Daily Forum: My opinions

To begin with, this forum was an odd mixture of formal and casual. Several of the candidates stepped up their game from the ECC forum (I'm looking at the jacket, shirt, slacks combo on Chris Teeny, and the neat tie and hair on Eric Shellan) but a few others went the other direction, dressing down for this event (Evelyn, Kyle Rapinan, and Jonathan Yan being key examples). The room the forum was held in was chock full very quickly, if a bit later than planned. The Daily's Editorial Board had a lengthy list of questions, and they managed the candidates and the speaking time well. Like in the ECC forum, the Directors went first, though FAA and Ops were excluded because they are running unopposed. (I hope that the Daily will not simply endorse those two candidates, despite not hearing them at the forum, unless the Daily did receive some sort of Q&A time or form from those two positions.)

Something to note, was that for the Director Positions, the One Campus candidate always sat to Stage Right placing them as the first candidate to receive questions and give their opening and closing statements. It looked like an obvious tactic to plant themselves in the memories of the audience, except that when we came to the Vice President and President, the One Campus candidates were farther down the line, if not at the very end. Did something go wrong, or was this planned at all? I'm not sure anymore, but it is something to note.

EDIT: Apparently I remembered incorrectly, and only half of the Directorships had One Campus candidates speak first.

To begin... Community Relations:

Pasha was notably absent from this forum. I am told he had a class obligation, but submitted answers to the Daily's board before hand. Part of being a student leader is being a student, so we'll have to forgive him this absence.

Strengths on display tonight... well, Tunny put out at least two very solid ideas that I think should be followed up on as soon as possible: incorporating ASUW into Transfer Tuesdays and appointing more Associate Directors of Community Relations. The first idea is an excellent method of reaching out to students who often have excellent leadership experience coming from their Community College, but who rarely hear about ASUW. The second idea is actually quite similar to an idea I've proposed in late night conversations with other ASUW dinosaurs... it is one of my long standing beliefs that CR should be the head of an office that has a set of volunteers or paid staff who help the Director reach out to as many communities as possible. It's good to see someone else seeing a similar idea. I wouldn't call them "Associate Directors" but that's a minor detail. Yong Cho's answers came across as sincere and heartfelt.

Weaknesses were a bit more abundant. Yong frequently would begin his answer strongly, confidently, and then begin to trail off as he ran out of words. Something he should work on is knowing when, and how, to end an answer. He also needs to develop his ideas. The ones he put forward tonight are things we, as ASUW, already do. We need to see something new from him to feel the urge to support him. Tunny's weaknesses came in two flavors: Major Gaffe and Minor Issue. The minor issue was that he re-used his introduction. Those of us who come to multiple forums notice when you use the same phrasing time and again, and it shows a lack of originality... a lack in the ability to tailor your speech to the audience at hand. This can be fixed with some practice and a bit of coaching. The major gaffe came into play when Tunny was asked why previous CRs had met with the Daily every week and Tunny had not. Tunny launched into an explanation of his personal relationships with Daily staffers, and then said that he "didn't feel like weekly meetings were necessary." That should have been phrased differently to take away from the bluntness of it.

Tunny came out the clearly stronger candidate after this forum.

Diversity Efforts:

Watching this section after the ECC forum was rather odd, honestly. Ben was quieter, more direct. Ty Huynh was much less scripted and had meatier ideas. Kyle didn't really display the substance behind his ideas as well. All three candidates performed differently than they did at the previous forum.

Strengths... Ty Huynh looked much more comfortable, and she sounded that way too. She was able to bring out ideas and plans when asked about her measurable goals as Diversity Efforts. I was impressed.

Weaknesses. One thing that leapt out at me from several of Ben's answers was that he kept saying he is an advocate for things, higher education, diversity, queer people, poly people, etc. but he never really said how he has been an advocate. Right now, I don't know what he's done that makes him an advocate. I want to know, though. Hopefully he'll give some detail at the next forum. Ben also needs to make sure that he answers the question that has been asked. In my notes on his answers, several of them say "didn't really address the Q" or "partially addressed Q." Kyle also ran into this problem a couple of times, where he delivered interesting material and answers, but they didn't address the question he was asked. Another weakness for Kyle was that he was directly asked how he would increase his presence on campus as opposed to the great volume of work he's done off campus, and his answer to that particular question was rambly and weak. He needs to have a stronger answer to that question in particular. Ty Huynh needs to keep working on staying off script... she was much better tonight, and only faltered twice, but they were obvious moments. If she can keep those under control, she'll do very well in the next two forums.

Organizational Relations:

To begin with, Jonathan Yan was less aggressive this time than he was previously. His speech was almost the same, minus the blatant attacks on Rainy Dawg, but it was tamer and less strident. The tone of this portion of the forum was much more peaceful than it was at the ECC forum.

Strengths... Nick impressed me. He came out much more confidently than he did in the previous forum, but managed to support his confidence with his qualifications and ideas. The fact that he has met with incoming and out-going managers and directors is a mark in his favor. Rory was also able to get out some of her ideas and qualifications, showing how she has improved the DJ experience at Rainy Dawg.

Weaknesses... Starting with Nick, I think he didn't really have a major weakness tonight. He is as strong as most previous candidates for the position were (in years past) and presented well tonight. Rory flopped one question in particular. When asked what were some measurable ways she had improved Rainy Dawg in her time as Assistant Manager, Rory only listed one measurable method of improvement. That is a problem. Her improvement was good (I even listed it as a strength), but one improvement is not enough to float that question.

