Student Senate candidates debate hot topics
By Brigitta Burks, Staff Writer
May 2, 2007 | 11:15 p.m.
The first debate among the candidates for the Student Senate presidency took place Tuesday, but not without any hitches.
A fake caller had phoned in the cancellation of the debates earlier that day. The debates still took place, but with only one podium and dining room style seating.
Despite the drama, the four candidates were relatively unfazed. Audience members were equally unflappable and many sported t-shirts in support of their respective candidates.
What they’re all about
Tim Vonville, TOGA party candidate and Off Campus Life Commissioner, began by saying, “our party is based on qualitative excellence.” He cited his own and his party’s successes with Halloween and Pride Week as evidence of his qualifications. Vonville said he desires to take a “holistic view at our vast campus.” Vonville would also like to see the reconstruction of Pre College, specifically dismantling Alcohol Edu.
Patrick Heery, Pulse candidate and Academic Affairs Commissioner, was a sponsor in the recent successful resolution to create a student vote on the Board of Trustees. He said his party represents “voices from all over campus.” He also stated, “I know I may not be your choice for a drinking buddy,” but that he may be “the person you want at the helm when things get rough.”
Will Klatt, an independent, stated, “We’ve been through a pretty rough year.” He expressed his desire to revise the alcohol and marijuana policies and his dissatisfaction with the current senate. Klatt pointed out that all three other candidates have been members of the senate.
Shane Tilton, an independent and graduate student, would like more graduate student representation on the senate and a dismantling of the party system. He also declared, “I am concerned about the dispassionate student body.”
All candidates have Facebook groups which outline their entire platforms.
Shared governance
With the possible creation of a student vote on the Board of Trustees, the concept of shared governance has taken center stage at Ohio University. Each candidate had their own way of addressing the idea.
Vonville expressed the desire for more student power at a state level. He suggested joining forces with other public Ohio colleges to form the “Ohio Student Government Associations,” which would lobby in front of the state legislature.
Heery explained the need for an actual student vote as opposed to mere input, saying, “At the end of the day, it [input] is a suggestion box.”
Klatt had the most radical ideas in terms of student governance. Believing that the recent resolution would do little good as the student trustees are still outnumbered, he calls for the creation of a student assembly in which ideas can be discussed. Klatt also said that he would like a student center where the Oasis used to be, which could be used for such assembling.
Tilton had the least amount of confidence in the general student body, labeling most students as “dispassionate.” He also said that a vote on the Board of Trustees would be “moderately useless.” Tilton does call for evaluations of the administration, however, and for President McDavis to speak directly with Senate.
The McDavis Factor
Although not present, McDavis proved to be an important part of the debate. When asked about his support of the president, Heery said that he evaluates McDavis “issue by issue.” He applauded McDavis’ commitment to combating climate change but admonished McDavis for the “deprioritization of academics.”
Vonville, who has previously faced the accusation of being anti-McDavis, said, “We (TOGA) are not abrasive or anti-administration.” Vonville strongly advocated “qualitative communication.” After seeing the results of the elections and evaluations, which will reflect the confidence or lack thereof in McDavis, Vonville promises to take action.
Klatt was outspoken in his disapproval of the McDavis administration, having said, “I have no confidence in McDavis.”
When an audience member pointed out that some minority students support McDavis and his impeachment may negatively affect diversity, Klatt responded that he is for “black empowerment” and looks up to some of the speeches made by the Black Panthers.
The future of senate and athletic involvement
The athletic cuts were a defining issue of the evening. All candidates expressed a commitment to keeping such an occurrence from repeating.
Vonville suggested creating a student athlete senator position. Klatt pointed out his own previous involvement with the subject as he organized the first rally, while Heery pointed out his work with various committees on resolving the issue. Tilton expressed support for the manner in which current President Morgan Allen handled the matter and called for the need of a “voice on the inside.”
Parting words
Vonville was the first to give closing remarks. He said, “we come from the old and embrace the new.”
Heery said his overall goal was to “improve your experience and the value of your degree.”
Klatt proclaimed, “I don’t want the power,” and relayed his intent of handing it over to a student assembly once more.
Tilton closed by joking to the remaining audience, “You’re proving against my point of dispassionate students.” He then reiterated some of his points, including giving RAs priority scheduling and developing a stronger graduate student representation.
Another debate is scheduled next Tuesday at 6 p.m. in Baker 240. Whether or not the debate will be subject to prank calls remains unseen. In the coming week, however, issues will continue to unravel and students will begin to see which candidate is right for them.
---
Learn more about each party and candidate's platform here.