ASUW Elections Forum, hosted by the Student Advisory Board

First thing I will tell you is that the forum was advertised as beginning at 4:30 and ended at 8:45, so there were four hours of candidates giving their spiels to the audience. Several candidates noticed, however, that the vast majority of people in the room were either associated with one campaign or another, or they were an ASUW insider already. I'm one of the latter.

The forum was organized with the Directors presenting in alphabetical order, followed by the VP and the President. Each candidate was allowed to introduce themselves, and then received a prepared question, then there were questions from the crowd. There were quite a few supporters for Team Legacy filling up the Stage Left side of the theater, and the ticket itself entered the theater to Michael Jackson. Definitely an interesting choice. Dr. Sheila Edwards-Lange was sitting in the front row, and she stayed for the entire forum, so many kudos go out to her.

Let's dive in....

Community Relations:

Pasha, from Husky Nation, was the first speaker, and he introduced himself, and his ticket, as wanting to bring back traditions to the campus, to build them up and bring them to the community. His question was how will he make ASUW a real part of every student's life... and his answer was by taking himself, and other BoD members, to events, by facebooking, and reaching out to as many people as possible. It wasn't necessarily the strongest answer, but it wasn't bad.

Yong Cho, on Team Legacy, was the next speaker for CR, and he brought up his roots in Korea and his time in UWLeaders. Yong's question was 'what is the ECC community, and how is it represented in ASUW.' His answer was rather rambly and vague, addressing his experiences in clubs, saying that the ECC IS diversity, and that he wants the clubs to reach out to him (as Director of CR). The way his answer rambled made it very hard to follow, and I'm not sure he really answered the question fully.

Tunny, for One Campus, was clearly the best put together of this group of candidates. His suit was impeccable, his presentation was close to flawless, and he spoke with quite a bit of confidence. Clearly, being the incumbent has given him an edge the others will have to work hard to overcome. His question was about how in the past there has been division between the North of 45th community, the RHSA, the UGC, and other groups, and what would he, as CR, do to change that. His answer left something to be desired. The first portion was mostly buzz words, but ended with a heartfelt note about walking in another person's shoes.

That segued into Tunny being asked that as the current CR, he represents the past, why should anyone expect him to do anything differently than what has been done? Tunny's answer was good, at first. He said that it is impossible to reach every community, but that he has done good work north of 45th, and will continue to work. In the second half of his answer he told the questioner that it was "unreasonable to expect one person to reach out to all communities." I think that was a foot in mouth moment, and definitely something for Tunny to avoid saying in the future. Telling a questioner that their concern is unreasonable is one of the cardinal sins of politics.

The candidates were all asked a few more questions, and their answers were all fine. Some were weaker than others, but no one made anymore large gaffes. Overall, I would say that Tunny looked the most comfortable and prepared to be up there. Yong was slouching in his chair looking bored, and Pasha had a bit of a nervous twitch going with his right foot. Candidates, remember that the audience can see you, even when you're not holding the microphone.

Diversity Efforts:

The three candidates for DE all presented very different personalities and styles of leadership. Ty Huynh was very scripted and on point, a much "cooler" style of DE than has been seen in recent years; whereas Ben was a big personality, involving the crowd and filling the room; and Kyle Rapinan was warm, but quiet.

The first question was "what does SAB mean to you?" which is the perfect question for DE, especially in the ECC Theater. Kyle's response was that SAB is the body that gets things done on campus for the underrepresented communities; it's not well connected to ASUW, but that should be changed. It was an excellent answer, that I feel strikes to the core of what SAB is and does... it's the body that works and fights for change in a much more vocal way than ASUW ever does.

Ben was asked what does Diversity mean to you... and he said that we cannot define diversity for everyone, that diversity changes based on the situation and the people. It was an interesting answer. He added that he would like to bring Diversity to the classroom, to where people are spending their time at UW.

Ty Huynh's question was about her previous experience with underrepresented groups, and how she would promote groups she was unfamiliar with. Her answer left a lot to be desired, honestly. She spoke about her experience with KhSA and the ASU fried rice competition, and then about how she would work to get freshmen trained in safezone techniques... her answer didn't really address the question. It was all good information, but needed much more focus.

One point I would like to bring up is that in about half of his opportunities to speak, Kyle said some variation on "similar to the other candidates..." or "like XXXX said..." That is a very weak method of public speaking, and makes it appear as if you don't have ideas of your own. The rest of Kyle's opportunities were full of excellent ideas and content, but I can't help but remember how many times he lifted up his competition.