Jonathan Yan's weaknesses were on display tonight. When asked what specific methods he would use to improve the entities' visibility, he pulled out the tried and true "Buzz Marketing," which is an acceptable answer, but then he kept talking in rambling sentences that didn't make much sense. He was discussing potential cross promotion between the entities and said "You know, Bike Shop and the Experimental College can do a really great event..." and then went on to another rambly sentence. I am sure that the Bike Shop and the Experimental College could do a really great event... but what would it be? What would its purpose be? When asked what the biggest challenges facing the four entities are, his answers were generally weak. Visibility, communicating what they do, sustaining themselves? When it came to Rainy Dawg, though, Jonathan almost did a 180 degree turn from his treatment of that entity at the ECC forum. He said that they're really great, that they've got listeners, and they're doing good, but he'd like to shift money from their personnel budget into the website. (This point, I think is another example of how Jonathan doesn't really understand how to fix a problem he sees. How do you "put money into the website"? You either have one of your current employees get paid to fix it or you hire a new employee to do so. I am guessing, just guessing, that Rainy Dawg's Technical Manager's job duties include maintaining the site.)

I think that paragraph is long enough, for now... so let's move on.

Programming Director:

The first thing I want to note about all three candidates is that they all gave very long answers. Brevity is appreciated!

Strengths... Evelyn came into this forum much calmer than she did the ECC forum. That was good to see. Jocelyn presented at least one new idea that should be implemented, whether or not she gets elected. The idea of Quad Fairs next year is excellent. She also showed that she has been thinking ahead and planning for the move to Condon already this year, which shows foresight and good planning. Sam's main strength tonight, I feel, was the breadth of her experience. She listed off a half dozen programs that she has either been involved in or put on herself. That kind of experience would serve well in the role next year.

Weaknesses. Evelyn needs to have details in her answers. When asked what the biggest challenge facing the Programming Director for next year was, Evelyn repeatedly referred to "these groups." What groups? The question didn't address groups at all. Later, when asked for programs that aren't currently under ASUW's supervision the only one she brought up was Home Coming and the Home Coming Rally. She will need to diversify her portfolio of ideas to get back into the race.

I still cannot decide between Sam and Jocelyn over who is the stronger candidate. Both bring significant experience to the table, both have good ideas, and the more I think about it, the less I think either is a bad choice.

Vice President:

Strengths.... Dalia and Sarah both gave strong performances tonight, giving good answers. Dalia walked the stage area, almost as confidently as she did the ECC's stage. Eric was much more comfortable than in the ECC forum and gave much stronger answers than before. He went into detail, described how he would actually perform the duties of the VP, and in general hit the right notes. Shauna also hit a lot of right notes, and presented a lot of good information. All four candidates were good tonight.

Weaknesses... I'm not quite sure, myself, if this should be considered a weakness, but Eric was cracking jokes throughout his time on stage. Talking about appointing "some rando" to a committee, and yet right then also talking about how we need to give and receive respect in the community. It was a mixed message at least. Shauna needs to make sure she thinks her answers through quickly before giving them. In one answer, her second sentence argued against the point of her first sentence, and in that same answer she said "if elected President..." which is a minor gaffe for the VP candidate. One glaring point was Sarah's answer regarding the Ballot Measure question. I'll admit that I didn't even know what the question was referring to, and had to send a series of quick text messages to find out. Once I knew it was the University Agenda proposal, it made more sense... but the question didn't give enough information. That said, Sarah did her best to answer the question and came out OK. She'll want to do some research on that topic ASAP.

I'm not going to label this a strength or a weakness, but Eric used my most recent favorite quote twice. He quoted Justice Scalia's point that politics and democracy take a certain amount of civic courage. Eric gets kudos from me for the quote.

President:

Over all, the five Presidential candidates all made strong showings. Madeleine was much more comfortable tonight than she was at the ECC and it showed. Her answers were cleaner, her posture was less aggressive, and she relaxed enough to make a joke or two. This was definitely a stronger showing for her. Beto apparently decided to follow Eric's example from last week and came in with the rumpled look, his shirt un-buttoned. A general rule to follow is: if you are going to wear a suit to a forum, wear the suit properly. Sloppy suits speak softly. Aside from his suit, Beto's answers were mostly on point and well phrased. I will say that he did not answer the question about what his legislative goals in Olympia are.

Sam and Chris were both comfortable on stage, but were also coming at the whole idea of ASUW and the Presidency from a different angle than the other three candidates. They are the outsiders, and they're both more than competent to do the job. If either gets elected, I expect to see some significant changes in how ASUW operates.

Kyle was very at home at this forum, much like she was at the ECC forum. She gave good solid answers, but did get a bit playful at times. This was shortly after the rather joke-filled VP period, so maybe it made sense. I'm not sure.

Of the five candidates, Madeleine, Beto, and Kyle had some of the hardest questions, and they gave some of the most detailed and thorough answers. I especially liked Madeleine's response to the question about alternative methods of making student voice heard; Kyle's answer regarding controversy with the Daily and the campus community; and Beto's answer regarding increasing SAF and Transportation fees. All three answers were nuanced and had a lot of depth.



As always, if you'd like to take a look at my notes or have an in depth conversation about what I've posted or your opinion on what happened, I'll make time for it.