-art (1)
MARY WEISENBERGER. SO.,
Responsible Alternative
YES: More student services, state lobbying
NO: non-University issues, smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 10-15
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
campus security; 3) campus housing; 4) coun-
seling services; 5) minority services; 6) minority
recruitment; 7) allocations to student groups; 8)
student involvement in tenure decisions: 9)
u niversity investments.

bus. ad (2)
DONNA GOLDSTEIN, Jr., PAC
YES: non-University issues
NO: smaller but better
EXIECTED TIME COMMITMENT: Lots
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
student involvement in tenure decisions; 3)
allocations to student groups; 4) campus housing;
5) minority services; 6) campus security; 7)
University investments; 8) minority recruitment:
9) counseling services.

The Michigan Daily-Tuesday, April 7, 1981-Page 5

NANCY YAWITZ, Jr., PAC
YES: non-university issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 10-12
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
student involvement in tenure decisions; 3) coun-
seling services; 4) campus security; 5) campus
housing; 6) minority services; 7) allocations to
student groups; 8) minority recruitment; 9)
University investments.

As a guide for voters, MSA candidates
were asked to express their views on issues
in this year's campaign.
The responses printed here are taken from
surveys which were made available to all
candidates.
Following are the four questions that were
answered "yes" or "no" in the survey. The
abbreviations used are in parentheses.
* Should MSA be involved in non-
University/education-related issues? (non-
University issues)
" Should MSA offer more services to
students (e.g. legal aid, insurance)? (more
student services)
" Should MSA - lobby on Univer-
sity/education issues in Lansing? (state lob-
bying)
" Do you support the University's
"smaller but better" philosophy? (smaller
but better)
Candidates were also asked to prioritize
the following existing future MSA functions:

Student input into the budget, campus
security, allocations to student groups,
student involvement in tenure decisions,
minority services, minority recruitment,
counseling services, University investments,
and campus housing.
Questions to which candidates answered
"yes" were abbreviated and put under the
yes category; those questions answered with
a "no" were placed in the no category.
Priorities are printed exactly as the can-
didates rated them: a "1" means the issue
should be of the highest importance for MSA,
a "2" means next highest priority, and so on.
Although there are over 60 candidates, only
those listed below submitted surveys.
(Presidential and vice-presidential can-
didates were interviewed earlier in-
dividually.)
The number in parentheses after the name
of each school or college indicates the num-
ber of representative seats open on MSA for

a___ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ ____ ___

S

that college.

c

ndates

education (2)
MELANIE KARAFOTIAS,Jr. IND.
YES: more student service, state lobbying
NO: non-University issues, smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 6 hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
campus security; 3) minority recruitment; 4)
student involvement in tenure decisions; 5) cam-
pus housing; 6) University investments; 7)
minority services: 8) counseling services; 9)
allocations to student groups,

- I

A

KENNETH JOHNSON, So.,
Responsible Alternative
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: no response
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
campus security; 3) minority recruitment: 4) cam-
pus housing; 5) counseling services: 6) minority
services; 7) University investments; 8) student in-
volvement in tenure decisions; 9) allocations to
student groups.

medicine (1)
BILLY MARKSON, PAC
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: no response
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
student involvement in tenure decisions; 3) cam-
pus security; 4) minority services; 5) counseling
services; 6) allocations to student groups; 7)
University investments; 8) campus housing; 9)
minority recruitment.

*Isa (12)

I q

DAVID BLUMENSTEIN, Fr.,
Responsible Alternative
YES: more student services, state lobbying,
smaller but better
NO: non-University issues
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 9-11
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
fampus security; 3) campus housing; 4) minority
recruitment; 5) minority services; 6) counseling
services; 7) allocations to student groups; 8)
student involvement in tenure decisions; 9)
University investments.

