University of Virginia Library

Council Candidates Identify Issues, Defend Views

Andrew Potler

Today and tomorrow students will
select senior class officers, two college
representatives to Student Council, and
decide the fate of the Senior Class
Constitution and the petition of the
Union of University Students.

The polls will be open from 9 a.m. to
5 p.m. both days. Paid poll watchers will
require students to produce their
identification cards or the voucher of
another student before voting. At the
polling places students will also have an
opportunity to sign a petition requesting
a Federal Grand Jury investigation of the Kent
State events.

Eight students are running for the two seats
on Student Council. They are Allen Freeman
and Tom King of the Jefferson Party; Ronald
Low and Jack Farrell as independents; Michael
Capobianco and Jacob Ferrence of the
Liquifactionist Party; and Phil Chabot and
Andy Potler of the Virginia Progressive Party.

Following are position of three of the eight
candidates contending for the council seats
(The Cavalier Daily regrets it was unable to
obtain a picture of Mr. Low):

Tom King

The students of the College will be asked to
take sides on two critical issues during the
forthcoming Student Council elections. The
most crucial of these involves the question of
whether there really need be a Student Council.
During the past several years, the Council has
been reluctant to assume its role as the director
of student action and opinion and has
abdicated in favor of ad hoc groups, strike
committees, and student coalitions. This is not
to say that these groups did not perform the
task well. However, the actions of past Student
Councils have raised serious questions as to the
need for the organization. The present Student
Council has refused to abdicate responsibility
and has met the issue of student rules head-on;
and in our minds reached a satisfactory
solution. We see this action as an indication of a
return to relevance by the Council. The
referendum has called for another ad hoc group
to draw up a code of conduct. Some candidates
have supported this type of response to the
problem and either consciously or not have cast
their votes in favor of a continued abdication of
Council responsibility. Allen Freeman and I see
the voters choice as a choice between ad hoc
control of Student Affairs and responsible
action by a representative Council. We ask you
to choose the latter and pledge our efforts
towards that goal.

The second question is whether students'
wishes can be obtained more easily by demands
thrust upon the Board of Visitors and the
Administration, or by dealing with them in
what Allen calls a spirit of trust tempered with
skepticism. Allen and myself opt for the second
solution. We have found that past experience
demonstrates that the Administration is more
willing to accede to the wishes of Student
leaders if these ideas are formulated and
discussed with an eye toward the reality of the
situation and toward the demands placed on
both groups. In our platform, we have further
stated that work needs to be done in the State
legislature in order to enable the
Administration to deal with students with less
pressure from Richmond. We are asking the
students of the College to choose this method
of action: the method which we will pursue if
elected. We feel a casual glance at the new
Judiciary Committee (for the first time subject
to total student control by action of the Board
of Visitors) demonstrates the validity of our
thinking.

We ask you to read our platform, and
consider it in light of these two key issues.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom King

Jacob M. Ferrence

Now is the time for all good men to come.
To the aid of their party. I agree with the
statements made by my running mate, Mr.
Capobianco, in yesterday's CD. I realize that
this statement is short and sweet, but they can't
all be gems. Vote Liquifactionist, Tony
Sherman is.
I am respectful, but I will not submit,
Jacob Mr. Ferrence (sic)

Andrew Potler

The main issue of the election appears to be
centered around the rules referendum, which I
interpret as asking whether students are going
to accept the responsibility to question and

Jacob Ferrence

possibly take action on the issues that confront
them. Phil Chabot and I believe that a positive
vote on the referendum is a necessary means of
extending student (and Student Council)
power.

The referendum question is poorly worded,
yet I construe it as a justifiable means for
students to question and discuss rules that they
are obligated to live under. I do not believe that
a yes vote will further alienate or anger the
Board of Visitors, nor do I feel that it would
mean a loss of faith in the Student Council.
Rather, it would allow council to deliberate and
question (for this must be done before a change
is implemented) the present rules.

The real issues of the election do not lie in
bringing out the differences between the VPP
and JP, but in questioning the present and
future of the University. Just where are we
going? Where do the University's priorities lie?

Phil and I don't feel that the University is
effectively prepared for the present, especially
in the areas of housing and academics. Yet, how
is it going to cope with these as well as other
problems during increased enrollment in the
near future?