Well, it's time to take a break and breathe a bit... the elections results have been announced, and barring a major violation (one that judicial feels is worthy of disqualification) our Board of Directors is set for next year.
The Results:
President Madeleine McKenna
Vice President Eric Shellan
Faculty and Administrative Affairs Jed Bradley
Operations Sarah Round
Community Relations Yong Cho
Diversity Efforts Ben Lealofi
Programming Sam Weinstein
Organizational Relations Jonathan Yan
As I told several people, I expected One Campus to win five seats on the Board. I just missed which five. Jed and Sarah couldn't lose, which is two of their five. Of the remaining six contested races, One Campus walked away with three positions (the top two and Org Relations) and Team Legacy took the other three.
The races were quite close in several races with margins as slim as 60-80 votes.
An interesting trend to note is that the margins of victory were rather high in the President and VP races, but then got very close in the Directorships. Madeleine won by almost 9%, almost 800 votes separated her and Beto. Eric won the VP with more than a 300 vote margin. Then you look at CR which was decided by 64 votes, or Programming by 62 votes.
The key detail here is that the farther down the ticket you went, in general, One Campus votes died off more and more, to the point that the contested directorships almost entirely went to Team Legacy. The one exception being Org Relations, which went to Jonathan Yan who has a rather strong voter base in the Greek Community. This kind of voter fatigue generally means that the voters were not informed and were simply casual voters who stopped at a table, a party, or some other spot to vote for the ticket who was speaking to them at the time. Team Legacy built a very stable voter base that didn't suffer as badly from voter fatigue, which allowed them to take half of the contested positions.
There are three races I want to discuss here now: Programming, Community Relations, and Organizational Relations.
Programming was a very close race, between Sam and Jocelyn. I think both women have very good ideas, but honestly, I expected the win to go to Jocelyn. Sam worked hard, along with the rest of Legacy, and she earned her spot on the Board.
Community Relations, also very close, seems like it was decided by two factors: the Daily's dig at Tunny and a general dissatisfaction with Tunny in the community. The Daily brought up a good point that Tunny had abandoned a key duty, which probably highlighted other missteps or mistakes he has made this year. Also, when it came down to the final round, when Pasha's 1400 or so votes were split between Tunny and Yong, 400 didn't list either, but the other 1000 split in favor of Yong. It took Tunny from being in first by a couple dozen votes to losing by a few dozen votes. IRV is a killer. In the end, it seems this race became a referendum on Tunny's performance this year and the voters decided on change.
Organizational Relations. Neil and Rory both lost, rather thoroughly, so the race clearly did not go to the most qualified candidates. Nor did it go to the candidate who was most demonstrably passionate about the race, the position, and the entities, Nick Booher. It went to the candidate who has the least real experience, who made the most aggressive attacks, and who managed to alienate all of the groups he will have to work with next year. On top of the myriad of faults Jonathan Yan has, he didn't even come to the elections results ceremony. Just like he skipped out early at all of the forums. A good part of success is showing up. Another large portion is communication skills. Let's all hope that Jonathan Yan is a better Director than he was a Candidate.
The last thing I am going to discuss are violations. Elections violations must be filed by 5pm tonight, I believe. Major or minor, the results will be the same. Candidates will likely be fined or required to fulfill some community service hours, if they are punished at all for any violations. Precedent was reaffirmed two years ago that even willing and conscious major violations will not cause a candidate to lose their seat. It would take a violation so egregious that it borders on criminal activity, and I hope our candidates were smart enough to avoid committing crimes in the process of seeking election.
I'll be watching to see what kind of violations were filed, and I wonder how the tickets will defend themselves.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Podcasting...
So, on Monday I got to sit down with Teo and Camillo, two regulars around ASUW. The two of them have been recording a talk show style podcast for a bit now, and they asked me to be their guest to discuss ASUW, the elections, and a few other topics. The original conversation lasted more than an hour, but Teo has edited it down some.
I hope you enjoy listening to it, because I really enjoyed getting to talk through the things I write about here.
Their website is: www.camandteo.com
I hope you enjoy listening to it, because I really enjoyed getting to talk through the things I write about here.
Their website is: www.camandteo.com
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Daily's Endorsements
Today, the UW Daily put out its endorsements for the ASUW elections.