I think Kyle's answers had the most substance, Ben had the best connection with the audience, and Ty Huynh was extremely well prepared. All three candidates were good, and I am still undecided as to who I will be voting for.

Faculty and Administrative Affairs:

Jed introduced himself, stated his current position as Senate Chair, and then took questions. His answers were rather rambly at first, winding their way through Jed's thought process, but eventually made a point. His third question was an obvious plant from Eric Shellan, his ticket's VP candidate, asking Jed what he was going to do to improve faculty evaluations. Jed launched into his prepared idea about getting rid of the scantron (bubble) sheets where students rate their professors and the class. He also added an idea or two about having sit down round tables with the prof after the class to discuss how to improve it. An interesting idea that sparked immediate concern.

Directly after that question, a student in the back said that she felt the scantrons were useful because they allowed students to see how other students rated their professors or classes. Jed's reply was rather dismissive and, frankly a bit rude, saying that there were other better ways to do that. Another student then questioned the round table conversation, saying that students who must follow a series of classes could be penalized by the professor, and Jed's answer was again flip to the point of rudeness. A third student then asked Jed if he would take the bubbles away without consulting students at all, because she finds them (and the course catalog) quite useful. It was at that point that Jed finally gave a serious answer saying that this was good input and that he had never heard of someone actually using the catalog (apparently he forgot the questioners just before this one) and that he would take it under consideration.

Yes, Jed is running unopposed, but flip answers will not endear him to any crowd.

Operations:

Sarah is also running unopposed, and she used her introduction to build up her entire ticket. That is the standard tactic for an unopposed candidate, so no harm no foul. Her answers to the questions were well thought out and full of good ideas. She also seemed to own the space much more than most of the other candidates.

Organization Relations:

Jonathan Yan, for One Campus, was the first candidate introduced. He built up his experience as a Marketing and Accounting major as "business experience" and his time as his House's Senator and Tunny's CR Associate Director as ASUW experience, claiming he will have a leg up on other candidates because he knows ASUW already.

Nick Booher, for Team Legacy, gave a rather humble introduction acknowledging that he was a new face because he was campaigning and saying that he wants to become known there. He also laid out the goal of making ASUW accessible to everyone.

Rory Raabe, for Husky Nation, was the last candidate to speak, and her introduction was off beat. She introduced herself as "applying for the position..." and was rather self-deprecating. She did bring up her experience as the current Assistant Manager for Rainy Dawg Radio, and the close relationship she has with the current Org Rel.

All in all, the Org Relations debate was rather negative in tone. Jon Yan began it with his rather aggressive listing of problems he sees. When he was speaking I felt like I was either being yelled at or lectured. His talking points dominated the debate and framed several of the questions, so he was definitely effective, but decidedly unpleasant. When he wasn't speaking, Jon lounged in his chair, arm hooked over the back with an odd smirk. (As I said before, candidates: remember we can still see you!) I would also like to point out that one of Jon's repeated ideas was "buzz marketing" and he described it as producing swag items like pencils with your logo on them and giving them out so students take them home and see them later. I don't know if Jon has noticed, but there are currently hundreds of paper cranes with ExCo's name all over the HUB, there are also pens and stressballs covered in ExCo's logo. I've also seen similar items from Rainy Dawg, the Bike Shop, and OCHA. The entities have been doing Jon's "buzz marketing" for years.

Rory did not present very well, in most of her answers. She seemed flustered, and rightly so as most of the questions and talking points were about the entity she currently helps to lead. She will need to work on how she presents, and show that she can be confident. I will give her kudos for standing up and calling BS on one of Jon's talking points, in which he claimed that Rainy Dawg only has 15 listeners per day. Rory got feisty and stood up for what she knows to be true. Good work there, try to keep that passion in the rest of your speeches.

Nick presented very well, honestly. He has less ASUW experience than either of his competitors, but he framed his ideas well, came off as approachable, and likable. Those are key skills for Org Relations, and he demonstrated them quite well tonight. In his closing speech Nick addressed these points head on, saying that he has a passion to learn, that he wants to learn what these entities do... and that's a very good place to start as Director of Org Relations.

Programming:

This position is one that I still cannot find a good reason to pick one candidate over the others. Evelyn has a lot of real work experience with the work the position does; Sam has similar experience from her time in RHSA in an analogous position; and Jocelyn has definitely proven her ability to put on programs this year.