PETER CONSTANCE, So., M.O.V.E.
YES: more student services, state lobbying,
smaller but better
NO: non-University issues
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 8-10
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
campus security: 3) counseling services; 4)
allocations to student groups; 5) minority ser-
vices; 6) student involvement in tenure decisions;
7) University investments; 8) campus housing: 9)
minority recruitment,

NANCY CRONK, Fr.,
Responsible Alternative
YES: more student services, state lobbying
NO: non-University issues, smaller but better
BETTER TIME COMMITMENT: 10 hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) campus security; 2) campus
housing: 3) minority recruitment; 4) student input
into budget; 5) counseling services: 6) minority
services: 7) allocations to student groups; 8)
student involvement in tenure decisions: 9)
University investments,

KARL EDELMANN, Fr., Ind.
YES: more student services, state lobbying,
smaller but better
NO: non-University issues
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: Amount
necessary
PRIORITIES: 1) campus security; 2) counseling
services; 3) minority services; 4) minority
recruitment; 5) allocations to student groups; 6)
student input into budget: 7) campus housing; 8)
University investments; 9) student involvement in
tenure decisions.

TIMOTHY FLYNN, So., Joyride
YES: more student services, state lobbying,
smaller but better
NO: non-University issues
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: Amount
necessary
PRIORITIES: 1) allocations to student groups; 2)
studentinput into budget: 3) campus security; 4)
University investments; 5) campus housing; 6)
counseling services: 7) student involvement in
tenure decisions: 8) minority services; 9) minority
recruitment.

ELIZABETH GALLOP, Fr.,
Responsible Alternative
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT:' 15-20
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
campus housing; 3) campus security; 4) minority
services, counseling services; 6) student in-
volvement in tenure decisions; 7) University in-
vestments; 8) minority recruitment: 9) allocations
to student groups.

1 t ±

LIZ GALST, Fr., PAC
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 20 hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
University investments; 3) minority student ser-
vices; 4) minority recruitment; 5) student in-
volvement in tenure decisions; 6) campus
s security; 7) campus housing; 8) counseling ser-
vices; 9) allocations to student groups.

MICHAEL GOLDMAN, So., PAC
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 8-10
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into -budget; 2)
minority services; 3) minority recruitment; 4)
campus security: 5) campus housing; 6)
allocations to student groups; 7) counseling ser-
vices; 8) University investments; 9) student in-
volvement in tenure decisions,

PHILLIP HARPER, Sr., PAC
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 10-15
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
student involvement in tenure decisions; 3)
minority services; 4) minority recruitment: 5)
campus security; 6) campus housing;7) University
investments; 8) allocations to student groups; 9)
counseling services.

KATHY HARTRICK, So., Indep.
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying, smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 8-10
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget, cam-
pus security; 3) campus housing; 4) counseling
services, minority services; 6) allocations to
student groups; 7) student involvement in tenure
decisions, University investments, minority
recruitment.

TERRENCE R. HAUGABOOK,Jr.,
PAC
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 12 hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) minority recruitment; 2) student
input into budget; 3) University investments; 4)
student involvement in tenure decisions: 5) com-
pus housing; 6) minority services; 7) counseling
services; 8) campus security; 9) allocations to
student groups.

RICH HUETTEL, Jr.,
Responsible Alternative
YES: more student services, state lobbying
NO: non-University issues, smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 10-20
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
campus housing; 3) canpus security; 4)
allocations to student groups: 5) minority ser-
vices; 6) minority recruitment; 7) counseling ser-
vices; 8) student involvement in tenure decisions;
9) University investments.


THOMAS P. JONES, Jr., Joyride
YES: more student services, state lobbying,
smaller but better
NO: non-University issues
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 8-10
-'hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) ollocations to student groups; 2)
student input into budget; 3)campus security; 4)
campus housing; 5) counseling services; 6)
University investments; 7) minor-ity services; 8)
student involvement in tenure decisions; 9)
minority recruitment.

