RHSA's lack of a Presidential Endorsement

I mentioned this morning that I would be doing some digging, and I've spoken with a few people and read the minutes myself. On that point, the RHSA minutes are very bare bones in some areas and very detailed in others, so I'm sure some things were lost in translation.

To begin, when I got onto campus this morning, a good number of people asked if I'd heard about the "drama" at RHSA last night, so I of course asked what happened. The most basic retelling was that Beto had been tapped to receive the RHSA endorsement by the Endorsements Committee, but was rejected by the General Council... which is dramatic in and of itself. Generally, in the years I've paid attention, when the Endorsement Committee selects someone, the General Council approves of them. Rejecting someone is very harsh, and reason enough to be whispering about drama, but it gets deeper.

Multiple people I spoke with felt that the circumstances behind the rejection were suspect. Facts were laid out... the primary person questioning Beto during the meeting is a One Campus Volunteer; the behavior of several reps was pointed out as suspicious; another position was initially rejected as well, but was then reconsidered and approved; the main argument against Beto was the main strength of the One Campus presidential candidate, Madeleine McKenna. Hearing those points definitely peaked my interest, and got my mind thinking.

Thinking as a political kind of person, if I were either a candidate who lost a major endorsement or that candidate's campaign director/manager, how would I mitigate that problem? I could downplay the importance of the endorsement; I could send in as many volunteers as I could muster to change the endorsement; or I could sink the endorsement for someone else. Option #1 looks weak and is fairly obvious, which is also the problem in option #2... that move is rather blatant. Option #3 could be done stealthily enough that it would fly under most people's radar, but still be effective. Looking at the facts I was presented, it looked like One Campus had pulled option #3.

I had these thoughts this afternoon, and began asking people who were there what happened... asking them what they saw, what they thought, and posing a few hypotheticals to them. Most thought option #3 was possible, but not likely.

Then I actually asked people affiliated with One Campus, to see what they thought. Time after time after time they looked as if I'd hit them with a hammer. None of the candidates I spoke with had even considered that they might scuttle someone else's endorsement, nor had the campaign staffers I spoke with.

So, there I was, sitting with a situation. Some people think it's obvious that there were political motivations behind rejecting Beto; others thought it could be possible; and still others denied it wholeheartedly. I did what anyone who didn't actually see a meeting would do: I read the minutes. (I did ask for these from the RHSA officers, and got a draft version. I understand they normally don't turn them around that quickly... so thank you all!)

The One Campus volunteer in question asked two questions of Beto, both were advocacy focused, which is the focus of Madeleine's platform. This does make it look bad, right away. That a known volunteer for a campaign would ask multiple difficult questions on a single topic that happens to be his candidate's strength... it makes it look like a planted attack. The behavior that I heard about isn't reflected in the minutes, so I can't confirm that at all... which means I'll set it aside and will not consider it.

The last fact that had been presented was that the VP endorsement was also rejected, at first. Looking at the minutes, there were no questions for Shauna, nor was there any discussion of her or her platform before she was rejected in the first round. This does look bad for One Campus. It would hurt a lot if neither of their top two received the nod from RHSA. When the General Council rejected Shauna without debate or conversation it looked as if there were ulterior motives for not confirming her endorsement. The fact that they did go back and reopened debate on Shauna takes some of that sting away, but that they rejected her without reason still makes option #3 look plausible.

So, after talking with people on all sides of the issue and reading the minutes myself... it would be damned hard to confirm anything, but I don't think it was an organized attack on the opposing candidates. Volunteers who are heavily involved in campaigns and other organizations on campus should take note though. When you act, people watch and listen, and it does reflect on the people you support. More than one person I spoke with said that the way things happened changed who they would be voting for, and that was just from the actions of a volunteer or two.