The Elephant in Luis Lopez’s room.
Out of all the candidates thus far, Luis probably has the strongest narrative on his Facebook page. Everybody roots for the underdog, and Luis positions himself as the underdog, the daredevil (the Roosevelt quote) and somebody who genuinely loves Whitworth. Whitworth gave him a chance, he seems to say, where others wouldn’t.
But his decision to run for ASWU president has resulted in a large amount of muttering and criticism. Some of that criticism has been polite and thoughtful, such as Quincy Peredya’s comments on my Exec Teaser Trailer post. Others have been rude, like Publius’s comments, now banished to the depths of the Internet memory hole.
The concerns are these. Luis, from all reports, had trouble managing the Financial Vice President position. Publius, an unreliable source, admittedly, said “Reports of misplaced funds and accounting errors were the impetus for his resignation.” Still, in Lopez’s own words: “The reality is I am ill-equipped and, in truth, under-qualified to perform the abilities of my job to my best ability.” (I’ll ignore the irony of Lopez saying that he didn’t have enough ability to do his job to his best ability. Those sort of mistakes are easy to make, and largely irrelevant.)
From conversations I’ve had with people, everybody loves Luis. Everybody thinks he’s a stellar individual. Yet, most people I’ve talked to are also concerned about the fact that Luis decided, halfway through, that he wasn’t qualified for his previous position. Clearly, some of this criticism is unfair. The presidential position and the financial vice-president position are radically different. I would be a pretty lousy ASWU president, but a far worse — almost apocalyptically worse — financial vice-president. It’s a Math thing.
Yet, it does not seem that Luis has addressed this criticism head-on. It’s the elephant in the room, trumpeting and stamping its feet, but while Luis seems to just be saying to not “focus on” the elephant. He’s talked about how frustrating it is that people bring the elephant up, but never directly repudiated the criticism.
On his facebook group, he says: “With my resignation within the immediate memory of many, I feel that there is too much overt focus on that one singular event. What people should recognize is the full picture.
When people go to the voting booth, this is an issue that will undoubtedly be at the forefront of many minds. If Luis is to win, he’ll have to answer these concerns effectively, and directly.
Here’s a couple questions for Luis. They’re pretty tough questions, but being ASWU president is all about answering tough questions.
1. Obviously, Publius is a jerk, but his accusations are out there, peskily floating about. Are Publius’s anonymous accusations true? Did you make accounting errors and misplace funds? Were you “perpetually cranky and depressed?” Was the workload of the FVP position too much for you to handle?
2. Can you get more specific on why you resigned? The Whitworthian article and resignation letters weren’t very specific. This will be helpful for students to to detirmine how much relevance your resignation bears.
3. How is the Presidential position different from the FVP position? Is it easier? More difficult?
4. You’re campaigning, largely, on experience. How will your experience as FVP (and senator and rep) change the way you’ll govern?
5. Historically, the ASWU President job is the most criticized on campus. The criticism can range from subtle, to downright venomous. It will appear occasionally in the Whitworthian, but more often, behind closed doors. How will you handle this?
A Mark Baker’s (half) Dozen.
A smattering of questions for Mark Baker, who’s running for ASWU financial vice-president. (Full disclosure: He is the Whitworthian financial reporter, but we have little contact.)
On your facebook Election page you post “I plan on implementing some clarity into the FVP position. Previous Vice Presidents have been allowed to manipulate the system by not having the qualifications and consequently not being able to perform. Once elected this will all change. After all, the money is the students money and I believe the students should have more involvement in the allocation of those funds or at least the ability to influence them. Therefore clarity in interpreting financial statements as well as cash flows of government activities is highly important.”
“Previous Vice Presidents have been allowed to manipulate the system by not having the qualifications and consequently not being able to perform. Once elected this will all change.
1. First, which Vice-Presidents (and it you does say Vice-Presidents plural) have been allowed to manipulate the system and were not qualified?
2. What do you mean by “manipulate the system?” How would you stop this from happening?
3. How did you know they weren’t able to perform? What specifics are you thinking of?
4. How will you change this, preventing people from being able to “manipulate the system?”
5. It almost sounds like you believe there were poor financial decisions this year. If so, what?
6. How will you give students the ability to influence the way funds are allocated?
And Peter Cleary comes out of frickin’ nowhere!
At Whitworth, the first 24 hours of a campaign may be the most important. First impressions are everything, and name recognition is the strongest with the people who’ve campaigned the largest and longest.
