SGB presidential candidates face off in debate

Current Student Government Board member Matthew Riehle stood up at the presidential debate… Current Student Government Board member Matthew Riehle stood up at the presidential debate Tuesday night to pose a question to his fellow SGB members and the prospective presidents of next term’s Board — what U.S. president do they best identify with?

“Just because everyone says I have this outrageous smile, I think it would be pretty nice to see how I’d look with wooden teeth,” said James Landreneau, identifying with George Washington.

Hasley cited Abraham Lincoln’s gawky frame and penchant for storytelling as his reason for choosing the 16th president of the United States.

But it wasn’t all jokes Tuesday night as Landreneau and Hasley squared off in Nordy’s Place, discussing issues ranging from SGB’s relationship with both the student body and administrators to their plans for the next Board. Pitt students will cast their vote for either Landreneau or Hasley this Thursday, Nov. 17.

Kari Rosenkaimer, the chair of SGB’s election committee, and current SGB president Molly Stieber moderated the hour-long debate, with student audience members asking questions at the end. It took place in front of about 20 students, with current SGB members and prospective candidates making up nearly half of the audience.

Both candidates discussed their stance on the allocations process, pledging to make changes if elected.

Landreneau brought up revising the allocations manual each year to keep up with changing precedents as a key issue in his platform. Currently, the Board sets precedents for allocations that aren’t always carried over each year, thus causing confusion for the student groups that request money.

He said he felt that the Board needs to keep student organizations abreast of its allocations policy.

“I’m actually totally in favor of changing [the allocations manual] every single year,” Landreneau said. “And that’s because as a new board comes in, they bring in new precedents, they bring in new thinking heads, and who’s to say the next eight board members think the same that I do?”

Hasley said he agreed that the allocations process requires constant revision with the changing needs of students.

The candidates also focused on voter turnout and general involvement with SGB on the part of Pitt’s student body.

Hasley said that as part of his campaigning, he has been spending a lot of hours talking to students in Market Central in an attempt to raise last year’s 19 percent voter turnout to Rosenkaimer’s goal of 25 percent.

“Conversations that students otherwise wouldn’t get if they’re not involved in an organization; I’ve tried to expose SGB to as broad a cross-section of students as possible,” he said.

To further connect the Board and students, Hasley has proposed public office hours for both the Board members and the president. Under his platform, Hasley has proposed that all members would have to spend a minimum of two hours each week in public places like the Litchfield Towers Lobby.

Landreneau also hopes to make the Board more accessible. He said that if elected, he plans to implement monthly Pitt Hall meetings that would allow students a chance to bring up any issues or suggestions they have before the Board.

“The open floor section that we have occurs after [the weekly Tuesday meeting], many students don’t want to sit through allocations for 45 minutes and then make their announcement here,” Landreneau said.

The candidates were particularly concerned with the relationship between Pitt students and the rest of the Oakland community. Hasley emphasized his work with the Interfraternity Council, of which he is currently president. As president of IFC, he sat down with non-student Oakland residents and drafted a proposal to help create connections between Pitt students and the community.

In addressing the relationship with Pitt students and the rest of the Oakland community, Landreneau said the Board president can’t accomplish anything on his own. If elected, he said he will bring the student leaders together in an on-campus summit to address the issues together.

The two candidates emphasized throughout the debate that they are good friends and wore each other’s campaign T-shirts to prove so.

Landreneau said that he feels Hasley would make a great president. He said that if he loses, he intends to remain involved in student government.

When asked what he would do if he lost, Hasley said, “[I] would update my Facebook status, ‘Congratulations, James Landreneau. I’m proud that you are my president-elect,’ and I really do feel that way.”