ASUW President and Vice Presidential candidates met in the Union Family Room Tuesday evening to discuss their campaign platforms and goals as they continue their campaigns. The debate lasted 90 minutes, beginning with two-minute opening statements by each candidate. Moderator Dr. Jason McConnell then posed a total of seven questions to which each ticket was given four minutes to respond. The evening closed with two-minute closing statements from each ticket.
The debate began with opening statements from each candidate, each lasting two minutes.
Paula Medina and Aidan McGuire’s campaign is built upon the promise to “ACT”, standing for advocacy, community, and trust. These promises include different goals and projects.
Sophia Gomelsky and Gweneth Hargett spoke next, introducing their campaign centered around the principle of getting things done. Gomelsky, running for president, discussed her proven track record of achieving results. Hargett discussed her experience and its tangible impact.
Presidential candidate Clayton Keasling and VP candidate Michelle Lake completed the opening segment with a discussion of ASUW’s lack of achievement in terms of set goals and transparency. Lake joined the introduction with an expression of frustration at the lack of transparency within ASUW, and an explanation of the value of an average student perspective in the office.
The debate then opened with the first question, “What student organizations have you been a part of, and how have your experiences with them influenced your leadership within ASUW?”
VP candidate Hargett answered first, presenting her involvement on campus, and in the broader community.
“I’m heavily involved on campus, but ultimately my involvement and leadership roles on campus aren’t necessarily what I want you to focus on,” Hargett said. “I want you to focus on the fact that I’m a part of campus. I’m not just a part of ASUW, and that’s what’s important. It’s important to know who you’re serving.”
Gomelsky followed Hargett’s statement, mentioning that the two are collectively involved in over a dozen student organizations and communities on campus. Gomelsky emphasized the campaign’s platform of meeting students where they are. She then explained how both her and Hargett’s involvement would serve their leadership.
“At the end of the day what we take from those positions is our ability to foster authentic connections with our campus community and be able to understand what your problems, and your interests, and your concerns are,” Gomelsky said. “That kind of involvement has elevated our ability to truly advocate for you.”
Keasling answered next, acknowledging his experience as a college student who can relate to the student body in different ways.
“I think it’s valuable that I’m reaching out to students who I don’t see on a daily basis to hear from them what their concerns are,” Keasling said.
Lake emphasized her experience working with the dining services here on campus and described how it informs her leadership.
“I learned to go above and beyond and emphasize those skills and I feel like I can use those in ASUW,” Lake said.
Medina and McGuire expressed the importance of their connections and how they build trust in ASUW.
“I think that there is a need for us to have a good foundation moving forward and that is what actually is going to be able to enact change,” Medina said. “I feel that especially when it comes to marginalized communities having a good foundation and accessing relationships are key to be able to accurately and positively impact these communities, as well as advocate for them.”
McGuire discussed how his involvement impacts his leadership in terms of communication, and the value of these experiences.
“I think that there is that aspect of communication that I’m so proud of and that I think is so essential to ASUW,” McGuire said. “That is reflected in my student org. involvement.”
The second question asked candidates to address current issues on campus. Keasling and Lake mentioned parking and transit, and the lack of transparency with ASUW. Keasling discussed the importance of making sure students understand what goes on within ASUW.
“Just yesterday I had a student come up to me and say, hey this is gibberish, please explain,” Keasling said. “So we should be working on actually making ASUW more transparent so we can have better advocacy and better student engagement to take on-campus concerns and initiatives.”
Medina and McGuire mentioned parking, accessibility, and engagement. They detailed their plans to address each issue, introducing a parking ticket relief program, an ASUW voucher program aimed at financially assisting those in need of temporary handicap parking permits, and monthly events presented in an effort to raise student engagement with ASUW.
Gomelsky and Hargett answered next and discussed student organization funding, creating civic engagement opportunities for students, increasing safety measures on Highway 287, experiential learning for everyone, unionfest, and dorm availability over breaks.
The following question challenged candidates to focus on their top three goals for their administration.
Medina and McGuire focused on increased physical and representation accessibility and increased engagement.
Gomelsky and Hargett emphasized advocating for university funds at the state level, ensuring a more positive student interaction with government processes, and their strong advocacy and representation of the student body.
Keasling and Lake discussed transparency through the use of WyoCourses to communicate important ASUW information, a one-app plan to consolidate university resources, and student initiatives, focusing on what students want to be done.
The fourth question asked candidates how they would advocate for students in their administration.
Gomelsky and Hargett focused on their relationships with people of power, their plans to create a Wyoming Student Association, playing offense in terms of the relationship between students and the state legislature, and continued involvement in the community.
Keasling and Lake mentioned hearing from and engaging with students of varying interests, and addressing faculty needs to better support the university as a whole.
Medina and McGuire discussed involvement in DEI recommendations, and how advocacy is less about personal opinion and more about what is happening and uplifting student voices. McGuire stated that he believes advocacy isn’t just about speaking for other people but allowing them to speak for themselves.
The fifth and sixth questions focused on ASUW’s approachability and student engagement with ASUW initiatives.
Keasling and Lake suggested engagement and updates through WyoCourses, ensuring outreach and engagement with student organizations, and holding more events. They also suggested tabling, and placing ASUW in front of students walking through the union. They believe ASUW should be focused on approaching students instead of expecting students to approach them. They also addressed ASUW’s failure to include various student perspectives in decision-making processes.
Medina and McGuire discussed their aim to expand programs, hold monthly events, ensure that legislation is supported by student organizations, and keep students informed. McGuire emphasized his belief that engagement is a collaborative relationship. They also discussed the inherent relationship between engagement and approachability and focused on how progress can be made in both areas. McGuire mentioned the constant disappointment with ASUW and attributed it to empty promises created by lofty goals that cannot be achieved. He presented his administration’s reasonable goals and progress.
Gomelsky and Hargett expressed their focus on centering students in their approach, and proposed involvement on campus, the appointment of a good director of marketing, and a greater involvement in student organizations. Gomelsky emphasized her experience representing students by bringing them into the rooms where decisions are happening. They also discussed their strategic partnerships and existing relationships to widen opportunities for students to pursue their goals.
The final question addressed what each candidate feels makes them most qualified for the positions of President and Vice President of ASUW.
Gomelsky and Hargett focused on their ability to get things done and to deliver meaningful results to students. They emphasized their willingness to push through adversity and to exclusively serve the student body.
Keasling and Lake brought up their unique experiences and knowledge, with both interior and exterior perspectives of ASUW. Keasling specifically mentioned his desire to effectively manage and take on what needs to be done within ASUW.
Medina and McGuire highlighted Medina’s experience and connected leadership, discussing how it will streamline their projects and goals. McGuire explained how his ticket is taking necessary steps and offering specific plans for the issues they observe.
Each ticket was then given two minutes to provide closing remarks. Keasling and Lake led with an emphasis on their understanding of student perspectives.
“I think your ticket should really acknowledge who the student body is,” Lake said. “I am you guys in every way, and I feel we should really bring that into account.”
Medina and McGuire followed with a proclamation of crisis and a promise of change.
“I think ASUW is facing a crisis,” McGuire said. “We’re dealing with a crisis of indifference, right? Students don’t care and students don’t think that we care.” McGuire promised he and Medina’s administration would never be indifferent.
Gomelsky and Hargett expressed their ability to get the job done and mentioned their unique capabilities and track record of success.
“We have ideas, and we also have the plan, but our ideas don’t come first, yours do,” Hargett said.
Students are encouraged to vote April 22-24 through WyoCourses under the Student Hub module. Results will be announced on April 24 at 5 p.m. in the programming space behind Pokes Pub.