And so it begins. Never, in the history of man, has so much blue tape been used by so few.
But so far, out of the blocks, the most impressive campaigning has been done by Peter Cleary. Oh, the sheet hung by Kalen Eshoff is the largest advertisement so far and is professionally done. But the most dramatic splash had been made by clearly been made by Cleary.
First let’s talk posters. His poster is designed, dare I say it, well. While the substance is minimal (more on that in a second) it certainly looks nice. There’s no “jaggedies” around the photoshop of his head and the text looks hip without seeming cliche or desperate. (Yes, fonts say a lot.)
More importantly, it’s HUGE. I used a poster of a similar size for my campaign for Warren Senator. It cost me 50 dollars. No word on how much this poster cost. Size, naturally, matters. The other posters around it just look sad in comparison.
As far as content, Peter’s going the “alliteration” method of persuasion as opposed to the “rhyming” method of persuasion that Carl Chan seems to be using. Peter for president because he’s Persuasive, Principled, and Positive.
He also uses three very short sentences. “Think. Talk. Do.”
If votes are currency, The Facebook group is the ATM. And, besides an unofficial group for Tyler Hamilton, Cleary’s is the first ASWU President group up, I believe. (Carl Chan and Mark Baker have groups up as well.)
Peter also has a smattering of Bright Orange T-Shirts, Katie Zerkel style, asking us either to vote for him, or Act on Aids. (I didn’t get a close look.)
He also has claimed the overhead projection, looming over the HUB, with his gigantic mug. It’s a rerun of his poster. I’ve only seen one version of his poster yet. We’ll see if more show up later.
So far Cleary’s campaign isn’t creative, it’s all stuff that’s been done before. But it’s being done effectively and — most importantly — quickly.
It was vital that Cleary made a strong impression from Day 1, because (in my opinion) he lacked the name recognition that a Lopez, Quarless, or Hamilton. He’s also the one executive candidate who hasn’t been on ASWU (I’m counting Hamilton because he’s been to practically every meeting this year.) To his credit, however, Cleary has attended a meeting.
But I didn’t know much about Cleary, other than he dresses a little like Scott Donnell, has hair like Scott Donnell, and his rhetoric sounds very Scott Donnell.
Like this, from Cleary’s facebook page: “I’m so excited to serve you all in a personal way. Oftentimes I feel like executive members of staffs are unapproachable. My dedication is to being completely personal. I’m excited to make your voice known across our community through the power of relationship. Relationship with you, with B-Rob, and with everyone else in between.) Personal relationship is the theme here, right down to calling William P. Robinson “B-Rob.”
Now, that’s not a bad thing. Donnell obviously won the election and was, arguably, the most successful president we’ve had in 3 years. But I’m sure that, over time, Cleary will distinguish himself more.
To help him do that, we have a few quick questions from his rhetoric so far. If you’re reading this, Peter, feel free to answer it below.
1. Let’s talk goals. You say: “I have seen too many organizations never get anything done b/c they just talk too much. With me as President, next year’s ASWU won’t be all talk. We’ll think about what you want, talk about how we can best voice your concerns, and then DO it. No hesitation. No looking back. And you’re gonna love seeing your ideas in action. Guaranteed.”
What do you mean by “No Hesitation” and “No looking back?”
2. You place a very strong amount of importance on “doing” rather than talking, and imply that ASWU has been all talk this year. If you were president this year, where would there have been action, where there has been only talk?
3. What are some ideas you’ve heard from students this year that you will put in action next year, that they’re going to love?
4. One of your big selling points is that you’re “persuasive.” Besides getting votes, who will you persuade, and what will you persuade them of?
5. You say you “don’t cut corners.” Where have corners been cut in the past, and how will you avoid cutting them? (Correct me if my reading of the implication is wrong.)
Thanks, Peter.
Good luck!
Question #1: What does your job, you know, *do*?
There’s a problem that many ASWU execs run into in their first few days of office. The problem of purpose. The problem of role. What am I s’pposed to do? many execs ask themselves.
As Scott Donnell said during the interview for the accountability report: “My role is one of the more ambiguous roles on campus.”
Cory Marshall addresses this problem in the comments to a previous post: “Obviously we students of Whitworth have no idea what we want out of our executives, but we sure love commenting on what they do,” Cory says.
Part of that’s because the requirements for many of the positions (besides FVP) are vague. The responsibility sheet does not get much more specific than “Have X number of office hours a week.”
