Somehow, most of the important issues in the current campaign for GSB president and vice president have disappeared from public debate. This makes sense since only two candidates, Jon Mullin and I, have created an ambitious and realistic platform, leaving opponents to use tactics of distraction.

We have repeatedly been criticized for our lack of GSB experience, as though that precludes us from being effective leaders. However, when we let “work speak for itself,” it is clear that Jon and I are by far the most qualified candidates running for GSB president and vice president.

The Faurote/Lio and Bana-siak/Albright slates lack originality, vision, leadership, and they bring us no realistic hope for change.

If you’ve read the candidate profiles or the many Daily articles, you probably understand why we feel qualified to hold ourselves to the most ambitious platform of this campaign. We truly believe we can accomplish our goals while training future leaders and forging a new path toward long-term change.

Some say it will be harder to accomplish our goals without GSB experience. This may be true. Would you rather vote for candidates who have extensive experience with every level of public government and can apply those experiences to specific student issues, or candidates who have isolated themselves within the very student government that has caused student apathy and is incapable of making progress with outside institutions? Would you like to see a GSB president and vice president who have challenged power structures and won, or two people who have no concept of how to fight for their beliefs, forcing you to accept their concessions?

The platforms of my opponents show contempt for the student body, as they assume students expect very little. I admit that they have admirable goals, and I support nearly every item on their nearly nonexistent platforms. However, a voter should automatically expect all of us to have these goals in mind if elected, and should expect far more. Jon and I will surpass your expectations.

While Banasiak and Albright have paid lipservice to increasing entertainment options for students, Jon and I have organized free concerts, been involved in local radio, helped coordinate a free dance with diverse forms of music and worked to bring this campus some of the most important speakers of our time. Banasiak and Albright have done nothing.

Faurote and Lio merely speak of “increasing communication” and respecting diversity. In the meantime, Jon and I built our platform by actually talking to students. We will ensure that all students feel that GSB respects their ideals and values. If elected we will speak with students every day of our administration, rather than pretending to speak for them.

We also have the most practical plan for a multicultural center and have been extremely active in speaking to groups like Alliance, Black Student Alliance, the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance and other organizations. Jon and I are the only candidates willing to work for real improvements for every student of every culture on this campus.

While other candidates seem to believe that GSB will give them the power they need to accomplish their goals, Jon and I are more realistic. We see GSB as a large community organization that is capable of uniting students towards the attainment of common goals, yet it has failed to do so.

Unfortunately, despite the efforts of some senators, the larger GSB has detached itself from its constituents, and as a body, rarely engages in direct communication with them. Jon and I see the potential for GSB to bring respect to students as the majority of Ames residents, as a significant portion of the Iowa population, and as human beings with rights.

I have enjoyed the conversations I have had thus far with the other candidates and do see them as potential leaders. However, they have accomplished nothing as of yet. Banasiak pretends he was responsible for the ex-officio seat on the city council, even though Ted Tedesco has been working to create this position for a year and a half. At this time, Jon Mullin and I confronted Mr. Tedesco about this possibility at a candidate forum I organized for the city elections. Due to our involvement in this issue, the seat would have been created regardless of who was in power during the last year.

At the same time, we have seen huge increases in tuition while Banasiak, Albright and Faurote were involved in GSB, accompanied by little action, no action or completely ineffective action from these individuals.

Jon and I represent the future of GSB. We must see improved recycling on campus. We must see a multicultural center integrated into the Memorial Union, to create a more inclusive environment for all students. We must ensure that students who wish to live off-campus understand all of the hidden costs involved and know the record of all landlords in the city. We must and can stop huge tuition hikes by applying activist models and our own experiences. We must have true power in our local government by giving a student voting rights on the council.

Most importantly, we must see that GSB becomes a body that speaks with us rather than for us.

Bring about a real change in the GSB. Take the power back to students! Vote Denner/Mullin on March 10-11.

Matt Denner is a candidate for GSB president. This is the first in a series of three guest columns by the presidential slates.