A collage of colored-T-shirt-wearing campaign supporters filled Gerlinger Lounge Tuesday night to listen to ASUO Executive hopefuls lobby voters. The candidates emphasized issues such as the diversity plan, the incidental fee and the potential Westmoreland sale. Sadly absent, however, were the masses of average students who remain unaffiliated with a campaign and generally apathetic to student government.
The president and vice president elected this year will set funding benchmarks for about $10 million dollars of incidental fees next year, meaning they have the power to potentially reduce students’ expenses. The ideal candidate requires both leadership experience and fresh ideas.
Following the debate, which we agree with several candidates was not a debate but a mere recitation of campaign platforms, we cannot make a sole endorsement. We want to analyze some of the pros and cons of the main contenders in hopes of helping voters decide.
Todd Mann and Jontae Grace: Both candidates bring demonstrable records of enthusiasm and dedication to student causes. Mann has distinguished himself by lobbying to the State Board of Higher Education for saving
Westmoreland and by serving on the Associated Students Presidential Advisory Council. Grace shows a clear understanding of the need for a solid diversity plan and presents clear, pragmatic ideas for its structure and implementation. They have developed inroads with underrepresented student groups, such as graduates and international students, that would serve them well. However, they have focused on residence hall students, and they will need to prove they can reach out beyond the students in University Housing.
Jared Axelrod and Juliana Guzman: Axelrod has been a steadying, rational voice on the Programs Finance Committee, the board that dispenses student money to groups, especially during the Commentator snafu last year. He has the best grasp of how the incidental fee works and the vital principle of viewpoint neutrality in student government. His knowledge and experience are clear benefits, especially related to the Student Conduct Code changes. We question their emphasis on lobbying, especially in the United States Student Association. We are not convinced that paying for lobbying is always an effective use of fees. Further, they are running with a large slate and we believe independent candidates provide the greatest variety.
Dallas Brown and Emily McLain: Brown is admittedly willing to take an independent stance on issues. His willingness to fight to keep the KWVA general manager position in student hands is admirable, even if mistimed. His experience on Senate is valuable, as is McLain’s debate and political experience. Their issues of increasing east campus transportation and energy sustainability are fresh. However, Brown has not demonstrated a consistent record of attendance at Senate meetings and press interviews, and his emphasis on making new PFC evaluation standards runs counter to viewpoint neutrality.
Jacob Daniels and Amy DuFour: Both have demonstrated leadership in the greek system and DuFour in the ASUO. We strongly agree with their call to revitalize the EMU and to lobby the administration to adjust financial aid for inflation. However, they rely heavily on greek support, and we question their ability to reach beyond that constituency.
The Executive debate matters. Be a citizen of this community and vote on Duckweb before Friday. Last year’s elections were won by narrow margins. Your vote matters.