The second and last Student Senate debate was yesterday and involved all the members of each party's executive board.
Both parties addressed many of the same issues discussed during the first debate.
OUnity presented itself as the party that better represents Ohio University students, and Vision presented itself as the party that has the knowledge and the experience required to achieve goals.
All three executive Vision members -President Brian Footer, Vice President Kate Kryder and Treasurer Justin Hunt -have held positions on Student Senate.
Having the experience of being on Student Senate is not only necessary
but imperative said Kryder in her opening statement.
Though none of the three executive members of OUnity -President Andrew Bittner, Vice President Chris Surber and Treasurer Stephen Rice -have had positions on Student Senate, their advantage is their grounded relationship with the student body, Bittner said.
We are motivated by allowing students to have full access to Student Senate he said in his opening statement.
Footer displayed his experience in answering questions about Athens Comprehensive Plan. While on Student Senate, Footer created the Think Tank to combat the plan to rezone Mill Street.
It would effectively turn Mill Street into a student ghetto
Footer said.
Bittner, who has not worked with city council while on Student Senate, said OUnity is composed of normal students who want to utilize ideas other students have.
OUnity emphasized the importance of using the athletic programs at other schools, such as Ohio State University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison as models for what OU's athletic program should strive for.
Bittner, who has met with OU's new football coach Frank Solich to discuss the future of OU athletics and get input on how to increase awareness, said the university should strive to build traditions similar to Big Ten and other athletically strong schools.
But, Footer said trying to mirror big universities is not as responsible as mimicking peer universities while OU is fiscally stretched.
When asked to describe the opposing party in one word, OUnity described Vision as arrogant, while Vision described OUnity as unrealistic.
Some of the things that OUnity has proposed are things that Student Senate has already tried and found impossible to achieve
Footer said.
The excuse that something has been done before and can't be done again is lazy and irresponsible, Rice said.
The members of each party were happy with the performance of their executive candidates. Doug Cloud, Vision's candidate for the College of Communication, said Vision's candidates displayed their knowledge and experience.
Drew Taylor, OUnity's candidate for the College of Arts and Sciences, said Vision does not bring any new ideas for issues worrying average students.
I still have no idea what Student Senate has done
and that's something that OUnity wants to work on -getting students involved.
Yesterday's debate was the last before the election on May 19.
17
Archives
Mike Goroff
200505113467midsize.jpg