The role of president has looked VERY different under the command of Scott Donnell, Jeff Hunter, and Fa’ana Fenene. They’ve all found their own style, their own groove. The question is: What should the role be.
So, what are the responsibilities of the role your running for? What is the difference between President, the EVP and the FVP? What are their roles? How does, say, the EVP differ from President?
Knowing what the job entails is the first step to being qualified in doing it. Show me you know the purpose of your job — why it even exists. I’m looking for specifics here, people.
ASWU Election Open Thread.
As I alluded to in a previous post, often the greater Whitworth community doesn’t actually get their questions about ASWU candidates answered. The rhetoric of elections often don’t go beyond a few vague fragmented buzzwords (Accountability! Experience! Nice hair!)
I’m hoping the Forum can help change that. I’ve given each candidate a forum account. Each day, I will ask a broad question of the candidates. If they have the time or inclination, they will respond in the comment section. Ideally, we can get into the *specifics* of qualifications, vision, and leadership style.
If you have a question for the candidates (or a specific candidate) , or an observation on the elections, or a coherent defense or criticism of a candidate, post it in the comments to this post. Hopefully, the candidate will answer.
ASWU presumed frontrunners
The shot has fired, and the runners are off. But that doesn’t mean they’ve all began from the same starting line. Some of the students gunning for the ASWU executive positions have an advantage over others. Here are the students that are coming in with the biggest headstart in the electoral race, even before posters are posted up: (These are not necessarily the students who *should* win, just the students who have a big advantage starting off.)
President: Tyler Hamilton. Hamilton wears the unique mantle of being the most “insider”choice in the election, despite the fact that he’s never held an actual ASWU position. Yet, he’s attended almost every ASWU meeting in his two years at Whitworth. In other years, being seen as “typical ASWC” may have been a disadvantage. But this year, ASWU just doesn’t inspire the same amount of hatred that it did when I was Senator.
Plus, Hamilton got a legit head start. Before he left for China, he e-mailed a number of his friends announcing his run, and asking them to, starting the 31st, wear Blue Bandannas to show their support for Hamilton’s presidential run. It’ll be interesting to see how the “Gang colors” thing works out, but it seemed effective, albeit expensive, when Zerkel used a similar ploy last year.
However, Hamilton’s sophomore status may hurt him. One of the reasons Seth Wall’s presidential run never took off in 2005, despite less than ideal other candidates, was because he was but a sophomore. People were tempted to vote for him, but figured that, hey, they could always vote for him the next year. (Seth didn’t run that year, however. He was Duvall Senator.) It’ll be interesting to see how Hamilton and his opponents address this in coming weeks.
Executive Vice-President: Kalen Eshoff.
Originally, I had written a rave about how successful Vi Nguyen was at her job this year, and how she had the election sewn up. However, I underestimated one little snag: She isn’t running.
So instead, odds are on Kalen Eshoff, a two-year RA. As Donnell showed last year, the contacts that a two-year RA has can make for an unstoppable campaign. RAs are some of the most well-known people on campus, especially among underclassmen (who play a critical, often underlooked role.) And RAs have won the EVP position before as well. Andrea Naccarato, a former Warren RA won, and received generally positive reviews.
Financial Vice-President: Kendra Hamilton. Kendra Hamilton lucked into this one. Kendra’s still in the “honeymoon” period of her position, but thus far hasn’t done anything too controversial. (Though it’s taking an awful long time to get the actual unallocated amount, but that’s not Kendra’s fault. It’s a very complicated financial reset thing, where ASWU is no under the financial umbrella of the school instead of being their own entity. Like I said, complicated.)
And if both Kendra and Tyler win, then you have President Hamilton and Vice President Hamilton.
FVP is the one ASWU executive position the school actually couldn’t do without. It’s the most important position and often the most time-consuming. Yet, it’s also the least glamorous. I’m not sure if winning the FVP election is actually a “win.”
Those are the people I believe are currently ahead, before campaigning really gets going. Disagree with my analysis? Think they’ll be some upsets? Post in the comments.
How Student Body elections are won
High school elections were simple. There was a very basic hierarchy, at least at my school, of things important to the student body in the campaign. In rapidly-descending order:
1. Sense of Humor.
2. Posters, Name recognition.
3. Professionalism.
4. Issues.
A funny — or even psuedo-funny — irreverent campaign would beat a polished professional earnest campaign every time. (There was also a sort of unfair sexism. Females had a lot of trouble getting elected because many high school males were reluctant to vote for a girl and half the high school females hated any given other high school female. That was high school for you.)
