I’m writing today with the express purpose of discouraging you from casting a vote for the Studenski/Robert ticket in this week’s GSB presidential election.

My opposition to these candidates isn’t due to personal animosity toward either student. I imagine they’re good sons to their mothers, good friends to their buddies and dedicated students. If that were all that was required to be a good representative of the student body, they would have my vote. But being a good representative requires more.

Good representatives must respect the positions of others, especially the student body and senators with whom they work. Based on his past performance as a senator, I believe that Ben Studenski does NOT respect the opinions of others.

In the past, when he’s been unable to convince his fellow senators that his way of thinking is the right way, he’s attempted to subvert the process. It’s obvious that he sincerely believes his way is best for all, but that doesn’t excuse his methods.

The most consistent example of his disregard for the opinions of others can be found in the former senator’s battle against specialty seats.

These seats exist to ensure that traditionally under-represented groups of students have a voice in the student government. In GSB’s current constitution, there exists a provision for four such seats: Disabilities, American Ethnic Minority, Non-Traditional and International.

In recent years, there have been frequent attempts to remove specialty seats from the constitution. Each time this has occurred, students have come out in favor of them and defeated the threat to their continued existence.

One of the more dramatic episodes of this ongoing struggle occurred in 1996. It ended with students arriving en masse at the Memorial Union, in support of specialty seats. That event was characteristic of this debate; it always ends with students saying, “Keep specialty seats!”

Studenski disagrees with the majority of students who support specialty seats. I don’t fault him for that; he’s entitled to his opinion. My problem with him resides in the manner in which he attempts to achieve his goals: i.e., “by hook or by crook.”

I’ve spent two hours listening to audio cassettes from the GSB meeting of Dec. 3, 1997. That meeting saw the ratification of the new constitution of the Government of the Student Body. It was the culmination of a year’s work and a struggle to replace the old, flawed constitution.

At the onset of that meeting, Senator Studenski moved to waive Senate Rule 14. He hadn’t proposed his “Amendment 8” on time, and the rule prevented him from proposing it after the deadline. The senators accommodated him.

Hours into the meeting, Studen-ski revealed the contents of Amendment 8: he sought to abolish specialty seats. SNAFU! An extremely messy, old can of vermicelli was re-opened. There was an instant uproar on the senate floor, and several senators threatened to walk out, denying quorum.

They were upset because Studenski had over a week to propose his amendment and instead chose to deny his fellow senators the opportunity to consider it before that meeting.

He waited until the halfway point of a marathon GSB session to spring it on them, knowing damn well it would upset the process. After much heated debate, the amendment was withdrawn.

“Hook” had failed. Next, he tried “Crook.” Early this semester, Ben Studenski tried to steal the Disabilities seat. Here’s how:

Per the voter registration process, students had to register on Jan. 21 or 22 in order to vote in this week’s election. This process was not well publicized.

When he registered, Studenski saw that no one had yet registered to vote for the Disabilities seat. What an opportunity! Up until the final hour, Ben Studenski, a staunch opponent of specialty seats, was the only person registered to vote for the new Disabilities senator.

Studenski most likely would’ve voted for one of his cronies who (like him) disagrees with the very concept of specialty seats, effectively eliminating the Disabilities seat.

Do we want a president who employs such underhanded tactics to achieve his ends? Do we want the gridlocked senate that would result, with disgruntled senators threatening to walk out on their executive officer?

Studenski and Robert have been waving a lot of money around trying to buy your vote. But such a president might be far more expensive than you imagine.

---

James O’Donnell is a graduate student in painting, drawing and printmaking from Mesa, Ariz.