-t -- I

MICHAEL KENNY, Jr., indep.
YES: state lobbying, smaller but better
NO: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 8-9 hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
student involvement in tenure decisions; 3)
minority recruitment; 4) allocations to student
groups: 5);counseling services; 6) University in-
vestments; 7) minority services; 8) campus
housing; 9) campus security.

KEITH KOWALSKi, Jr.,
M.O.V.E.
YES: more student services, state lobbying
NO: non-University issues, smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: no response
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
campus security; 3) allocations to student groups;
4) counseling services; 5) student involvement in
tenure decisions; 6) minority services; 7) minority
recruitment; 8) campus housing; 9) University in-
vestments,

LISA LANE, So.,
Reaponsible Alternative
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 15-20
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 4 student input into budget; 2)
campus housing; 3) campus security: 4) allocation
to student groups; 5) counseling services; 6)
minority services; 7) minority recruitment; 8)
University investments; 9) student involvement in
tenure decisions.

SHARON LIEBETREU, So., Indep.
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 13-14
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
counseling services; 3) campus security; 4)
student involvement in tenure decisions; 5)
allocations to student groups: 6) minority ser-
vices; 7) campus housing; 8) minority recruit-
ment; 9) University investments.

LISA MANDEL, Jr., PAC
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 20-25
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) campus security: 2) campus
housing; 3) minority services; 4) student input in-
to budget; 5) minority recruitment: 6) counseling
services; 7) University investments; 8) student in-
volvement in tenure decisions; 9) allocations to
student groups.

#

+ 1 -T


VALERIE MIMS, Jr., PAC
YES: non-university issues, more student ser-
ces, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
_ PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
minority services; 3) minority recruitment; 4)
;compus security; 5) counseling services; 6) cam-
pus housing; 7) allocations to student groups; 8)
"student involvement in tenure decisions; 9)
,University invefments.

EDWARD NWOKEDI, Sr., PAC
YES: more student services, state lobbying
NO: non-University issues, smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: amount
necessary
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
minority recruitment; 3) campus housing; 4)
allocations to student groups; 5) counseling ser-
vices; 6) minority services; 7) campus security; 8)
student involvement in tenure decisions: 9)
University investments.

DANIEL PERLMAN, Jr., indep.
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying, smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 17 hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) allocations to student groups; 2)
campus housing; 3) student input into budget; 4)
counseling services; 5) campus security; 6)
minority services; 7) student involvement in
tenure decisions: 8) minority recruitment; 9)
University investments.

JACKIE POLLACK, Jr., Indep.
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: no response
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget: 2)
allocations to student groups; 3) counseling ser-
vices; 4) campus security; 5) minority services; 6)
campus housing; 7) student involvement in tenure
decisions: 8) University investments; 9) minority
recruitment.

KEN REEVES, So., PAC
YES: non-university issues,more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: no response
PRIORITIES: 1) minority recruitment; 2) minority
services; 3) counseling services; 4) student in-
volvement in tenure decisions: 5) campus
security; 6) student input into budget; 7) housing;
8) allocations to student groups; 9) University in-
vestments.

DAVID REIBEL, So., PAC
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 4-5 hours/week
plus MSA meeting
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget, 2)
student involvement in tenure decisions; 3
University investments; 4) minority services; 5)
campus security; 6) allocations to student groups;
7) minority recruitment; 8) counseling services; 9)
campus housing.

I 1


MICHAEL ROMANEK, So., Joyride
YES: more student services, state lobbying,
smaller but better
NO: non-University issues
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: Amount
necessary
PRIORITIES: 1) allocations to student groups; 2)
student input into budget; 3) campus security; 4)
campus housing; 5) counseling services; 6)
minority recruitment; 7) University investments;
8) minority services; 9) student involvement in
tenure decisions.
-engineering (3)-
ED FEELEY, Jr.,
Responsible Alternative
YES: more student services, state lobbying
NO: non-University issues, smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 11%-17%
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) campus security; 2) student input
into budget; 3) campus housing; 4) minority ser-
vices; 5) allocations to student groups; 6) minority
recruitment; 7) counseling services; 8) student in-
volvement in tenure decisions; 9) University in-
vestments.

