Senate Forum: My Opinions

First and foremost, there were two glaring flaws at the Senate Forum. 1. The microphone was much too hot and thus the candidates all came across as much too loud; and 2. The candidates simply were not given sufficient time for anything. 20 second introductions, 30 second responses... the candidates who tried to keep within the time limits sounded like squirrels on speed and those who didn't try were cut off.

Having the candidates submit a written answer to a question and handing that out was interesting, and fairly helpful. Kudos on that Senate leadership!

Diversity Efforts:

As the first position of the night, these candidates were hurt the worst by the loudness of the microphone... but, on content related issues... the first question asked for three tangible goals that they would work toward achieving if elected. Kyle and Ben both failed to answer this question. Both gave a single, wishy washy answer. Kyle said he would work to increase advocacy on campus and Ben said he would work to maintain the connections he already has with the communities. Underwhelming and incomplete answers. Ty Huynh's answer, while not much more inspiring, actually answered the question... she listed off three goals and how she would achieve them. So, points go to Ty Huynh for actually listening and answering the question.

Operations:

Sarah is running unopposed, was comfortable in front of the "home crowd" and had a nice moment. Nothing horrible happened here.

Programming:

Evelyn needs to think about how she sounds when she speaks. She has good ideas, but so many of her sentences end in "you know?" or are bridged with "like..." that she is doing herself a major disservice. When asked what is a new idea you would implement, outside of Home Coming, Jocelyn and Sam both showed initiative and pulled out shiny relatively new ideas. Jocelyn brought up her Quad Fairs idea and Sam a Battle of the Bands sponsored by ASUW A&E and Rainy Dawg Radio. Evelyn's answer left a lot to be desired... she brought up the Husky Pride Fund... which while important, isn't a new idea nor did it really address the question.

Community Relations:

Tunny avoided the pitfalls he's fallen into in previous forums, but definitely was rushing to get out every word he could. That said, he did bring a lot of different, well thought out, ideas to the table at this forum. Yong's ideas were much weaker... again he brought up list servs and websites that we already have and use. Pasha didn't bring as many ideas to the table, but he was likable. He made some jokes, and he mentioned repeatedly that he just wants people to be happy. An admirable goal.

Faculty and Administrative Affairs:

Jed is running unopposed, but he took questions anyway and gave good answers. His closing statement was essentially a blatant plug for his ticket, which he admitted from the podium. I will say that I think his statement that the One Campus Ticket has the most experience and is the ticket to support if you want someone who can defend your voice, your UPASS, etc, is a bit overblown. There are extremely qualified people on all of the tickets, and his ticket has at least one glaringly weak candidate who has precious little experience.

Organizational Relations:

Nick Booher was out of town for family reasons, so his campaign manager spoke on his behalf. She introduced herself as Elaina, and I'm hoping I spelled that correctly. Rory gave a half-hearted introduction and stated that her main goal was better communication between the organizations and the Board of Directors. Jonathan gave essentially the same introduction speech as the previous forums, but it was much slower. Slo-Mo aggression, if you will.

When asked about the current Task Force looking into establishing an Organic Food Co-Operative on campus, potentially as a fifth ASUW Enterprise, Jonathan completely failed to address the question. His answer had absolutely nothing to do with the Co-Op. He might have said the words "Co-Op" and "enterprise" a couple of times, but the meat of his answer was about "getting people involved" in the enterprises. Rory's answer showed she knows the issue and has at least done some research into it, speaking with the current Director. Elaina gave a decent answer for Nick, saying that he would definitely continue the work that had been done this year and that he would have to consider whether it should be an Enterprise or not himself.

When the candidates were asked what they felt the most important role/duty of the Director of Org Relations is, all three said Liaising between the Entities and the Board. To that end, Rory and Elaina (for Nick) both said Communication and listening were key skills. Jonathan said that the liaison aspect is most important, but that he wants to build it into an oversight position. He then went on to claim that his "business background" made him qualified to do that kind of oversight. In all of the forums I've been at, and after looking through all of the campaign materials, the only "business" background I've seen is that he is currently in the business school. I'm sorry, but classroom learning does not equate to background... just because I've sat in a classroom comparing the religious and political institutions of Mexico and Iran doesn't mean I have a background in Comparative Political Relations. If Jonathan does have real experience, he should list some of that, rather than simply claiming to have it.

Lastly, in their closing statements Elaina and Rory were fine. Jonathan went off into an odd surreal moment talking about how he's hungry and he wants to be like the Cookie Monster. It was at that point that one of the current Directors of one of the enterprises leaned over and said "What, is he going to eat us?"

At this point, we took an intermission....

Vice President:

The four VP Candidates all did well tonight. No one made any major gaffes or committed any grievous sins. Sarah Chow was absent, due to illness I believe, so her Campaign manager spoke for her and did a solid job of it too. The one flaw that was actually pointed out to me was for Eric. When he spoke, a few of his answers or comments came across (to those of us who know him and work with him) as jokes or Eric teasing a bit... to others in the audience who don't know him, they came across as arrogance and irreverence. Three different people brought that up to me, so I think including it here makes sense.

President:

Honestly, I would not be upset if any of these five candidates were to be elected. Tonight, they all showed very well, giving nuanced answers that generally addressed the points of the Question. One thing candidates should be wary of is following their opponents' answers too closely. At one point, Kyle answered a question how to advocate for groups other than her personal base. Kyle answered the question fairly well, but in the end diverged onto her general philosophy about student government. Beto and Chris both essentially answered Kyle's answer, rather than the original question. Sam and Madeleine got back on track and answered the question fairly well, but with rather different answers.

One extended awkward moment was when the candidates were discussing money. The question brought up that with the budget cuts would ASUW also be making cuts, especially to executive pay. Madeleine answered first, listing out a dollar figure for the President's pay and asking students if they knew where all that salary money went, and then saying that this year's Board has already acted to make what cuts are possible. After her, the other candidates almost seemed to be in a competition to see who cared the least about how much money they'd be paid.

Well, that is enough for now, I think. As always, these are my opinions... feel free to ask questions, or if you want to see my notes I'll share them with you. I'll type out my response to the IFC/Pan-Hel/RHSA forum tomorrow morning. I've got to go sleep some... I have a class in 7.5 hours.