Response to Responses and Debate Preview

Well, here we find ourselves in week two of campaign season. We have our list of senate candidates, the announced Presidential tickets have met the requirements to be on the ballot and the NISG public debate will be held tomorrow. Apologies in advance for the long post.

If you've just started following the blog, I'll try to provide some context from the first week of campaigning. First we had our candidates formally announce themselves, the chalking began, and the websites and platforms for each candidates were released. Last Thursday I published a guest post from NISG VP Paul Andersen and former VP Blake Findley in which they, for lack of a better term, ripped the platforms of both the presidential tickets to shreds. 

Now it's my job to provide context and analysis, and I'll admit that I probably should have prefaced their post with more context. Let's understand this post for what it should be : a wake-up call to the presidential campaigns. 

Being NISG vice president is a hard and thankless job. People know that the NISG administration gets paid, but if you split their pay by the hour, they make considerably less than minimum wage. Every successful presidential campaign gets into office with high hopes and big plans, but the reality is that it is very, very hard to make lasting change in a one year term. Things that are easy to do have already been done, and things that are really hard to do, like getting students to engage with student government, nobody really knows how to change. 

Let's go back to their post. For many of their gripes, the loudest and most often is the HOW behind these ideas. If you read their analysis of the Katie and Renae platform, they respond with specific instances of how the proposed policy has been tried in the past. In their analysis of the Jared and Tanner platform, they are clearly frustrated by the glaring lack of familiarity with NISG. 

First, let's give some credit to Paul and Blake. They've worked really hard for students, and they have first-hand experience of this struggle that many of us simply can't understand. But let us also understand that it is really easy to take a NISG platform and cut it to shreds. They probably know better than most how hard it is to move the needle, and it's frustrating. It also is frustrating when people think they can do your job and don't take the time to learn what you actually do. 

So yes, it's easy to cut a platform up, but what's lost in the cutting is a desperate desire to maintain and progress an organization that many have worked very hard to build to this point. So yes, Paul and Blake were blunt and rude, but they did so out of the fear that their work will be diminished or undone by those that follow them. 

My hope is that the candidates take this criticism in stride, and view it as a wake up call; a vital part of being a student leader is being able to put yourself out there for criticism, and to adapt and learn from what happens. No matter what anyone says during the campaign, actually doing the job means adapting to whatever circumstances land in your lap. 

That being said, the campaign season is supposed to be the time where you demonstrate to the study body that you have original ideas to bring to the table. You campaign so that people are convinced that you know what the job is, and that you're the best option. Your job, your challenge for election season is to establish legitimacy as a student leader. 

Responses

I want to go over the response, or lack thereof, from both of our presidential tickets. While Jared and Tanner had a response written Saturday night, Katie and Renae seem to be holding off or either don't plan to respond. To begin their response, Jared and Tanner note that "nothing has been deleted . . . we stand by our original vision." When faced with opposition such as the guest post, you can either dig in deeper or you can be humble; it appears Jared and Tanner have opted for "digging in."

In their first section, ENGAGE, Jared and Tanner basically add details to their ideas for their Inter-Club Council (ICC). They elaborate on how they want to invite several student leaders to meetings twice a semester, post bi-weekly update videos, and discuss their hope for a focus group.

Jared and Tanner, it's like you didn't even read what Paul/Blake wrote. Did you read how they critiqued Katie and Renae? In their critique, they cite how the round table discussions were barely attended in the past, and Jared and Tanner offer nothing in how they are going to innovate in this regard. Jared and Tanner hope that student leaders will want to meet twice a semester. News flash: getting even one leader per organization to meet even ONCE a year is like pulling teeth. Ask any past director of finance, who struggles with NISG Budget Info meetings every year. In regard to publishing update videos in a timely manner, both Paul/Blake have tried to do this before, and it honestly means a lot of work out of your director of public relations, who has plenty else on their plate. 

In their second section, PROMOTE, they offer their first unique idea. They envision a Panther Friday that highlights a different aspect of UNI that is doing great. While this is nice, I just hope that they recognize that this does involve plenty of actual PR work. I was pleased to see something concrete at this point.

However, their paragraph on how to work at the state level concerns me. They want to " ensure appropriate funding for UNI, increase overall enrollment, and promote UNI's image." Now it sounds great to raise overall enrollment, this shows an ignorance of what UNI's long-term goals are. We currently are a place with facilities where we shouldn't really increase enrollment above 14,000 students. Again, I'm concerned with how serious they took the concerns raised by Paul and Blake. Fighting for adequate UNI funding has been the #1 goal of President Ruud's admin, not to mention our reps and senators from Blackhawk county. This is a very complex issue. I don't want Jared and Tanner to continue with the false notion that they will be able to be effective in this area. A far better focus would be on student fees. For those who don't know, the NISG President is the chair of the Student Fee Committee, which controls how student fees are allocated and collected. I'm not convinced at this juncture that Jared knows this, due to his lack of NISG experience.  