DENNIS SANOK, So., Joyride
YES: more student services, state lobbying,
smaller but better
NO: non-University issues
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: Amount
necessary
PRIORITIES: 1) allocations to student groups; 2)
student input into budget; 3) campus security: 4)
campus housing; 5) counseling services; 6)
minority services; 7) student involvement in
tenure decisions; 8) University investments; 9)
minority recruitment,

KEASON SANVORDENKER, Jr.,
Responsible Alternative
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 6-8 hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) campus housing; 2) counseling
services; 3) campus security; 4) minority recruit-
ment; 5) allocations to student groups; 6) student
input into budget; 7) student involvement in
tenure decisions; 8) minority services; 9) univer-
sity investments,

RALPH SMITH, Jr.,
Responsible Alternative
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: Amount
necessary
PRIORITIES: 1) counseling services; 2) minority
services, minority recruitment: 4) student in-
volvement in tenure decisions; 5) student input
into budget:6) campus security; 7) University in-
vestments; 8) caripus housing: 9) allocations to
student groups.

SCOTT SUESKIND, Fr., PAC
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: no response
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
minority recruitment; 3) minority services; 4)
University investments; 5) student involvement in
tenure decisions; 6) campus security; 7) campus
housing; 8) counseling services; 9) allocations to
student groups.

DAVID A. TROTT, Jr., Indep.
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smoller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 10-VS
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) allocations to student groups, 2)
campus security; 3) student input into budget; 4)
minority recruitment; 5) counseling services; 6)
student involvement in tenure decisions; 7)
minority services; 8) campus housing; 9) Univer-
sity investments.

- 4

SAM FOTI, Fr., M.O.V.E.
YES: more student services, state lobbying
NO: non-University issues, smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: no response
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
campus security; 3) allocations to student groups;
4) counseling services; 5) student involvement in
tenure decisions; 6) minority services; 7) minority
recruitment; 8) campus housing: 9) University
investments.

ANDREA GELSTEIN, Fr., Joyride
YES: more student services, state lobbying,
smaller but better
NO: non-University issues
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: no response
PRIORITIES: 1) allocations to student groups; 2)
student input into budget; 3) campus security; 4)
counseling services; 5) campus housing; 6)
minority services; 7) minority recruitment; 8)
student involvement in tenure decisions: 9)
University investments.
nursing (1)

KEVIN IRELAND, So., PAC
YES: non-University issues, more student ser-
vices, state lobbying
NO: smaller but better
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: 12-15
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) campus security; 2) campus
housing; 3) student input into budget; 4) minority
services; 5) minority recruitment; 6) allocations to
student groups; 7) counseling services; 8) Univer-
sity investments: 9) student involvement in
tenure decisions,
pharmacy (1)

JOHN MALONE, Jr.,
Responsible Alternative
YES: more student services, state lobbying,
smaller but better
NO: non-University issues
EXPECTED TIME COMiMITMENT: 10-20
hours/week
PRIORITIES: 1) student input into budget; 2)
campus security; 3) campus housing; 4)
allocations to student groups; 5) minority
recruitment; 6) minority services; 7) counseling
services; 8) student involvement in tenure
decisions; 9) University investments.
rackham (5)

RED WELLER, So., Indep.
YES: more student services, state lobbying,
smaller but better
NO: non-University issues
EXPECTED TIME COMMITMENT: amount
necessary
PRIORITIES: 1) conseling services; 2) campus
security; 3) campus housing: 4) student in-
volvement in tenure decisions; 5) student input
into budget; 6) minority recruitment: 7)
allocations to student groups; 8) minority ser-
vices; 9) University investments.

I - -

i