Tuition relief is important. Creating a campus cultural center is important. Improving city-university relations is important. But when considering the state of students and their peer representatives on this campus at this time, one thing takes precedence over all of them – communication.

A survey of students by the Government of the Student Body showed that 50 percent of 1,000 respondents “really don’t know much about GSB.” A survey of GSB representatives showed that more than 60 percent of them met with their constituents once a week or less, with 33 percent meeting once a month or less. Students are noticing, too. The one issue returned to again and again at the GSB debate two weeks ago was the body’s faulty communication skills.

But students have an opportunity to address this communication lapse between them and their representatives right now. Friday marks the first day of the GSB election – and polls are as near as the closest computer with an Internet connection.

The platforms of both executive slates – Henry Alliger/Brooks Nelson and Emily Jensen/Sara Faber – include planks addressing the government’s insulation from the student body. But one has made remedying this issue its central charge, while the other includes it as an afterthought behind noble but uncertain long-term plans.

We stand behind the slate that puts communication first, and that is the slate of Emily Jensen and Sara Faber.

We believe Jensen has viable plans to develop the external relations critical to educating students about GSB’s relevance and importance on campus. With her initiatives to strengthen ties with ISU athletic department, mandate GSB interaction with students and build a centralized events calendar, Jensen appears to have the vision to put GSB on a better track.

The slate’s plans to hold GSB accountable and better collect student opinions through roundtable discussions, brown bag lunches and open forums are more practical than other ideas proposed. They are easy to implement and produce immediate, tangible results.

Only when students understand GSB’s role and participate in its efforts will it be able to make concrete improvements.

This is where Alliger falters. Although he is a committed advocate for student interest – evident in his involvement with ActivUS and GSB – his goals seem to extend beyond GSB’s reach and influence in the community and state.

Alliger’s plans to fight tuition hikes through the creation of a state student association and to provide more entertainment options through infrastructure changes to Welch Avenue are attractive. But we believe these multi-year initiatives are too uncertain for a student population demanding immediate and transparent results from a body they perceive to be inefficient.

Getting things done on this campus is hard enough – can we risk losing a year trying to sell student leaders at two other universities on an expensive and contentious program? Can we risk putting a city infrastructure project that may lead to more entertainment options on top of GSB’s to-do list when basic things like student awareness go unaddressed? Will there be a supportive GSB president down the line to continue these initiatives? We’d be cautious of uncertainties like these even on a campus with a thriving student government.

Jensen’s platform isn’t flashy, but it calls for the things we need.

Cast your vote at Vote.iastate.edu.