DEBATES FINISHED

Differences between each slate were outlined Thursday night in the SGA slate debate before elections on Monday and Tuesday.

Loving's slate plans to expand Student Senate by adding organizations that currently are not represented, according to the Loving Slate's Web site.

Also, the Loving Slate intends to incorporate the student activity fee into SGA's budget, Loving said.

Manship said he believes that restructuring SGA is not a good idea.

"We should continue with the established pattern," Manship said. "We should keep going with the way it is."

But Loving said change is essential to progress.

"In order to facilitate change, SGA has to adapt, and more organizations need to take part," Loving said.

But Loving mentioned that the plan stated on the Web site is not set in stone.

"There is no way that's the final plan for what's going to happen," he said.

Manship said the Loving Slate's lack of stability is a sign of its weakness.

"If you set a platform and then change it, how can you expect good leadership?" Manship said.

In two letters sent to the Daily News, SGA President Pro-Tempore Nick Zuniga said the Loving Slate never mentioned its plan to restructure SGA at the Student Senate meeting Wednesday.

"They mentioned redlining and restructuring University Senate but they never mentioned changing SGA," Zuniga said during a telephone interview. "They were kind of secretive about it."

Zuniga said he did not see the plans to restructure SGA on the Loving Slate's Web site until after Wednesday's address to SGA.

Katie Wiese, chair of the student services committee, said she did not hear the Loving Slate mention restructuring SGA in depth to the Student Senate.

Anita Brown, an SGA at-large senator, said she did not hear of the Loving Slate's proposal at Wednesday's Student Senate meeting either. She said she learned of the plan through Chris Borkowski, the Loving Slate's campaign manager.

Donna Dodson, candidate for secretary with the Loving Slate, said the slate brought up the restructuring plan while presenting its platform and has talked to senators about the issue.

Another issue where the two slates differed surrounded Saturday finals.

Both slates agreed that no Saturday finals is ideal, but each slate thought the issue should be approached differently.

"Saturday finals shouldn't be around here anymore," Manship said. "Students aren't used to studying on Saturdays, and it's hindering the learning process."

Loving said he also opposed Saturday finals, but they may be a necessary reality.

"Quality education does take time," Loving said.

Both slates also agreed with adding a multicultural class into the core curriculum, but Manship said he felt teaching multiculturalism cannot be limited to just one class. He said learning is a process that comes from gathering information from others through much time.

Another issue where a consensus was reached centered on campus safety.

"Students don't feel safe in the dorms," said Jeremy Kalvaitis, vice presidential candidate for the Loving Slate. "This problem needs to be alleviated, and we need to make sure that students can live in the dorms and feel safe."

One way campus safety would be ensured is to remove student Social Security numbers from all university documents and Web sites, according to the Loving Slate's Web site.

The Manship Slate's Web site did not state a proposal for campus safety.

Throughout the debate, each slate stressed student involvement in SGA and other campus organizations is necessary for creating positive changes on campus.

"We (SGA) are here for them," said Nataki Sanders, treasurer candidate for the Loving Slate. "Your voice is strong and we do care about what's going on in your life."

If elected, the Manship Slate will work closely with students, Manship said.

"We'll work from a bottom-up approach to get people involved," Manship said. "We feel that we can use teamwork to get things accomplished."

Both candidates said they felt the debate was a success for each slate.

"It was a well-spirited debate," Loving said.

Manship said he felt his slate's message was well-conveyed.

"We got the point across that we're honest individuals and care about students," he said. "If people want to stick to honesty, they'll vote for us."