Photo taken by Stephanie Willis / Special to The Leader
S.L. FULLER
News Editor
Past, present and future Student Association members were part of the audience last Thursday night to hear the 2014 SA Executive Election Debate. Presidential candidates Jefferson Dedrick, sophomore adolescent education and history double major, and Zachary Beaudoin, junior international studies and English double major, debated for two hours explaining their platforms and ideals in McEwen room G24. Dedrick and Beaudoin also had their running mates by their sides: vice presidential candidates Alexis Phillips, senior business major, and Tyler Colvin.
As a first-time Chair of Elections, this debate was the first one William Sattelberg had ever moderated. For the first half hour of the two-and-a-half-hour debate, all four candidates introduced themselves and their platform, answering general questions made by Sattelberg.
Sattelberg then followed with a standard debate structure, giving each speaker two minutes to answer each question with 45 seconds allotted to the opposing candidate for rebuttal. However, the candidates were not asked traditional debate questions.
The first question Sattelberg asked was “how well do you know the Student Association Constitution?” This allowed for each candidate to explain their knowledge of it, but didn’t allow for true debate.
One of the few subjects that Dedrick and Beaudoin disagreed on was the unwritten duties of the president. Dedrick said that he thinks that the Student Association Constitution and statutes cover every single issue, while Beaudoin felt there was room to take liberties and add things.
“Beyond what’s stated in the constitution, I think the presidency position is someone who represents the campus well,” said Beaudoin during his two-minute response. “Someone who … shakes those hands, gets to know people on a personal basis. And honestly, I think the president’s position is bringing everything full circle. Because we do have an administration and I personally feel like there’s a big gap between administration and the students. And I think the president needs to be that voice to kind of bring the student association together, bring the students together and the administration together and act as an advocate for the students but also to personalize the administration.”
In Dedrick’s 45-second response, he stated how he thinks all those things are already written down.
“I think that all of those things are very good things and I think that they’re covered in the Constitution and statutes,” said Dedrick. “Our Constitution and statutes are meant to be this comprehensive document that covers everything the Student Association does … And really, I think it’s comprehensive of everything that the president should be.”
“I think the Constitution is kind of general when it deals with the president. Statute E1 is ‘Duties of the President’ and it outlines them all very nicely, very succinctly,” continued Dedrick in his two-minute response. “And what I think the job of the president is to take where it says ‘liaison to the administration’ and use that for all that it’s worth. I think the Constitution and statutes say what the president needs to do and it’s up to the presidents themselves to say ‘I’m going to take this and I’m going to run with it’ and that’s what I’d love to do.”
Although Dedrick began disagreeing with Beaudoin, toward the end of his two-minute response, he appeared to agree with Beaudoin in saying that the president should expand upon what’s written because it’s not all there. So, in Beaudoin’s 45-second rebuttal, he agreed with Dedrick.
“I agree completely,” said Beaudoin after Dedrick’s response. “The beauty of a democratic constitution is that they are living documents. It encompasses a lot but it’s so broad that you can never be so specific. You need to be broad or else you get caught up in the constitution — you’re going to get violations of the constitution.”
Disagreeing then ultimately agreeing with each other was a running theme between the presidents for the rest of Dedrick and Beaudoin’s debate. Even when answering questions from the audience, submitted to Sattelberg via email and Twitter, each candidate would wave their 45-second rebuttal almost every time because they agreed with each other.
As the debate moved from presidential candidates to vice presidential candidates, waving the 45-second rebuttal remained a continuing trend. However, Phillips and Colvin did not agree with each other on some subjects.
One of the biggest responsibilities of the SA vice president is to coordinate Fall and Spring Summits. Sattelberg asked the vice presidential candidates what they would do to change them. Both Phillips and Colvin waved their rebuttals, but they did use their two-minute response time.
“There were questions asked this evening that point to student involvement,” said Colvin. “I would like to be much more proactive in seeking out students — I want students to represent positions of responsibility within the Summit. And I really want students to be more active in the support of the organization so they can truly make it their own.”
Phillips said she wanted to take advantage of the opportune time for communication with groups.
“I’ve attend this past Fall Summit and the past Spring Summit so I know what they entail. And, in terms of facilitating them, I think it’s really important to make sure that all the groups are getting the information that they need so they know how to get money, and the faces of the executive board, so that they know who to go to about issues that they may have,” said Phillips. “There’s already been a huge transition between Spring Summit to this Fall and it went smoother. It was more clear and more concise and those are things that I plan on continuing. Historically, that’s one of the sure times that the executive board and all the SA reps are going to be interacting with the presidents and treasurers of the groups. And that’s such a huge interaction, so we want to make sure that it’s an official one.”
Although the audience dwindled when the debate shifted to presidential to vice presidential debate, there were a few who felt it was important to stay for the vice presidential debate too.
“I stayed because I think that … the vice presidents, since they work more with the groups, are equally as important [as the presidents],” said audience member Courtney Loiacono, senior double major in English and women’s and gender studies. “I think that all four candidates really spoke eloquently on what they wanted to do if they were elected to the position.”
Overall, all parties thought the debate was beneficial to both candidates and prospective voters.
“I thought the debate went very well,” said Beaudoin via email after the debate. “I think a combination of things could have definitely improved the debate such as formatting, questions, and clear rules. Although, for our first debate and Will’s first debate moderating, Bravo to both sides!”
“What really stood out to me was the collaborative effort, even though everyone was really respectable. And each of the candidates — even though they were competitors — kind of fed off of each other,” said Loiacono. “I think that really speaks to the collaborative effort that SA, as a whole, is trying to go for.”