Week in Review Part 2: Warning: A Look Behind the Machinery, Debating might be agreeable to your health, Venting about the Beacon, and JPFW Looming

As mentioned in the last post, this entry will discuss the ASUP Senate Speech Night and how it was covered.

Warning: this will be long.  Please stick with it; I provided some nice links to support my views!

Even though the 2 comments were favorable of my writing, I still feel like I was a little bit of a talking head, and not of the "Heaven" and "And She Was" variety. I was surprised I found the Senior Gift part of the ASUP Constitution, but I'm digressing.

Before I get to the content of the event itself, I need to provide how I got involved. The process started on a Friday, Feb. 4, when Secretary Burrelle shot me an e-mail. She mentioned KDUP has played a role in prior Speech Nights and wondered if we could handle this year's moderation because she had to go to a Drama Conference and thus could not be present.

Being the dedicated person I am, I spent the next few hours going through KDUP's archives to find anything about ASUP Senate.  I was only able to find the 2006 Speech Night, a cursory mention of Beergate, in which a candidate handed out flyers to attendees of a keg party, including the sibling of another candidate and a 2003 Beacon article from the then-president about ASUP Senate.  Since the latter were not much help, I listened to the question from 2006.  I quickly realized how similar the concerns of students were five years earlier, even down to the concern over printing allotment that was brought up at the following Senate meeting. 

I wrote down the questions, sent them to the KDUP news team because it is under their responsibility, and only Kirby, the News Director was comfortable participating because they did not feel like they could help and Kirby and I, since I have been attending ASUP Senate Meetings, should handle the event.  I also consulted others (the current president and vice president, other students I met, and faculty) and received some productive ideas that did not make the final list, like what has been your legacy within ASUP Senate, what would you do differently/similar to your predecessor, and how to increase participation within Senate meetings. Secretary Burrelle also provided a list of general questions last year's senate provided and the agenda.

Luckily, I also got help from Senator Vasconcellos, a member of the ASUP Awareness Committee.  He was willing to step in and co-moderate with Kirby. Thanks so much for rolling with the changes and great job!

However, I did not spend too much time outside the occasional day of work until the night before the event.  I overheard some candidates wondering how early to appear and got the opinion of Adviser Koffler. He mentioned the moderators needed to dress up to set the tone of the evening and how to handle personal attack questions: cutt of the question if it is an ad hominem attack, but if it is more biting than bitter, let it go, but remind the audience that the night was for the issues and how the candidates could handle the issues.  I spent the time after the meeting crafting e-mails to the candidates and Adviser Koffler. Luckily, Adviser Koffler managed to craft great introductions to questions, partly due to his decade plus of  Speech Night experiences.

That night, I spent the time before the event in CST 363, kavetching and fretting about the event going wrong, a personal characteristic I have to acknowledge. Thanks again to Caitlin and Roya for the switch to the bow tie, even if it bothered me through the entire event, existing just below my chin.

As mentioned in the twitter feed, ASUP's Facebook page and ASUP's Blog, there was plenty of agreeing, but this should have been expected from the similar platforms of the candidates.

Thanks again to Dr. Lovejoy and CST 363 for raising awareness of the Speech Night, allowing former CPB Director Tarra McCurdy follow it from New York.

Of course, the Beacon made their endorsements of candidates.  Sadly, the opinions seemed only formed from the impressions of Speech Night and views of the candidates, not the views of objectivity. I might have been more than a little concerned with keeping time, but I fail to remember hearing anything Presidential Candidate Imfeld say provide an impression he would "favor the administration's needs over the students' needs during the debate." Sure, he said he would go to the administration and provide student views and he endorsed 11-03, but the other president and vice president candidates did as well.   My point is no more obvious than their endorsement of Caitlin Chu for Treasurer.

They state:

Caitlin is a highly organized and genuine candidate who has forward thinking ideas and experience with the budget in the ASUP Finance Committee.
While Andy is enterprenurial and ambitious, he appeared unprofessional and apathetic during the ASUP debates.

How he appeared in the debates does not necessarily relate to how he would act with clubs.  By resorting to "lazy journalism", the Beacon, already a burr in my side over their preference on feature stories like a staff member getting some internet publicity from a blending of Snooki from Jersey Shore and the Mona Lisa
getting placed on page two and a piece on the results of a survey on the mental health of college freshman as their "top" story.  I know it tied in well with the Peer Health Educator's program earlier this month, but "top" stories have to be the ones that are the most important to readers, like the piece on 11-03 the week before, inconveniently published the morning after a compromise was reached.

Though they have dubbed the election "an election for the ages," the label would be more fitting for even last year's election in which non-senators tried but failed to topple those with Senate experience.  A race with similar platforms and unsatisfying responses even to a question of how they are different from their opponent makes this race similar to too many of the real political races, in which voters will select based off their personal feelings toward the candidates, something the night should have helped avoid.  

The audience did step up and ask some tough questions like how they plan to relate to the faculty and the aforementioned difference question.

Thanks again for all those who participated in the process and looking at my length means the Week in Review gets a special part 3, in which JPFW will finally get discussed.  Stay tuned for a report on the "Varsity Sport of the Mind", what the future can entail, sponsored by Career Services and the Alumni Department, what I gleamed from the Coffeehouse performance.

