds to host events in the first place. Ryan acknowledged this and agreed it was a valid point, adding that in such cases, funding decisions could instead consider other criteria, such as the group’s proactivity and their broader efforts to enhance student life at the Institute

On reimbursements for informal hiring of students or resources, everyone agreed that better admin proof and tighter record-keeping are a must.

Overall, this round was heavy on accountability and transparency talks — but it also left us wondering: if students care this much, why don’t they show up to General Assemblies or challenge GISA’s financial decisions more often? It’s all easier said than done, we know.

Round 3: Ah! the Professional development committee (PDC) debate

Just when we thought the evening might settle into peace,  the unexpected happened. Jahnavi, a MINT student from the Migration, Mobilities & Boundaries track, stood up and threw her name into the race on the spot. A very impromptu nomination, something we haven’t seen in recent GISA elections

With the surprise twist out of the way, the candidates introduced themselves and laid out their visions. 

Ashwathy Sunilkumar, first year MINT-Environment and Sustainability and Nivitha Leena Naveen, first year MINT-Gender, running as a pair, promised to continue the PDC’s flagship initiatives while layering in new events. They focused on advocacy, sharpening communications, and building on the solid foundation left by the outgoing team. Laurens Houwink, First year MINT – Sustainable Trade and Finance, by contrast, focused on upskilling students and strengthening collaboration with the Institute itself, emphasizing a vision grounded in practical partnership. Jahnavi Eluru, first year MINT- Conflict, Peace and Security, fresh off her bold nomination, positioned herself as the voice of inclusivity, calling attention to the diverse needs of students across age groups, backgrounds, and languages.

When asked why the PDC matters as a specialized committee, the answers reflected distinct approaches. Nivitha stressed that career development is one of the Institute’s greatest assets, while Jahnavi pointed out that professional development touches every student’s dreams and ambitions. Laurens emphasized the importance of working closely with Career Services and Alumni Relations, the key players in the Institute’s career ecosystem.

A sharp moment came when Laurens was asked how he’d manage a team that’s already up and running. He acknowledged the challenge, speaking about the need to provide guidance and keep things moving smoothly. But Nivitha wasn’t about to let that go uncontested, she jumped in to underscore that leadership isn’t just about continuity; it’s about pushing forward with fresh ideas and energy which we felt was rather strong.

The dynamic between Ashwathy and Nivitha drew curiosity, especially around whether co-leadership might confuse their team. They confidently outlined their plan: Ashwathy would handle communications, thanks to her background, while Nivitha would focus on advocacy and events. Their pitch we felt was clear,  a proper division of labor paired with a collaborative working style — simple, sharp, and reassuring.

Then came the question everyone was itching to ask Jahnavi! Why the last-minute decision to run? Jahnavi admitted she initially lacked motivation but was inspired by the debate and the passion of the current board — particularly Ann, the outgoing president.

When asked how they’d bridged the gap of limited prior involvement, Laurens jokingly said he’d be happy to “work under Ann” to learn the ropes. Ann Tressa Pearlju, current president of the PDC, without missing a beat, shot back: “Once the elections are done, I’m out.” Angello Leon Meija, outgoing GISA President, followed up sharply, asking if the candidates had actually reached out to Ann ahead of the race and all the candidates said they did. 

Questions from the audience kept the pressure on. Hamna Chohan , Administrative Director, pressed them on whether they understood the responsibilities tied to the role. Jahnavi and Nivitha responded confidently, pointing to the need for student-centered advocacy and new initiatives. Laurens was more candid, admitting he wasn’t fully up to speed yet, a moment that felt both self-aware and slightly risky, just saying.

Jahnavi brought a fresh proposal to the table, advocating for workshops tailored to different age groups, career stages, and language needs, an idea that stood out for its thoughtfulness. Laurens, meanwhile, leaned on the importance of showing up and joining existing events to get things moving. When Arkoprabho Hazra, current GISA Communication Director,  asked for their elevator pitches to the Institute, Ashwathy and Nivitha focused on student-centered policies and programming, Laurens talked about negotiation and finding common ground, and Jahnavi about the importance of highlighting how the person offering the workshop is also set to benefit.

Ann closed the session with some parting wisdom: one-on-one mentorship may sound great on paper, but it’s often impractical given time constraints. Her message to all candidates? Understand the importance of operational continuity, because the best ideas still need a functional team behind them.

Overall, we felt the debates were well-intentioned but, honestly, pretty underprepared. As the press team that’s covered the GISA elections for a few years now, what stood out was the noticeable lack of communication between the candidates and the current board and, if we’re being blunt, a real shortage of fresh, creative ideas.

That said, it’s clear that all the candidates genuinely want to make these roles more inclusive and advocate for meaningful improvements. The intentions are there, it’s just that the debates themselves could have been sharper, and a stronger turnout from the student body would’ve definitely raised the energy in the room (So don’t sit and complain, show up for the debate happening today at 18:00 in A2).

Disclaimer: Please note that at the conclusion of the debate, we were informed that Shilpa Ann Thomas, first year – International Economics,  has also filed for the position of events coordinator. We encourage readers to review their profile on the GISA public candidate platform for more information.

Additionally, this piece was written and edited solely by members of the editorial board, who are not in any way participating as candidates in the elections.