As Bill and I prepare to leave office, it is only fitting that we leave the same way we came in: on an inaccurate Collegian editorial. Once again, The Daily Collegian has proven its inability to objectively assess an officer's term in office and judge it instead on whether the officer agreed with the editorial board's views.

From the first editorial, "New leaders must not shun old ways" in March 1989, it was clear that the Collegian did not agree with the students' choice for student government and consistently sought to force their views on the student body.

Editorial after editorial lambasted Bill or me for not doing something the way their endorsed candidate, Kendall Houk, or my predecessor, Seth Williams, would have done. This is evidenced by their disapproval of my failure to "continue the long-term goals started by other administrations."

Yes, it is true that Bill and I did not make opening the budget our top priority, as it was during last year's administration; however, we firmly stated during the campaign that would be the case.

Eighty-four percent of the students may have voted in favor of an open budget, but that 84 percent had the opportunity to vote for someone else. They didn't. Clearly, the open budget was not their top priority either.

The Collegian also stated I was not working in students' interests when I obtained senators' social security numbers. This time, they were flat-out wrong: I never requested social security numbers from administrators, nor did I ever receive any.

What I did request, however, was verification that senators were in compliance with the USG Constitution, which states all members must be full-time students. This request is nothing new: Seth Williams requested verifications during his term, as did Todd Sloan and countless other USG presidents.

This time, however, things were different. Senators got caught. Two were found to be below 12 credits; one was found not to be a student at all. That's accurate student representation?

Yet where was the editorial expressing dismay that non-students were trying to represent students? The Collegian, which prides itself on being "the watchdog of student government" was strangely silent; in fact, no effort was even made to verify the non-students status.

Had I not asked for verifications, who would have? The Collegian? The Senate itself? Or do you think those persons would have come forward of their own volition?

Next, the Collegian chose to criticize us for not speaking out in favor of a sexual orientation clause or against intolerant acts that occurred. Is the issue that I said nothing, or the fact that I did not call a press conference and blow my own horn every time I did?

In fact, Bill and I persistently spoke out against acts of intolerance and in favor of a sexual orientation clause. When African-American students were locked out of Old Main, Bill and I were the first ones to chastise administrators.

When James Whitehead made his vicious remarks, Bill and I spoke out at the rally. When anti-Semitic events occurred at a fraternity, Bill helped organize a rally at which we both spoke out. When the women's basketball team was denied a first-round home game for a shot at the national championship, we organized and sent a strong, loud message to Old Main and the athletic department.

Bill and I stopped at nothing to make sure student concerns were heard; 7:30 a.m. meetings were not uncommon, and in fact, one administrator was talked to on a running track, as the problem needed to be addressed immediately.

Our "inability to work with others" was cited as another reason for the Collegian's negative review. Who, I must ask, are these "others?"

In fact, USG this year had better working relationships with other student organizations that it has had in years. The Book Co-op occurred due to the cooperation of USG and the Area Residence Hall Students. Panhellenic Council Women's Awareness Week went off successfully with the help of the Department of Women's Concerns. Commonwealth Campus Student Government, long-ignored by student government, will be working with USG in one office next year, thanks to the working relationship established this year.

And when the Senate tried to impeach me for the first (or was it the third?) time, it was other student leaders who spoke on my behalf. Is that what the Collegian calls my "inability to work with others?"

Finally, the Collegian downplays our successes in two areas: academics and safety. During our campaign, Bill and I clearly stated those two areas were our highest priority. We did not promise lower tuition, we promised improved escort service.

We did not promise an open budget; we promised a 24-hour study center and longer hours for computer labs. We did not promise protests outside Dr. Jordan's office every Tuesday; we promised a Department of Safety. In short, we set out to do what we promised to do, not what the Collegian wanted us to do.

Our year was not perfect, Bill and I were unable to revitalize the Department of Human Relations as we had hoped to, and we were unable to begin a course evaluation guide as quickly as we would have liked. We hope our successors will fare better in those areas.

But for the Collegian to evaluate us on what they felt we should have done, rather than evaluate us on whether we fulfilled our campaign promises is irresponsible and unprofessional. I hope next year's editorial board shows more intelligence in their opinions.