Pres: Madeleine McKenna
Vice Pres: Eric Shellan
FAA: Jed Bradley
Ops: Sarah Round
Community Relations: NO ENDORSEMENT
Org Relations: Jonathan Yan
Diversity Efforts: Ben Lealofi
Programming: Jocelyn McCurtain
Six out of eight races, the endorsement went to the One Campus candidate. Let's break down their reasoning for their endorsements.
President:
1/2 of the Daily's points are solid, which means I think this endorsement comes from very weak logic.
Vice President:
In their introduction to the VP endorsement, the Daily says that it took multiple rounds of voting to select a VP to endorse, and that fact is obvious from the weakness of their two primary reasons for endorsing. Having sat on multiple committees that had to select one candidate over another for a position, these reasons look to be very small reasons to pick one over the other.
FAA and Ops:
Solid reasoning, nothing to complain about.
Community Relations:
The Daily chose note to endorse anyone for some very solid reasoning.
It's a very harsh place to be for the three candidates. Pasha lost the endorsement simply by not being there; Tunny, apparently, lost it for the same reason, just over the course of the year instead of missing two opportunities; and Yong was called out rather bluntly.
Organizational Relations:
Diversity Efforts:
All in all, this endorsement makes sense by the logic the Daily put out. Sure, the points can be debated, but as it stands, it holds up I feel.
Programming:
The Daily did say that this was a hard decision, and I agree with them entirely on this position. All three show a thorough understanding of the position and what the Director will need to be. This endorsement also makes sense, and holds up.
Totals...
All in all, I think 5 of their 8 endorsements make sense. The top two (Pres and VP) were poorly worded and almost came across as damning the candidates with faint praise. The endorsements themselves should have been better. There are plenty of reasons to endorse either Madeleine or Eric, but the reasons the Daily chose just don't hold water.
Their endorsement of Jonathan Yan is, frankly, insulting. I almost feel as if the endorsement committee and I were sitting in a different forum listening to him speak.
Pres: Madeleine McKenna
Vice Pres: Eric Shellan
FAA: Jed Bradley
Ops: Sarah Round
Community Relations: NO ENDORSEMENT
Org Relations: Jonathan Yan
Diversity Efforts: Ben Lealofi
Programming: Jocelyn McCurtain
Six out of eight races, the endorsement went to the One Campus candidate. Let's break down their reasoning for their endorsements.
President:
- Madeleine has experience with ASUW and student related issues. Other candidates lack that experience. This point makes sense and is a fairly strong one.
- Madeleine has budgetary experience which the other ASUW "insider-ish" candidates lack. I don't think I agree with this point, and certainly don't think this was supported by what the candidates said at the forum. This is a weak point based on weak facts. Both Kyle and Beto have significant budgeting experience; Kyle from her time in RHSA and on the ASUW BoD, and Beto from his time in La Raza.
1/2 of the Daily's points are solid, which means I think this endorsement comes from very weak logic.
Vice President:
- Eric's experience in the Office of Government Relations organizing students to come to Olympia means he will be able to ensure volunteers are dedicated to their duties for ASUW. I think this is a weak point because there is significant difference between working with another staff member to coordinate 200 volunteers for a one day event and working to interview, appoint, and oversee hundreds of volunteers over nine months. Eric's job in OGR was not focused on Higher Education Advocacy Day. The logistics, the planning, and recruiting were primarily the duties of Alex Soldano, OGR's Legislative Planning Coordinator. Now, because I was in Olympia, I'm not sure how the two of them worked out the details, but it seems that Eric is claiming Alex's work and reaping the benefit of it.
- Eric has more direct experience working with volunteers than Shauna Stadnik. Again, I think this is a weak point. Eric did directly manage several volunteer office managers this year, so he does have direct experience working with volunteers, but Shauna was chair of a committee of volunteers last year and was President of her Community College student association.
In their introduction to the VP endorsement, the Daily says that it took multiple rounds of voting to select a VP to endorse, and that fact is obvious from the weakness of their two primary reasons for endorsing. Having sat on multiple committees that had to select one candidate over another for a position, these reasons look to be very small reasons to pick one over the other.
FAA and Ops:
- Both have a lot of current experience.
- Both have detailed goals and plans for next year.
- Both are running unopposed.
Solid reasoning, nothing to complain about.
Community Relations:
The Daily chose note to endorse anyone for some very solid reasoning.
