Decision 2008: Debating and Writing
Rep. Fuller questions candidates of highly contested postion
Posted on April 3, 2008
SGA candidates and hopefuls for the student representative position to the Board of Visitors did their best Monday to present their platfroms.
“I wanted to get a feel for everyone because you see things online, but you don’t know who they are,” said sophomore Chelsea Gutshall.
40 people gathered Monday night in Taylor Hall to hear SGA candidates debate their platforms. Most of the time was spent discussing how realistic the candidates’ platforms were; responding to Monday’s column in The Breeze by outgoing Student Representative to the Board of Visitors Stacy Fuller. Fuller felt that the candidates did not have a good understanding of what the position entails.
“You don’t walk into a job interview without knowing what the company does,” said Fuller.
The debate began with two-minute opening statements by each of the 11 candidates before drawing questions from the box that had been available in the SGA office for students to submit questions. Candidates were given one and a half minutes to answer each question.
Questions ranged from “What three things do you love most about JMU?” to “How will you make SGA more visible to the student body?”
SRBOV candidates, Fred Rose, Stephanie Herzog, Marley Green and Alex Plunkett fielded most of the questions during the debate. Discussions included whether or not their platforms were geared more to the SGA rather than the Board of Visitors.
“I formed my platform by talking to students, getting their ideas, not mine, theirs,” Rose said.
Herzog described her platform points as a culmination of conversations with members of the administration.
“I’m pretty sure most of my points [platforms] relate to the Board of Visitors,” she said.
Plunkett used the question as an opportunity to share his concerns about the other SRBOV candidates’ platforms.
“I feel my platform is very different,” Plunkett said. “I feel when I read the other three candidates’ platforms, I’m reading platforms for Student Body President.”
Involved in a number of SRBOV platforms was a focus on making the campus greener through clean energy, which Green said taking the issue to the Board is “the next step.” Green said JMU was behind the clean energy bill after 83 percent of the student body supported the Green Fund last spring.
Fuller was present to ask her own questions to the SRBOV candidates inquiring as to how much they actually knew about the Board of Visitors when she asked the candidates to name a member of the board. All the candidates were able to say one except Green who simply replied, “Nope.”
Asked why they chose to run for SRBOV over Student Body President drew some interesting responses.
“I feel the issues of clean energy, and the cut sports programs are two issues that the student body care deeply about and I plan on voicing those concerns to the board,” Green said.
Herzog cited her passion for the student body as her reason for running while Rose responded “I want to go where a voice is needed and that is SRBOV.”
After taking in what the SRBOV candidates had to say at the debate, Fuller was better able to form her opinion on the candidates understanding of the job.
“Herzog had the best understanding of the position,” she said. “She used a lot of language describing what she would advocate for. That’s what the position is all about.”
Sophomore Telmyr Lee found the debate informative.
“Some of the platforms I didn’t know about and this was a chance for them to explain what they can do for us.”
The other candidates at the debate included those running for president: Chiquita King and Larson Thune; vice president of administrative affairs: Dan Stana; vice president of student affairs: Candace Avalos and Mallory Micetich; and executive treasurer: Parag Parikh and Tara Rife.
Thebreeze.org will post the results tonight.
