Members of The Pitt News’ editorial board met Sunday with SGB presidential candidates James… Members of The Pitt News’ editorial board met Sunday with SGB presidential candidates James Priestas and Sumter Link. During the meeting, the candidates discussed key points of their platforms and their stances on several prominent University issues. The following is a summary of the candidates’ stances on what The Pitt News editorial board believes to be the most important University and campaign issues.

Campus safety

Both Priestas and Link admitted to problems existing in the University’s SafeRider shuttle service, which students can call for a ride if they find themselves in an unsafe location late at night. The service, funded by the student transportation fee and operated by the University’s transportation committee, has experienced problems meeting the influx of requests for rides on weekend nights. Students also complain that the service’s boundaries – which exclude popular student destinations and residences like parts of Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, the South Side and the Waterfront – are too restrictive.

Priestas, who called SafeRider a “great service,” said he couldn’t promise to make any major changes to the program, but pledged that as president he would work with the transportation committee to increase the number of phone lines for the service. Priestas said that improvements in SafeRider could come from a number of small changes, rather than a comprehensive overhaul of the existing service. He also stressed the importance of maintaining campus safety through a number of alternative channels, including an increase in police patrols and security cameras.

Link, who said that the biggest problem with the service was that operators were overwhelmed with calls, pledged that, as president, he would work to improve the service, and also discussed the possibility of expanding university shuttle times in order to alleviate the number of the calls into SafeRider. In the presidential debate held Thursday, Link also called for an increase in blue light emergency call boxes in South Oakland.

Winner: A tie. Neither Priestas nor Link promised any definite changes to the SafeRider program. Instead, both candidates emphasized the importance of developing alternative means of security in order to take pressure off of SafeRider. Link’s idea for a blue light system could be very difficult to implement because the blue lights have to be placed on University property, which doesn’t extend throughout the more dangerous parts of Oakland. Priestas suggested an increased reliance on the Pitt Police – which is great, but not enough of a change to take dependence off of SafeRider and offer students a secure way of getting home at night.

Panther statue project

Priestas and Link were asked to expand on their part in the board’s decision to approve the estimated $60,000 panther-statue project, as well as how they planned to oversee the project if elected president.

Priestas, who voted for the project, said he believed that the panther statues would give campus organizations an equal chance in helping to increase Pitt pride. He emphasized that the project was funded from rollover money from last year’s student activity fee and was not taking money away from other organizations requesting allocations.

While Priestas maintained his support for the project, he admitted that he believed the board’s decision to approve the project over the summer was rushed. In terms of oversight, Priestas suggested possible locations for the statues throughout campus and nixed a plan suggested by SGB president Shady Heinen to solicit the statues to local businesses. Throughout his discussion of the statue project, Priestas maintained his optimism about the project’s future, predicting that students would become attached to – and might even call for an increase in – the panthers in the coming year.

Link, who also voted to approve the project this summer, said that he was disappointed in the way the project was handled. Link said that he saw the panther statues as a way to benefit a lot of students with varying amounts of campus involvement. Link did not elaborate on his plans for oversight of the project, but pledged that he would refrain from ordering more statues next year unless he was convinced that it was the wish of the student body.

Winner: Priestas. While both candidates voted for the project, which we believe was approved too quickly and without enough student feedback, Priestas gave a more realistic and detailed plan for oversight of the project for next year. Like it or not, the panther statues are here to stay.

Now we need to make sure that the statues are incorporated efficiently and inexpensively into campus. The future costs, safety concerns and locations of the panthers are all important issues in the oversight of the panther project this coming year, and Priestas appears to be the most informed on the costs and feasibility of all aspects of the project.

Feasibility of campaign promises

Priestas’ primary campaign promise is to regain a student vote on the Board of Trustees, which was removed in 1997. In his campaign statement, Priestas said that the return of the student vote on the Board of Trustees will “give the student body a legitimate presence to voice their concerns on important issues such as tuition and fee increases.” Priestas has also focused his campaign on an issue very near and dear to his heart: University pride and tradition, which he hopes to emphasize through projects like the panther statues and the “Code Blue” T-shirt, which he helped develop in his term on the board last year. Priestas also hopes to place a revamped student events calendar on the homepage for every University computer.

Link has focused his campaign on the implementation of a fall break, which, he said he has been working on for the past year during his term on the board. A referendum on student interest in the implementation of a fall break is currently open for vote on my.pitt.edu. In terms of progress toward achieving a fall break, Link only specified that he had met with dean of undergraduate students Kathy Humphrey several times during his term on the board.

He stressed that the University remains open to the idea of a fall break if it believes the students have an interest, and that if students support the idea of a fall break in the referendum, he will oversee the project to success. Link has also focused his platform on improving non-alcoholic programming on campus by making the student recreation center in the Union free to students on weekends.

He also emphasized the importance of “communication between students, administration and different facilities that students use at the University” in his campaign statement. As an example of his work toward achieving improved communication, Link cites his progress toward getting signs in campus laundry facilities to instruct students how to contact the proper channel for repair. When questioned on his specific progress toward achieving the signs, Link remained vague, only stating that he was working with University administrators to develop specially made signs.

Winner: Priestas. The most disappointing aspect of Link’s campaign promise for improved communication is that he seems incapable of demonstrating it himself. Rather than dealing with bureaucratic obstacles in getting signs posted in University residence halls, Link could have notified students of the correct number to call for laundry repair service as easily as hitting the “print” button and hanging the signs himself. Sure, specially made signs are nice, but a paper flyer will work in the meantime. And while the promise of a fall break is attractive, Link pledged this a year ago when he ran for board and it appears that his only progress has been getting the referendum on my.pitt.edu this fall.

Priestas also promises some lofty campaign goals, chief among them being the return of a student vote on the Board of Trustees. But his record on the board, which includes lowering the budget as the board’s business manager, and fulfilling his projects of establishing the “Code Blue” shirt and the republication of the Pitt Compass demonstrate his ability to follow through on campaign promises and projects.

Priestas is the more qualified candidate for SGB president. His record on the board demonstrates his competence as a leader and communicator and his ability to follow through on campaign promises. If The Pitt News took nothing else away from our meeting with Priestas it was this: The man loves Pitt. And we trust him to lead our university in a positive and progressive direction in the following year.