[Editor’s Note: Then-Assistant Opinions Editor Nick Stamatakis penned this editorial on behalf of the majority opinion of The Pitt News editorial board. Several months later, it came to The Pitt News’ attention that Mr. Stamatakis was involved with a secret society, the Druids, that put some focus on getting Student Government Board presidential candidate Gordon Louderback elected to the Board. Although this editorial reflects the majority opinion of the editorial board, it was still a conflict of interest for Mr. Stamatakis to participate in the endorsement interview with the candidates and to write the editorial because of his involvement with the group. He did not disclose to The Pitt News that he was a member of the secrety society, a violation of the newspaper’s Code of Ethics.]

When The Pitt News editorial staff met with Student Government Board presidential candidates Natalie Rothenberger and Gordon Louderback this Sunday, one thing was eminently clear.

Both candidates are qualified to be next year’s SGB president.

As current Board members, both understand the powers and limitations of the position. As seasoned insiders who are clearly very passionate about Pitt, both know what works and what doesn’t in student government. Their plans are reasonable and have the potential to effect change at Pitt.

But most informative for us was having the opportunity to ask each candidate, in detail, how their initiatives would improve accountability. Specifically, how they would each hold Board members accountable to each other and hold the Board accountable to students.

Neither candidate believes that the current Board presents a good model of accountability. Both recognize flaws. With student leaders involved in challenging course loads and activities, or simply disinterested, many deprioritize their elected responsibilities, either by letting their projects flounder or by not satisfying office hour requirements.

Additionally, the $2.3 million Student Activities Fund is alarmingly unmonitored. Formula groups — organizations such as student-run radio station WPTS and information service TeleFact that are currently guaranteed a steady allocation from the fund — face no financial scrutiny or oversight. The Allocations Committee itself is often not aware of what funds it has already proportioned and is uninformed of how much money remains to allocate to student groups.

Given that these accountability issues are, in our opinion, obvious roadblocks for effective government, it is important the next candidate be the strongest advocate for stricter oversight and more accountability.

That candidate is Gordon Louderback.

On the financial side, Louderback has made clear he will audit and evaluate the formula groups. While Rothenberger made a similar pledge, Louderback has already taken steps in the right direction, having used his authority on the Board to investigate the funding and usage of TeleFact, a group whose undiminished funding in the face of decreasing student use has been a source of recent contention. This kind of concrete action as a Board member shows a seriousness not as burning in Rothenberger, who wasn’t as aware of the information about TeleFact’s usage that Louderback was.

Additionally, Louderback’s proposal to clearly make available allocated funds makes sense. Rather than being buried or inaccessible, Louderback proposes a running chart displayed on the SGB website to show Allocations members and the student public how much money has been spent, how much money remains, and where money has been sent.

Louderback also promises to be assertive with Board members not fulfilling duties, and was more convincing in his willingness to take a harsh line than Rothenberger. Our favorite specific suggestion was his promise to move unresponsive Board members to easier projects through active guidance: An action that still keeps members productive, but one that keeps pressure on members not to be “demoted.” While Rothenberger mentioned that a potential strategy for discouraging inaction could be witholding the pay of Board members — who receive a monthly stipend for their work in student government — she seemed less than confident that such a deterrant would be actively implemented.

Besides witholding pay, Rothenberger’s primary strategy for accountability revolves around a monthly email to inform students of the Board’s actions. While she did convincingly argue such an email would not just be spam, we are unconvinced such a system would paint a completely reliable picture of the Board’s progress. She explained that, to construct the email, Board members would write brief posts summarizing their monthly progress on their initiatives, and then the SGB president and other committee members would edit these posts. The pressure of an impartial third-party would be absent, leaving a potentially useful tool for accountability at risk of turning into an SGB sounding block.

This is not to say Rothenberger’s program is without merit. We do like her willingness to organize a more activist Board. The fact she chose to run with Sowmya Sanapala, a junior campaigning partially on shifting the University toward clothing providers with fairer labor practices, shows that Rothenberger wishes to use SGB more actively as a voice for student issues. This is a stance we urge Louderback to consider, especially with his vague stance on how to help students who are opposed to the unwritten transgender policy the University implemented last spring, establishing that transgender students and faculty must use bathroom facilities that match the gender on their birth certificate, rather than the gender with which they identify.

This is not an endorsement of either candidate’s slates. The Fifth and Forbes slates running alongside Louderback and Steel and Stone slates running alongside Rothenberger are campaigning on a range of issues, from the practical to the far-fetched. For every proposal for online appointment-booking for Student Health or modified meal plan choices (two realistic ideas by Sarah Winston on Fifth and Jason Katz on Stone respectively) there are proposals to implement an academic grace period before finals and to increase the range of campus wireless Internet access, which are two ideas from Mike Nites of Steel and John Cordier of Fifth with very little chance of being realized.

Those Board candidates unaffiliated with any presidential candidates, including those on slates Pitt United and Kessler/Larkin and independent Lauren Barney, should also be considered, if only to widen the scope of variety on the Board. However, you will have to sort through these choices on your own.

But to return to the question of president, we can offer a reccommendation. While both candidates are capable leaders, we believe one choice is better for accountability and the overall success of Pitt’s Student Government Board: Gordon Louderback.