College elections, for whatever reason, are different. Some people actually care about electing the Best Person For The Job, a standard which places much less importance on a good one liner. In high school, many kids would vote for the weird candidate just for ‘laffs’. College voters, however, can be frighteningly serious and frighteningly earnest.
Here’s how, from my three years of watching Whitworth elections, college voters seem to order their priorities. This is how people do vote, not how they should vote.
1. Positive Name Recognition. People say it’s all a popularity contest. At Whitworth, that’s pretty accurate. The limitations on posters and the blink-and-you miss it campaign season make it difficult for anyone who doesn’t already have an established name to make an impression. Whitworth is a small campus. Popularity matters as much as, if not more than campaigning.
Last year Scott Donnell won not only because he was one of the most popular people on campus, but because he had many other of the most popular people on campus actively campaigning for him. He had at his beckon a host of RAs, one of the best tools for spreading positive name recognition a guy could hope for.
Let me stress the positive aspect of positive name recognition. When Phil Ryan went up against Jeff Hunter, Ryan probably had more name recognition. Yet, his negatives were pretty well advertised. He’d, infamously, done a poor job as BJ senator and received a hearty amount of scorn for unsubtly letting it slip that his opponent was thirty years old.
Criticizing your opponent is the greatest crime in Whitworth politics.
Of course Jeff Hunter’s age meant he had more difficulty relating with the average Whitworth student. And of course the fact that neither Scott Donnell or Kyle Pflug had attended an ASWC meeting before running should be discussed.
But it’s suicide for a candidate to address their opponents flaws directly.
That’s why we have debates that resemble Resume Readings or side-by-side impromptu speeches more than anything actually argumentative.
And that’s why the blatant attacks by Publius will actually help Luis more than hurt him. (In fact, if I thought Luis was the devious sort I’d think that he wrote it. He didn’t)
What are effective are whisper campaigns started by allies of the candidate. If in the inevitable Saga table discussions about the candidates somebody says, “Ooh, I don’t know. I heard that Jake Johnson has failed three classes. Do we really want such a slacker in such a pivotal position?”
Like much at Whitworth, the real debating, the real substance, goes on behind closed doors.
Professional Posters
To the masses that don’t know your names, posters can be important. If the rules weren’t so strict, the candidate who could cover the campus with posters without annoying anyone would have the advantage. As it is, candidates have a fairly pitiful number of posters they can actually put up. Quality, not quantity.
Crappy posters cost votes. That includes posters taped up with glaring, hastily-placed blue tape strips. Yet, each poster should have a bit of meaning to it. Fa’ana Fanene’s warm, homemade posters beat Jessica Carrier’s professional but heartless posters. They have to be quality — conveying seriousness — but have personality — conveying humanity — as well. The easygoing, personable schlub will beat the uptight hyperefficient snob every time.
Qualifications
Qualifications matter, slightly. If somebody has an blatantly unqualified personality it can hurt them. If they’re too touchy, too bombastic, too offensive, or too shy students may quietly vote against them. But how many years they have on the ASWU doesn’t seem important enough to skip the scale. In past years, when the ASWC had a more negative reputation, not having served on ASWU was actually a plus. One of the reasons Hunter got votes is he seemed like an outsider. He had experience running small businesses, a refreshing difference from the lifetime student government politicians.
Issues
Issues often don’t matter because they’re never brought up. There’s rarely an obvious difference between candidates on their policy. One wants to BUILD bridges, while the other wants to build BRIDGES. Part of the problem here is matters of policy often don’t get plumped until the debates, which usually only happen the day before voting. As a result, the debates don’t have enough time to really sink in. And only about 40-50 people even attend the debates, most of whom have their minds made up already.
(Whitworth used to have debates and speeches conducted in front of the entire school, during Forum. That would be cool.)
Misunderstandings about ethics
It’s a little upsetting to hear some of the comments made by people in my communication ethics class. These comments are upsetting because people seem to misunderstand some very central tenets of ethical theories… and the professor doesn’t correct the misunderstandings.
