Presidential Debate: Stefanko, Breuer, Batista Talk #FightTheFee, “Big Issues”

One Minute Run-Downs

Presidents:

Juliana Batista, ’16: Current Executive Vice-President of Student Assembly, co-writer of “We Were Asked to Be Quiet,” focuses on small, quality-of-life changes; increasing opposition to administration, increasing S.A. outreach.

Jeffrey Breuer, ’16: Student Assembly outsider, focuses on combatting sexual assault; increasing S.A. outreach and engagement; improving S.A. efficiency; improving administration-S.A. relations.

Matthew Stefanko, ’16: Student Assembly Vice President for Finance, co-writer of “We Were Asked to Be Quiet,” focuses on “big issues,” such as increasing student input in financial decisions, infrastructural choices; treating administration critically.

Executive Vice-Presidents:

Emma Johnston, ’16: Chairwoman of Community Life Committee, Arts and Sciences representative, focuses on quality-of-life improvements; creating a student-run grocery store with subsidies for lower-income students.

Peter Biedenweg, ’17: Member of the Communications Committee, focuses on improving community engagement and outreach; creating student-elected trustee report

The efficacy of Cornell’s student representatives and the nature of Student Assembly (S.A.)’s relationship fueled much of dispute at the March 5 S.A. Presidential Debate. Speech and Debate Society members Jennifer Kim and Nick Rasch moderated and focused the debate largely on philosophical, not platform, differences between the candidates.

Jeffrey Breuer, ’16, emerged as a dark horse candidate, promising energy and objectivity as an S.A. outsider and criticizing the other candidates for failing to achieve substantial change. Matthew Stefanko, ’16, emphasized his relevant experience as S.A. Vice President for Finance and promised to focus on “big issues” like tuition hikes and university planning. Juliana Batista, ’16, proposed a mixture of small-scale improvements and increased student input into administrative decisions.

The candidates disagreed with regards to the S.A. President’s relationship with the administration, the scope of the S.A. and the S.A.’s past successes and failures.

Administrative Relations and #FightTheFee

 In response to a question regarding each candidate’s biggest failure, Breuer concluded his answer by stating that protests of the health fee was “filled with rhetoric about the administration that I wasn’t comfortable with.”

The penultimate moderator question focused on whether the S.A. had been simply rubber-stamping the administration’s decisions. Batista stated that she felt that the administration only brought in the S.A. to “advertise” the fee and felt powerless. Breuer said that he viewed certain members’ conduct during the Day Hall occupation to be disrespectful, and thought the Student Assembly would best influence the administration through respectful conversation.

Stefanko reported that he was “shocked by the previous two answers,” and believed that students were not upset enough about the S.A.’s rubber-stamping. Stefanko asserted that the Student Assembly had been shut out of every big administrative decision.

Later, an audience member called Batista’s actions during the Day Hall protest “disrespectful.” In response, Batista argued that the interaction seemed disrespectful because many student protestors were passionate, frustrated and unsure of how to deal with the new fee. Batista stated that students greatly influence the administration by “making noise,” but admitted that there were better ways to make noise than “approaching Skorton in that way.”

Scope of Student Assembly Power

Four questions into the debate, the moderators asked the candidates how they would advance on their biggest priority issue as president. Stefanko stated that he perceived increased student dissatisfaction with administrative spending and, specifically, the health fee. In response, Breuer charged Stefanko with trying to “take on the tuition bubble that the entire country is facing,” and again argued that students had to work with, not against, the administration. Batista stated that “$350 could be the difference between high-rate education and putting food on the table” for some families.

A question on what made a given candidate better than their opponents also distilled the candidates’ different views on S.A. breadth. Stefanko asserted that he was a candidate who would possess the qualifications to work on “big issues,” including the proposed student-run grocery store in Annabel Taylor Hall and the $75,000 infrastructure fund that the Finance Commission created. Breuer countered that the S.A. President has to “straddle the line between being an effective advocate for students and working with the administration.”

Breuer argued that, when the administration does not welcome student input, students should instead focus on helping each other, such as by fundraising to help students who can’t afford the health fee. Batista stated that she would focus on small, but important, quality of life improvements, such as consolidating campus codes, continuing to help with mental health initiatives and expanding Big Red Shuttle hours.

Student Assembly: Successes and Failures

Due to his status as a S.A. outsider, Breuer identified instances in which past student assemblies had been ineffective and inefficient. When asked for his biggest criticism of the current president, Breuer lamented that student assembly meetings wasted “hours on little nuances, just to table the resolution.”

During the final portion of the debate, Executive Vice-President candidate Emma Johnston, ’16, stated that it was a “huge mistake to think that we enjoy sitting in the meetings talking about one sentence for an hour-and-a-half.” Batista harkened back to the 2006 student assembly when students were “throwing chairs when talking about Iraq,” to evidence the student assembly’s improvement.

Executive Vice-Presidential Debate

The night began with a debate between Executive Vice-Presidential candidates Emma Johnston, ’16, and Peter Biedenweg, ’17. Johnston currently serves as Chairwoman of the Community Life Committee and Arts and Sciences representative. Biedenweg lost the Fall 2014 Transfer Representative election and currently serves on the Communications Committee.

Biedenweg and Johnston both stated that the VP should primarily communicate with students and representatives from different colleges. The candidates primarily diverged in the content of their platforms. Johnston promoted a student-run grocery store in Annabel Taylor Hall and small quality-of-life improvements, such as health programming. In contrast, Biedenweg championed increasing communication by creating a student-elected trustee report and increasing administration reporting to students.

In the end, both races provide discernibly different alternatives and passionate candidates. The juxtaposition of an Executive Vice-President, Financial Commission Vice-President and dark-horse outsider promises an exciting, critical race.