RHSA/IFC/Panhellenic Forum: My Opinions

I honestly enjoyed the forum rules applied by the Res Halls and Greeks. No need to introduce yourselves, just answer the question and get on with it. Unfortunately, after a while, several of the candidates wasted part of their answer time to introduce themselves. It irked me... but I'm a stickler for following rules.

They addressed Ops and FAA first, because those positions are running unopposed. Sarah and Jed both answered their questions fairly well. I will question how often One Campus candidates bring up their plans to do a big voter drive in Autumn Quarter because that is something that has been on the to-do list here in OGR for some time. It's something I've been working on, talking with Tim (the current President), and working with other statewide actors. I don't really think it's something One Campus can claim as their idea.

Organizational Relations:

Jonathan Yan was asked the first question... how would we help the entities reach out and connect to the Residence Hall Students? The first half of his answer was rambly and weak, and honestly did not address the question at all... then he brought out his tried and true "Buzz Marketing." Rory was asked the same question, and though she did answer the question, he answer was rambly and poorly put together. She brought up that the move to Condon Hall would force the entities to be closer to the freshmen dorms as well as the apartment style housing in Stevens Court, and that she would continue outreach for the Food Co-Op brought up in the Senate Forum. Nick, also asked the same question, addressed the crowd by skype from California. His answer also had some good details, different ideas and details than Rory's answer, but still good details. It was a shorter answer, but it hit all the necessary information. Brevity is often a good thing.

On the next question, Jonathan was asked what public outreach he would do with the entities... at that point, Jonathan had one of his ticket mates throw him one of ExCo's stress balls (an excellent piece of buzz marketing, don't you agree?) and he went off about how putting "exco.com" on the ball instead of the full name "experimental college" was a bad thing... two points, note the website for the Experimental College is "exco.org" and if you don't put your website on your promotional material, how will people find you? Jonathan then went off on a tangent about how he would have the entities out giving away things like the stressballs during Dawg Daze and what not. Maybe Jonathan just doesn't pay attention during the Fall and Spring Quarters, but when the weather is nice you'll find dozens of Experimental College frizbees flying all over campus and the UDistrict. ExCo and the other entities already give away promotional things during Dawg Daze and just about any other time there are large crowds who could take them. Again, Jonathan seems to think he is coming up with brand new ideas about how to revolutionize how the entities market themselves, when they already do everything he has suggested.

I will say that Jonathan was less aggressive than he's been in any of the forums... so that's a good thing.

One rather shocking thing that received very little attention was that Rory Raabe, in her closing statement, claimed she has been endorsed by the current Directors or Managers of all four Enterprises/Entities. That is earthshaking news. Generally, Directors and Managers don't publicly endorse candidates, though it has happened in the past, but if all four have endorsed Rory, that's a clear sign as to who they think the best candidate is. I've checked with two of the entities personally, and yes they have endorsed Rory, and I assume Rainy Dawg has as well. I have no reason to doubt that the Bike Shop did too, but I'll check with them later.

Programming:

The three ladies running for Director of Programming all put in good showings at this forum, but there were two gaffes/flaws I'd like to pull out. In the second question, what would you do to make Greeks aware of events on campus and draw them in, Sam gave a great answer... to a different question. Her answer was good material, good ideas, but it did not address the question at all. Her answer was all about how she would use the Publicity and Programming Committee to help publicize events the Greeks were putting on. She didn't address bringing them back to campus at all. Missing that point, I think was a major misstep. The other gaffe was when Evelyn was giving her closing statement. She re-introduced herself as "Evelyn Jensen, running with the One Campus Ticket...." There were audible gasps from members of all three tickets, and those of us in the crowd who knew which ticket she was really running with. It wasn't a major misstep, just a slip of the tongue, but it will reflect poorly on her because it was one of the last things she said to the audience.

Diversity Efforts:

All three candidates were hit or miss at this forum. Kyle hit his experience in the greater Seattle Community heavily, and rightly so; Ben hit his connection to the UW communities, also rightly; and Ty Huynh shared more of her personal story, going off script, and made herself more approachable. Kyle and Ben both gave rather long answers in a couple of spots that really didn't answer the questions they were asked.

One question I have for Ben, or anyone who knows... in multiple forums he's said that we need to "infiltrate a family friendly environment..." and I really am not sure what he means when he says that. Anyone know?

Points for boldness go to Ty Huynh. When asked about the long running divide between the Greek Community and Diversity Efforts, Ty Huynh called out one of the most controversial areas: the Queer Community. She said that there is a "lack of sensitivity for the Queer Community in the Greek system..." and to solve that she plans on initiating Safe Zone training in the Greek system. Taking on homophobia in one of the bastions of heteronormative society... damn. Like I said, she gets points for boldness.

Community Relations:

There really wasn't anything new brought up during this section of the Forum. Tunny still brought up his experience, Pasha was still friendly and jovial, and Yong brought up the List Servs and websites again. Tunny's answers showed awareness of the issues and the familiarity that being an incumbent brings. Pasha's were fresher, more idealistic... still good answers, but several of them won't stand up to a year in the position.

Vice President:

Again, four strong performances... even though Sarah Chow wasn't present, her Campaign Manager did an admirable job of covering for her. Shauna gave several well thought out, detailed answers that impressed me. She has clearly thought through the duties and has ideas of how to improve the position. One very bold statement came from Sarah's CM, Amanda... in her closing statement she said that Sarah "has had the job for two years, without the title."

President:

We have a tri-polar race going here, in my opinion. On one side, we have the outsiders (Chris and Sam) who bring two distinct viewpoints with their own set of ideas and beliefs; on the opposite side we have the establishment candidates (Madeleine and Kyle) who both bring a wealth of experience to the table, albeit different experiences; and then we have the underrepresented candidacy (Beto) who is working to represent the groups that traditionally aren't heard in ASUW.

Chris flat out said that ASUW will fundamentally change if he is elected. While Sam didn't actually say it, his answers implied that same kind of radical change. Both are approaching what ASUW is and what ASUW does in ways that recent Presidents haven't. If either is elected, there will be a steep learning curve... both for the new President, and for the rest of the Association.

As for Kyle and Madeleine, both are painting themselves as the Experience Candidate, and both have a right to the title. Madeleine has been in ASUW longer and has had to deal with more of the duties that the President would deal with. Kyle has a wider base of experience from her time in RHSA and as Programming Director, and has worked with a wide range of people and groups this year that would serve her well next year.

Beto, as was pointed out last night, has been endorsed by 32 different groups... many of which are underrepresented RSOs or minority groups. He is positioned to be a President that will speak for the unheard. The question many people have asked is: will he also be the President for the majority? I think Beto could do it, and if elected will do it, but he needs to convince the majority to vote for him too, if he wants to be elected.