So in brief, there are two major ideas that keep coming up:
First, there is a big difference in utilitarianism between “that which causes the most good for the greatest number” and “that which benefits the majority.” Utilitarianism does not call for people to sacrifice the interests of the minority – it tries to keep the playing field as level as possible. In some situations that probably means causing a slight inconvenience for 49% of people, while causing a slight improvement for 51%. In other cases, it could be an enormously good thing for 90% of people, and a really bad thing for 10% – but the cost/benefit analysis thing does not imply sacrificing the interests of the minority unless it is for the sake of an overwhelmingly good thing for the majority (like sacrificing a half dozen people to appease the aliens that would otherwise kill everybody).
The second mistake has to do with Ayn Rand’s objectivism/egoism. People confuse it with egotism and/or practicality. I think of the difference like this:
Egotism = “I am all that matters.”
Egoism = “I am most important.”
There is an important distinction there. One of the central tenets of Objectivism is this:
“Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”
So sacrificing others for one’s own benefit is fundamentally evil from this moral viewpoint. That is one important thing that needs to be clarified in class, especially when I hear things like “This guy is, like, the ultimate egoist because all he cares about is himself, and he doesn’t care who he harms to get what he wants.” That is not an example of an ethical egoist. Have a good spring break everybody!
A Veritable Buffet of Candidates
Update: Seth Flory is no longer running. See his post for why.
Update: Chelsie Hall is not running either.
Update: Vi Nguyen is no longer running. That makes Corey and Kalen the only candidates for EVP.
Note about future posts: Unless I hear differently, candidates can’t actually comment on issues about their candidacy until March 31, because of stodgy election rules. For other people not bound by the bonds of ASWU bylaws, however, comment away!
Also, Mark Sherridan may not comment on any election posts because he’s not real.
(Please excuse the picture problems.)
ASWU PRESIDENT
Obe Quarless
Major: Music Education
Experience: Sports Event Coordinator (2007-2008)
——
-
Peter Cleary
Majors: Economics, Theology
Experience: Small Group Coordinator (2007-2008)
——
–
Tyler Hamilton
Majors: Psychology
Experience: Small Group Coordinator (2007-2008) and 2 years of active attendance at ASWC/ASWU meetings.
—-
Luis Lopez
Major: Political Science.
Experience: Village Representative (2005-2006) Boppell Senator (2006-2007) Financial Vice President
—
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
Kalen Eshoff
Major: Psychology
Experience: Resident Assistant (2006-2007 and 2007-2008)
–
-
Corey Newman
Majors: Spanish and Political Science.
Experience: Executive Secretary and Baldwin-Jenkins Representative.
—
FINANCIAL VICE PRESIDENT
Carl Chan
Major: Accounting
Experience: Future Business Leaders of America President, [of his local high school chapter, presumably] Washington Mutual Bank Teller.
—
Mark Baker
Majors: International Business, Chinese.
Experience: Club President.
–
-
Kendra Hamilton
Majors: Economics, International Business.
Experience: Current FVP, Boppell Senator (2007) and Stewart Senator (2006-2007)
—–
The Wright Response
There has been a great deal of controversy this past week over some statements made by Barack Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Reuters reports:
In sermons widely circulated in the media, Wright has called the September 11, 2001, attacks retribution for U.S. foreign policy, cited the U.S. government as the source of the AIDS virus, and railed against a racist America.
Now, forgive me if I am misguided about the entire state of our nation, but are these statements really that inflammatory? Only in a nation obsessed with patriotism and nationalism could someone be so crucified for honest remarks. Of course, the issue is not really with the remarks themselves or even Wright but rather their association with Obama and his political campaign. What saddens me about this whole situation is that Obama has distanced himself from Wright, rather than affirming his statements. I would have much more respect for Obama if he truly sought to transcend “politician” status and spoke honestly, rather than seeking to garner more votes.
Personally I would agree with Wright. Was 9/11 caused by America’s foreign policy? I would say absolutely yes. Do I think that the United States is a racist country? Not overtly, but certainly covertly. We thinly veil our prejudices and simply self-segregate—by moving out to the suburbs or going to private liberal arts colleges—and thus avoid uncomfortable racial interactions.
I suppose what frustrates me about this whole “controversy” is that I feel like a huge number of Americans hear Wright’s sentiments, and they resonate—they certainly do with me.
This is my first post here on the forum, and it is quite possible that I am simply talking out of my proverbial arse. I would be delighted to hear your thoughts about this topic and please share criticism, suggestions or anything else you have to say.
Note: Obama will be giving a speech tomorrow morning and will be discussing this situation. I will write some more once we hear what he has to say.