- Pasha did not physically make it to two opportunities to express himself and his vision to the Daily.
- Tunny has not lived up to what the Daily is looking for in CR, so why give him a second chance?
- Yong did not demonstrate to the Daily that he is qualified for the position.
It's a very harsh place to be for the three candidates. Pasha lost the endorsement simply by not being there; Tunny, apparently, lost it for the same reason, just over the course of the year instead of missing two opportunities; and Yong was called out rather bluntly.
Organizational Relations:
- Jonathan has a clear vision for the four entities and enterprises. Extremely weak point. As I've pointed out before, Yan's "clear vision" is anything but clear, or visionary. He does not understand the roles of the entities he seeks to work with. He does not understand the role of the Director of Organizational Relations. He does not understand what efforts the entities are currently putting out.
Diversity Efforts:
- Ben has a strong presence and personality, both on campus and personally. This is a strong point. Diversity Efforts needs to be able to be seen to be on campus, and they need to have enough personality to speak up and be heard.
- Ben has a thorough knowledge of the communities and diversity issues on campus. Another strong point. That knowledge is key to fulfilling the duties of Diversity Efforts. It is knowledge, so it can be learned... but having it at the start is a very big advantage.
- The Daily feels Ty Huynh and Kyle Rapinan have been either too close into ASUW or too far away from UW, respectively. It seems the Daily chose Ben as a middle of the road candidate, by the last point.
All in all, this endorsement makes sense by the logic the Daily put out. Sure, the points can be debated, but as it stands, it holds up I feel.
Programming:
- Jocelyn has proven her programming ability in CORE. Strong reasoning here, because she has put on a wide range of programs and shown that she can draw people in.
- Jocelyn has plans and ambitions for programs for next year, including methods to work with and around the limitations Condon hall will put on ASUW's efforts. Another strong reason.
The Daily did say that this was a hard decision, and I agree with them entirely on this position. All three show a thorough understanding of the position and what the Director will need to be. This endorsement also makes sense, and holds up.
Totals...
All in all, I think 5 of their 8 endorsements make sense. The top two (Pres and VP) were poorly worded and almost came across as damning the candidates with faint praise. The endorsements themselves should have been better. There are plenty of reasons to endorse either Madeleine or Eric, but the reasons the Daily chose just don't hold water.
Their endorsement of Jonathan Yan is, frankly, insulting. I almost feel as if the endorsement committee and I were sitting in a different forum listening to him speak.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Late Breaking Campaign
Write in campaigns are few and far between in ASUW, and usually center around squirrels, jedi knights, or Middle Earth. This year, however, there is a write in campaign being organized to get people to vote for Neil Rotta for the Director of Organizational Relations.
As I have said before, both in this blog and in real life, I consider Neil to be the ideal candidate for Org Relations. He has served in the Experimental College, the largest of the four entities/enterprises ASUW operates, for two years as Assistant Director and currently Director. He has sat on the Student Technology Fee Committee for several years, serving as Chair of the committee for two years. Neil has served in the student senate for his entire career at UW.
Org Relations has to work with ASUW's entities and enterprises and represent ASUW on several committees, most notably, STF. Neil is eerily perfect for Org Relations.
Had Neil run with any of the campaigns, I would consider him a shoe in for the job based on qualifications alone. He would lend the weight of his experience to whichever ticket, and (having spoken with him) would have drawn a different crowd into the voting booth.
The facebook group was made public just last week and only has some forty members, but there are many notable faces listed as members... myself included. Organizational Relations is one race I will publicly say who will receive my first place vote, and that vote will be going to Neil Rotta. I doubt he'll be able to generate enough steam to win, but I think he deserves my vote.
Here's the facebook group.
An interesting thing to note about this campaign is that Neil is not leading it. Other people have decided to put Neil forward and recommend him to others. No, Neil is not rejecting their support... in fact, he's a member of the group too... but it's rare to see any campaign pushing for a candidate that isn't lead by that candidate.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
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.
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.
RHSA Endorsements
Good Morning all!
So, after the RHSA/IFC/Panhel forum, I sent an email to Almeera Anwar, the President of the Residence Hall Student Association, to ask if RHSA would be endorsing anyone, and when their endorsements would be public. Almeera got back to me with both a list of their endorsements and a statement about how their committee came to their decisions. Read below:
Now, my thoughts on these endorsements...