Their last paragraph, PROGRESS, is the shortest but has the biggest problem. In it, they cite regard for the training of Senators and Cabinet members, as well as having improved communications with the lower cabinet. This is stuff we usually see on every platform, including Katie and Renae's so fine. The real problem is how they want to re-establish the chief of staff position. 

For some historical context, the chief of staff used to be an upper cabinet position that helped manage some financial and personnel responsibilities in the administration. This ended several years ago when NISG opted to pay half the salary of Pam Creger, who works for the Student Involvement Center. Pam agreed to take on these responsibilities, and NISG agreed to pay half of her salary to do it. This is why we don't need a chief of staff, and why the current senate decided against implementing it during this year. To me, this suggestion is something that Jared and Tanner decided sounded good, but haven't actually thought through. 

I don't know which is worse, totally ignoring a critique and not responding at all (looking at you Katie and Renae), or putting out a response that totally neglects the advice given by the VPs. Jared and Tanner, if I am you I'd be reaching out to and meeting with Blake, Paul and any other people who have done this before to help you out. Rather than digging in, show voters that you'll adapt to criticism, learn from your mistakes, and show an honest desire to learn.  

In looking at Katie and Renae's platform, it is clear that they've done their homework. Katie, being involved in NISG for several years, knows how this works at this point. It is clear that they have several directions for what they want to do, but what I'm lacking is a definitive narrative that draws everything together. While Jared and Tanner are short on ideas, Katie and Renae need to cut down the number of ideas and put a focus on their campaign. Their idea for a Women's Center is definitively ambitious, and it looks like Renae has some insider knowledge after meeting directly with some administrators. Of all their ideas, this stand out as the most fleshed out and closest to reality. 

If this is the case, then why no response? If you've demonstrated that your platform has more to offer than the other guys, why not respond to the critique? Either way, remaining silent is not a good option. You either look like you're ignoring the advice, that you're above it, or that you don't want to bring more attention to the errors of your platform. Both are bad options. 

In a couple instances, their platform makes the classic NISG mistake of promising something NISG has no control over (usually, parking). For example, there's no way NISG can do anything about how MyUNIverse works. In other places, they fall guilty of explaining an issue and how they feel, but not how to address it.  Overall, I don't know if they expect people besides me to read through all of this. They have lots of ideas, but fall short on the implementation strategies. Will they respond to Paul and Blake? 

What this all comes down to is, who so far in this campaign has more original ideas to bring to the table. After digging through both platforms, here is the score that I have:

ORIGINAL IDEAS

Jared and Tanner:
Specialized Panther Fridays

Inter-Club Council
Bring back chief of staff

Update videos

Katie and Renae:
Updating the blog more, interjecting local/state issues
Lower cabinet director of alumni relations
Expand Panther Shuttle routes/ times
Women's Center

Now, my promise to you blog reader is that I will report what I see and share my opinion. You may agree or disagree, but I'll try to explain why I feel the way I do. I will refuse to engage in some sort of journalistic neutral position because it doesn't do anybody any good. That being said, I'm not convinced at this point that Jared and Tanner really understand why they want to be head of an organization they've never been a part of. 

When it comes to evaluating the candidates, judge them not by their looks or their org affiliations, judge them by their ideas. The list above is really what ideas each candidate will bring to the table. Once elected, everybody goes through extensive training by the current administration on the ins-and-outs of the job. NISG experience alone does not make good candidates. Kevin and Paul won last year with little prior NISG experience, but they learned the job and are by all measures excellent leaders. I lost to these guys, and there's nothing better than losing to people who deserve the job. There is no question that either ticket could be effective leaders, but I haven't seen the evidence for it yet. 

Looking forward to tomorrow's debate, I'm hoping the candidates will take this unique opportunity to put their best foot forward.  Jared and Tanner, you have this chance to prove me wrong and that I underestimated you. Show the UNI community of students that you really are great student leaders and that you're willing to grow. Katie and Renae, this is your chance to prove that your vision is concrete and has focus. Prove to voters that you're the ticket that has done the homework and has come up with solutions. 

I think that I am the most excited by the senate portion of the debate. I'll be covering the rise of For Real Senate as soon as I get a chance to sit down with them all, and I'm excited to see what their future plans for NISG are. 

Again, the debate is Tuesday from 6-8 p.m. in the Maucker Union. The first 40 minutes or so will be for the Senate, with the remainder for the presidential tickets. If there isn't a livestream, I'll record it myself and figure out a way to get the video online. I've been told it's going to be extra cold and windy tomorrow, so until next time stay warm!