Campus Press sponsored event highlights election tickets
Due to a reporting error, The Campus Press incorrectly stated that Tri-executive candidate Taylor Portman chose to provide free HIV testing from Wardenburg over providing funding to diversity groups on campus. A a quote from Value candidate Jamie Smolski was also taken out of context. The Campus Press prides itself on accuracy and regrets the errors.
University of Colorado Student Union election candidates convened Monday at a Campus Press sponsored debate to discuss their stances on various issues and promote voter turnout.
Present at the debate were candidates from the UCSU Tri-executive Unity and Value tickets as well as UCSU Co-executive candidates Hawkins and Homies.
The candidates sat with their fellow ticket members behind tables in the Math 100 Lecture Hall. An audience of nearly 200 people was in attendance as the candidates took turns answering questions posed by the mediator.
The first question posed was: If elected, what would be your first priority?
Unity candidate Sara Davine responded first. She said that, if elected, the Unity ticket’s first priority would be to address budget questions.
“We need to look for solutions to the funding crisis,” said Davine, a junior international affairs major. “I think it’s important we look to state funds.”
The Value ticket was next to respond. Jamie Smolski, a junior marketing major, said that the Value ticket’s first priority would also be to address budget issues.
“The university is currently 6 percent away from being a privately funded institution,” Smolski said. “State funding is something we need to address immediately.”
Following the Value ticket, the two candidates from Hawkins and Homies responded. Kyle Alan Hawkins took the microphone first and stood up. He was wearing untied skateboard shoes, cut-off shorts and a red T-shirt, in contrast to the formal attire worn by all the other candidates, his campaign partner included.
“Sons of Boulder!” Hawkins shouted. Numerous men in the audience responded with a loud chant.
Hawkins subsequently delivered a memorized CU version of the pre-battle inspiration speech delivered by Mel Gibson’s character in the movie “Braveheart.” He concluded with “They can take our votes, but they can never take our freedom!”
Then Hawkins’ partner, Thomas Nelson Rowe, took the microphone. Standing, he asked the audience to pause for moment of silence in consideration for the victims of the Virginia Tech school shooting, which occurred that morning.
Rowe then outlined Hawkins and Homies’ plan. He explained that Hawkins and Homies would address budget issues by allocating funds to various new projects including a large-scale music concert and the construction of a skate bowl on campus, which would be used as an outdoor pool during the summer.
“Everyone will enjoy that, especially the ladies,” said Rowe, wearing a pink mesh hat with Hawkins and Homies printed on the front.
The rest of the debate followed a similar format. Among the topics of debate mentioned were diversity at CU, sustainable energy sources, fiscal accountability and how to improve CU’s public image. Despite holding differing views of how each issue should be tackled, the three tickets agreed on the pertinence of each of the topics.
Each ticket was given an initial three-minute response. Once each ticket had been given an opportunity to comment, additional time was provided for the candidates to respond to comments made by their competitors. During the response times candidates from all three tickets emphasized their points.
In several cases the Unity and Value ticket candidates used the their response time to exchange accusations of faulty budget-cutting. Unity candidate Charles Gilford aroused noise from the audience by questioning Value candidate Taylor Portman’s commitment to fostering diversity because finance board cut funding the Student Outreach and Retention Center for Equity. Portman countered with claims that he does in fact support diversity and pointed out that he was only an ex officio member of the board, meaning he had no vote.
All three groups expressed support for encouraging diversity at CU.
“The best way to improve diversity is through diversity on the ticket,” said Hadley Brown, a senior English major.
Hawkins expressed his support of diversity with a catch phrase “erasism instead of racism.”
When the mediator had finished with the questioning, the candidates fielded questions from the audience.
The questions posed by the audience reflected a general confusion as to what distinctions could be made between the stances of each ticket. One audience member had this to say.
“I’ve been a student at CU a long time, seven years now, and every year is the same. Everyone says the same thing,” He said. “How are you going to avoid being a figurehead?”
Unity and Value candidates responded with promises to improve diversity.
Hawkins and Homies said they would install a system of checks and balances into UCSU if elected.
Among other questions posed, one suggested that Pan-Hellenic-affiliated candidate Davine’s involvement in the Pan-Hellenic organization might be a conflict of interest with her candidacy.
“That is a completely unfair question,” said Davine before denying any crossover of influence. “My involvement in Pan-Hellenic and UCSU is mutually exclusive.”
After the event the Value candidate Smolski said that many of the primary issues were the same for each ticket, students need to educate themselves on the differences between them.
You can view UCSU candidate profiles and cast your vote by visiting the UCSU Web site.
Contact staff writer James Collector about this story at james.collector@thecampuspress.com
