Editor’s note: Candidates are listed in alphabetical order by presidential candidates’ last names.
For more coverage of the 2011 SG Presidential Elections click here
All four Student Government presidential and vice presidential candidates said at the SG presidential debates Monday night that they will work to ensure students, especially freshmen, feel informed and comfortable on campus.
The Freshmen Leadership Council, Black Student Union and University Recreation Sports Club Advisory Council hosted the first debate, and Sigma Chi fraternity hosted the second one.
Garrett Dupre and Jarrett Richard of the “Open Source” campaign were not present for the Sigma Chi debate.
All tickets promoted what they considered to be their most important initiatives that incorporate student interest.
Aaron Caffarel and Alli Robison of the “NOW” campaign said their initiative geared toward reforming student involvement in the University Center for Advising and Counseling could increase graduation rates. Their initiative would change how long students could be members of UCAC, which is currently four semesters.
Dupre and Richard said they want to carry on the administration of current SG President J Hudson and Vice President Dani Borel by increasing the amount of student awareness about SG on campus.
“As Student Government, we need to focus on the freshmen because they are our future,” Dupre said. “Right now, a lot of the problems freshmen are having are because of a lack of information.”
David Jones and Kacey Brister of the “Defining Our Future” campaign said freshmen involvement is “crucial.” Jones said he wants to implement a “mentor” program in which seniors are paired with underclassmen.
Cody Wells and Kathleen Bordelon of the “Together LSU” campaign said their main initiative is to “make sure every student feels like they are a part of Student Government.” Wells said he and Bordelon plan to launch a survey to gauge freshmen interest about sports and activities, the results of which could be used to recommend changes to UREC.
The candidates also addressed parking and dining issues on campus.
Robison said she and Caffarel will advocate running a bus from commuter lots to the UREC facilities.
Caffarel said he and Robison met with David Heidke, director of LSU Dining, who told them it would not be feasible for leftover food to be donated to shelters, but Caffarel said he and Robison would be in favor of a roll-over meal plan system.
Dupre and Richard stressed that LSU Dining functions as a business. They said reducing the number of meals on a meal plan is a possibility.
Brister said she and Jones plan to reallocate all University parking lots to specify them. Jones called the waste from meal plans “preposterous” and said leftover food should go to shelters and organizations.
Bordelon said once the new parking garage is built, she and Wells hope to reallocate parking zones as well. Wells said he knows SG has tried in the past to have LSU Dining donate leftover food to soup-kitchens, but it has not been possible. He said he is in favor of a meal roll-over plan.
While NOW and Together LSU said they support a constitutional amendment to protect TOPS, Open Source and Defining Our Future had different variations of answers.
Dupre said students “need to justify why they need the money.”
“If we want to see future economic growth, we have to make our workers smarter,” Dupre said.
Brister said she and Jones do not support the current proposed amendment to protect TOPS because TOPS is left unfunded and unprotected if the amendment is not passed by the Legislature and the residents of Louisiana.
Wells said one of the most important ways for SG to lobby for the University is by having the SG president sit on the LSU Board of Supervisors. He plans to seek the position, as does Caffarel.
Dupre did not comment on seeking the Board position other than saying whomever is the SG president will “have a voice” with much clout. Jones said he will not seek the position if elected.
“The position on the Board is important, but I would not take it because we need all hands on deck here,” Jones said.
During the Greek debate, presidential candidates could pose questions to one another. Wells asked Caffarel and Jones who they would endorse if their tickets were not part of the runoff elections.
Robison said she and Caffarel would let the candidates running on their tickets decide if they wanted to endorse a different ticket, and if she and Caffarel personally endorsed someone, it would not reflect the view of “NOW” as a whole.
Brister said she and Jones would not endorse another ticket because it would be “unjust” to the candidates running on their tickets who have pledged themselves to “Defining Our Future.”
 
 
____
Contact Andrea Gallo at [email protected]