I am surprised that there was not a Presidential endorsement. There are five strong candidates, who bring distinctly different views to the table, and it seems like this is a time RHSA would want to endorse one over the others to help their membership decide whom to vote for.
Shauna receiving the VP endorsement is not a surprise. She performed very well at the forum, giving detailed, well thought out answers. The same for Tunny in CR.
Jed and Sarah are running unopposed, but did still answer the RHSA question and submit a platform, so I am glad to see the RHSA did endorse them.
Ben Lealofi, Nick Booher, and Sam Weinstein all come from the Team Legacy Ticket, and all received the RHSA nod for Diversity Efforts, Organizational Relations, and Programming. I am impressed that Legacy secured three endorsements. I can definitely understand why Nick got the nod, when compared with his opponents, and Sam might have had some home field advantage, but I doubt that was the bulk of why she received the endorsement. Sam had good, solid answers and addressed them well to the Residence Halls. It makes sense for them to endorse her.
I'm going to do some digging, see if I can find the minutes from the RHSA meeting, talk with anyone who was there, and see if there's more to the story than just these endorsements.
So, after the RHSA/IFC/Panhel forum, I sent an email to Almeera Anwar, the President of the Residence Hall Student Association, to ask if RHSA would be endorsing anyone, and when their endorsements would be public. Almeera got back to me with both a list of their endorsements and a statement about how their committee came to their decisions. Read below:
Endorsements:
President: No Recommendation
Vice President: Shauna Stadnik
Director of Community Relations: Tunny Vann
Director of Diversity Efforts: Ben Lealofi
Director of FAA: Jedediah “Jed” Bradley
Director of Operations: Sarah Round
Director of Organizational Relations: Nick Booher
Director of Programming: Sam Weinstein
(we definitely mixed up the tickets – we believe in endorsing individually)
This year, a committee of individuals decided who currently serve as RHSA reps decided who would be endorsed. The only information used in this decision process was the candidate’s platforms, their experience and qualifications (as listed in their application), and what was said at the RHSA/IFC/Panhellenic Forum on Tuesday, May 4th. All other outside information is not included in the decision process because we look at that as a slippery slope and feel that people should be held accountable to their words to our constituents at the forum and what they plan on doing, as noted in their platform. We always deliberate immediately following the forum so in this case, we started at 10:00 pm on Tuesday and went until 3:30 am the following morning. We really work to make sure we remain neutral in the process and that we make an educated decision.
The primary things we looked at when endorsing were how well they answered our question to them, the messages in their platforms, whether they will engage and support the residence hall community and finally whether we believe they are the best candidate for the job. The residence hall component and actually answering our question were weighted the heaviest.
I served as the non-voting Chair of this committee and took pro/con as well as statements of why we chose to or chose not to endorse for all positions and candidates. However, this information is not public and was available to general council yesterday but was re-sealed as of 7:00 pm last night and therefore is no longer available to anyone.
Almeera was the MC of the forum as well, and has graciously volunteered to take any questions you might have. You can email her at rhsapres@hfs.washington.edu or leave your comments/questions here and I'll relay them to her.
Now, my thoughts on these endorsements...
I am surprised that there was not a Presidential endorsement. There are five strong candidates, who bring distinctly different views to the table, and it seems like this is a time RHSA would want to endorse one over the others to help their membership decide whom to vote for.
Shauna receiving the VP endorsement is not a surprise. She performed very well at the forum, giving detailed, well thought out answers. The same for Tunny in CR.
Jed and Sarah are running unopposed, but did still answer the RHSA question and submit a platform, so I am glad to see the RHSA did endorse them.
Ben Lealofi, Nick Booher, and Sam Weinstein all come from the Team Legacy Ticket, and all received the RHSA nod for Diversity Efforts, Organizational Relations, and Programming. I am impressed that Legacy secured three endorsements. I can definitely understand why Nick got the nod, when compared with his opponents, and Sam might have had some home field advantage, but I doubt that was the bulk of why she received the endorsement. Sam had good, solid answers and addressed them well to the Residence Halls. It makes sense for them to endorse her.
I'm going to do some digging, see if I can find the minutes from the RHSA meeting, talk with anyone who was there, and see if there's more to the story than just these endorsements.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)