Between the three, there are really only superficial differences. Jocelyn looked the best prepared and presented with more confidence than either of the others. Sam presented a much different point of reference than her opponents, coming from RHSA. Evelyn's only missteps were how often she said "ummmm" and how rambly she got in some answers. This is an extremely hard call. I'm going to continue watching the forums and campaigning to decide for my personal ballot.

Though, I will say Evelyn needs to remember the same thing I mentioned above... we can still see you when you're not holding the microphone! I'm not sure what was so interesting in the rafters, but Evelyn was staring up there for quite sometime while the other candidates answered questions.

Vice President:

Point blank, Dalia owned the space more than the other candidates. She was comfortable and dynamic in the space. I was impressed. Eric was almost that comfortable, though I did have the urge to go up there and straighten his hair and tighten his tie. Sarah was clearly passionate about the position and wants to make sure that the basics are covered, that the core duties are fulfilled, before the position expands. This contrasts directly with Eric who seems to want to grow the position, almost making it into Government Relations 2.0, or even Co-President. Both are valid directions to take the Vice Presidency into, and I'll be intrigued to see which direction the voters leap. Shauna was also very well put together, though in more casual attire than her competition. Her points were cogent and relevant and full of passion. She seems to be a happy medium between Sarah and Eric.

One rather interesting thing happened during the VP debate. When asked, by Madeleine McKenna the current VP and Presidential candidate, what change she had made to the VP did they think was important and how would it affect their work next year. Dalia, Shauna, and Eric all had very similar answers, but when Sarah answered she started out on the same track as her opponents, but then took it a step further. She said she would take the time that was freed up by the Bylaws change (allowing Committee Chairs to appoint their own volunteers without the VP and the Open Selection Process) to reactive the Governance Committee. The room literally filled with whispers for a moment after Sarah said that. I know what I think about the idea, but I'm damned curious to know why everyone else was whispering.

Lastly, Dalia repeatedly made reference in her speeches to the people "picking the right Board" or voting for the "right candidates." She even asked the room "who do you see yourself in?" When we are sitting in the Ethnic Cultural Theater, at an event hosted by the Student Advisory Board for the Vice Provost of Minority and Diversity Affairs, and there is a ticket that is primarily based in that community, those statements carry a lot of weight.

Almost done folks....

President:

Each of the candidates came out very strong tonight. One glaring flaw I have to mention is that Chris Teeny showed up in jeans and a T-shirt (though his shirt did have the outline of Africa on it). That is beyond being too casual for this kind of event. It's a forum to decide who we, the students, want as our President... the candidates should look like they could be our President.

Of the five candidates onstage, Kyle and Jilberto seemed the most at home and comfortable. They both walked the full length of the stage and interacted with the crowd casually. Sam grew into being that comfortable on the stage, and Madeleine got close by the end of the forum. Chris was getting there too.

Something I like about Chris's thought process on ASUW and the Presidency is that it is so well thought out. He brings in sociological and political science theory and makes it relevant. I was honestly quite impressed. I had to laugh, though, when Chris said that he "became aware of what ASUW was two weeks after joining Senate." I'm not sure how you could be a member of Senate for two weeks but not know what ASUW is... I'll have to ask him some time.

Sam stood by his ideas and his convictions, and I definitely respect that. I thoroughly disagree with his stance on Local Control, but that's a conversation for if he gets elected. Sam's background is definitely different than all of the other candidates, and would make for an interesting shift in ASUW dynamics.

Madeleine was very much the "advocacy" candidate, pushing the projects she has worked on this year and promoting ideas she is working on for next year. She has some solid ideas, some so solid we're also working on them up in OGR... maybe we should connect a bit more.

Like I said before, Kyle was extremely comfortable on the stage. She name checked several people in the audience (myself included) and showed a lot of passion. There were only glimpses of nerves when she lost track of a question or two.

Beto... Beto gave an extremely strong showing tonight. He had ideas, he had charm, and personality. He showed himself to be a top tier candidate, and did it with style.

OK... The recap is over... this is a summary, heavily laden with my opinions. If you disagree, let me know... we'll talk about it. If you want to see my notes, I've got them and I'll show you what I wrote down. I've got some verbatim quotes and I managed to catch almost every question or statement.

Good night and good luck folks. ;)