In case part 3 falls after the election, I will close with the sign-off of another famous TV journalist, Edward R. Murrow, " Good Night and Good Luck!"

Week in Review Part 1: Warning: Debating and and JPFW on the Horizon

Wow! 

The only reason I was able to post today was due to rehabilitating from the first half of the week. Sadly no club visits yet, but this Week in Review will deal with some of the bigger events this week: ASUP Senate and Junior Parents and Family Weekend (JPFW). 

Monday featured the continued discussion of 11-03 a resolution to reallocate Capital Improvement Funds toward the fund-raising efforts of the new Recreational and Wellness Center.  Want to know more about CIF? ASUP Senate Vice President Katie Scally has done a nice job explaining the purpose and history of this fund on her blog Heard on the Bluff.

The executive board brought in speakers from the Rise campaign and the Office of Development to answer questions the senators and visitors had.  Not surprisingly, the representatives were for the idea of students giving their efforts money.  Even though they were prepped like witness for a trial, the representatives failed to convince enough senators to support the resolution, at least for that meeting. The representatives were also skilled at the art of not completely answering questions like whether the new Library or Recreational and Wellness Center was a higher priority for the campaign at the time of questioning or even if the donation could speed development. 

I understand the latter is a purely hypothetical question, but with the new Recreational and Wellness Center not even in the designing phase, it seems foolish to assume that enough people can get swayed by the legacy argument.  The main senators who believed that were Senior Senators, some of whom appear to think that people will acknowledge the plaque that could read "Construction supported by the contributions of students from 2011-2013," when few people read the plaques on the Victory Bell, Howard Hall or even recognize the island outside the library was funded by the 1994 Senior class. If they really wanted this to be their Senior Gift, here's the Senior Gift  page from the Rise campaign website.



Also here's how the Senior Gift is funded under the current ASUP Consitution :

ARTICLE VII: SENIOR GIFT
SECTION 1: FUNDING OF THE SENIOR GIFT
A. A portion of the student government fee shall be set aside each year for the purpose of
enabling the graduating class to give a gift to the University. This amount shall be a minimum of $500.00, which may be supplemented by the graduating class itself. All monies for the gift remaining unallocated at the end of the academic year shall be returned to the general account.
SECTION 2: SELECTION OF THE SENIOR GIFT
A. A committee composed of all interested Spring, Summer, and Fall graduates of the calendar year shall meet by the last week in January, for the purpose of designating a gift, if any. The organization of this committee shall be the responsibility of the ASUP President, and the Senior Class Senator(s). Campus publications and Alumni Office shall be requested to notify graduates of the nature of the gift.

If you look at Section 2: the committee is composed of the ASUP President and the Senior Class Senators, who are for the resolution. If 11-03 does not pass and enough seniors really want to donte to the fund-raising efforts, they should use the Senior Gift.

The discussion turned bitter as senators were rehashing the same talking points that had been developed for the last few weeks of "this has to be done now or it will never be happen", "the campaign will get the money regardless of our contribution", and "why not contribute anyway? The donation cannot hurt their efforts."
Also, senators representing the Freshmen class said their constituents did not want the idea, then Senator Ross, a freshman representing Shipstad, stated he had interviewed freshmen that were for the idea.

Now from reading all that you might think I am against 11-03.  I am only against the part in which it comes from the Capital Improvement Fund and the means by which it was presented.  The idea of giving to the new Recreation and Wellness Center is good, but skipping the Oversight Committee and having three members of the Executive Board be sponsors of the Resolution does seem a little hinky, at least to this blogger.

Thank God the discussion got tabled.  Sure, the debate will still not be a debate this Monday, but at least the bickering on that topic ended so they could bicker about the current CIF.

 
To alleviate some of the concern, the donation to the new Recreation and Wellness Center was not selected as one of the final six CIF ideas submitted to the Executive Board for their decision this last Wednesday at 2:30. 


The decision to keep the donation to the Rise campaign this semester on the final list was only supported by 8 senators, two of whom were Senators Bibbs and Collins, a President/Vice President ticket. I believe enough senators were concerned the Executive Board would not be objective in their selection of the Rise donation, hence it was one of the first items to be cut.

The surviving ideas are solar panels, a computer kiosk in the Commons, weight room equipment for Howard Hall, renovating the outside of St. Mary's Lounge (because the inside has been the recipient of previous CIF and the interior "possesses character"), CPB sound and Lighting, and Repairing the Victory Bell.  The last idea was attempted to be cut by the recommendation of  newer Senior Senators Steele and Saxton, but they and two others were the only ones in favor of cutting the repair.  Enough Senators believed ASUP (the Associated Students of the University of Portland) should fund its repair since a student allegedly broke it and its repair would help raise awareness of its purpose, ringing in victories for the athletic teams. 

The need to thoroughly discuss these ideas and caucus twice provided ample time and was a great inadvertent way to stall for time to not vote on 11-03. 

Since this is getting a little wordy, next post will feature day 2 of the intense week: the ASUP Executive Candidate Speech Night.

To borrow a sign off from Dan Rather that seems like appropriate summation and foreshadowing: "Until next time, Courage!"