With all of the speculation going recently regarding the CDems and our role in the District 5 County Board race, I thought I'd write a little about what my role has been in this campaign and what my thoughts are on the race. Please take these comments as my own, and not those of the Executive Board or the Membership as a whole. (And as a shameless plug for our next meeting, I encourage you to stop by 1651 Humanities on February 6th to vote in our endorsement meeting and hear more about becoming a delegate at the DNC in Denver this summer.)
I started thinking about this race early last fall, well before Supervisor Kumar decided not to seek reelection. It was pretty clear to me that he was not doing a good job representing the District (full disclosure: I was the campaign manager for Adam Korn in 2006 running against Mr. Kumar for his seat). While I don't have the hatred for our Supervisor that many on our campus seem to have, I think that he has done and said a lot of things that reflect poorly on students. That said, on principle, I agree with him more than we disagree. He's a liberal, a progressive, and while I think he goes to the extreme too often I appreciate his contributions to the discourse.
I found myself in a tough situation as early fall turned into November and no one had yet announced their campaign. As the rumors of David Lapidus' candidacy started to fly, I was surprised to find that both Suchita Shah and Eli Lewien had come out in support of Mr. Lapidus before he had even declared. Nothing against David, to the contrary I will be the first to say that he knows more about county government than anyone else in District 5. But knowledge alone can't be the basis of my vote. We had no knowledge of how he would vote for Chair, and I had questions as to how his "Libertarian streak" would affect his support of social services and public health programs I consider vital. That said, it ended up being a non-issue as he dropped out before getting in.
So there we were, still no candidate and the semester winding down. With the filling deadline on January 2nd, I thought that there was a chance that we might not even get a single candidate on the ballot. To me, that was the worst part. And to their credit, I applaud both Conor O'Hagan and Wyndham Manning for caring enough about this District to actually run for the seat. It's easy for the rest of us to hurl stones at them, and while I agree with Jason Smathers that they both have a lot to learn about campaigning and local government, the fact remains that they stepped up to the plate.
It amazes me that in a city with as much political history and involvement as Madison, with a campus that had the second-highest voter turnout in the country in 2006, that we would have only two people who wanted to run for this seat (did I mention it pays $8,200/year?).
A week before finals, Scott Resnick told me that he had found someone who was interested in running for the seat and asked if I wanted to meet with him. I met with Conor, and after a short conversation about what his values and policy priorities would be, agreed to help him out. At the time, he was the only person I knew of who was interested in running for the seat. I helped him get his paperwork filed and got him in touch with Citizens for Dane County's Future, the progressive caucus of the non-partisan County Board.
On January 2nd, I was in Iowa for the caucuses when I heard that Wyndham had jumped into the race. Certainly not unheard of, Alder Eli Judge was a late entrant into his race as well if memory serves me, but nonetheless unforeseen. Scott had by this time signed up as Conor's treasurer, and was working with him on crafting a message. It was about a week later that I learned that Conor had asked Molly Rivera to be his Campaign Manager. (I should point out that both Scott and Molly are members of the Executive Board, but both are ex-officio members and cannot vote in EBoard endorsements.)
Since our return to school I've been helping Conor by giving policy and campaign advice (insert Korn campaign joke here...) to the best of my ability, while still keeping my focus on the Presidential Primary coming up on February 19th. Regardless of what anyone might say about the campaign two years ago, I think I've learned quite a bit about campus politics since then and am much better suited to help out in a race today than I was back then.
I want to briefly point one thing out. I have never been contacted by Wyndham in regards to his campaign, and while I'm hoping to meet with him sometime this week, it's my impression that he feels a CDM General Membership endorsement is beyond his reach. I think he made a serious error in writing off our endorsement so quickly. He had a chance the other night to bring new supporters to our State of the Union Party to make sure they qualified to vote under our clarified attendance rule but chose not to do so. If Mr. Smathers' column today was accurate, and Wyndham began this campaign as a "half-joke" then I guess I sadly overestimated the level of involvement of this campus in the greater community. That said, I'm still willing to meet with Wyndham, offer him any advice he may ask for, and be of service to him on any questions he has about the College Dems and our endorsement process.
Again, I'm under the impression that he doesn't want my help. That's fine, understandable, and he has a very intelligent man in Jesse Russell running his campaign who I'm sure knows much more about local politics than I do.
Given my involvement in Conor's campaign, I decided that it would be best to avoid any appearance of impropriety by removing myself from the EBoard recommendation process (along with Scott and Molly). Despite the statement that I'd want my involvement in the race to be "shady," I removed myself in an attempt to remove all doubt and would have gladly told anyone exactly what I had done for Conor if they had asked. The rest of the board conducted the interviews and came to a final decision (without Molly, Scott, or myself in the room). The product of which was a "No Recommendation" from our Executive Board based partly in the inexperience of both candidates and partly in the belief that any recommendation made would be tainted with the appearance of impropriety. I stress "appearance" because I think that by taking myself and the other involved members of our Executive Board out of the meeting, what was left were six voting members who went in with truly open minds. Anyone is welcome to question that, but I believe that how we chose to conduct our process was fair to both the candidates and our members.
That pretty much brings us up to date. We have no more CDM events scheduled between now and our endorsement meeting, and our Rapid Response Chair Anna Smith is in the process of updating our membership list to reflect all of those people who have turned out at our events this academic year. We are also getting an updated list of paid Democratic Party of Wisconsin members, our other requirement for voting at our meetings.
I hope that I haven't been shrewed in this process. I hope that I've contributed to the candidates a little of what is most important to me as a lifelong resident of Dane County and that I've done so in a way that was fair and open. I should have written this sooner and put much of the speculation to rest, and for that I'm sorry. If you have questions that I've failed to address I'd encourage you to ask them on the comments section so that I might be able to respond publicly to them.
One last thing: My focus right now has shifted back to where it should rightfully be, and that's on our GOTV Campaign for the Presidential Primary. We've had an extraordinary response from people who are willing to volunteer and be Dorm and Ward Captains (look for new Ogg Hall to make a statement) and over the next couple days we'll be finalizing our plans for that effort. I, for one, am hoping for a Super Tuesday that answers few questions and shifts focus to us two weeks later. It'd be pretty sweet to see Barack, Hillary, and John all in one week (Kucinich reportedly going to campaign in Hawaii [can you blame him?]).
Again, let me know if you have questions about the process or my involvement. I'm very happy to answer anything that I can. Thanks for your time, I think this may exceed the length of some of David's past posts...
I started thinking about this race early last fall, well before Supervisor Kumar decided not to seek reelection. It was pretty clear to me that he was not doing a good job representing the District (full disclosure: I was the campaign manager for Adam Korn in 2006 running against Mr. Kumar for his seat). While I don't have the hatred for our Supervisor that many on our campus seem to have, I think that he has done and said a lot of things that reflect poorly on students. That said, on principle, I agree with him more than we disagree. He's a liberal, a progressive, and while I think he goes to the extreme too often I appreciate his contributions to the discourse.
I found myself in a tough situation as early fall turned into November and no one had yet announced their campaign. As the rumors of David Lapidus' candidacy started to fly, I was surprised to find that both Suchita Shah and Eli Lewien had come out in support of Mr. Lapidus before he had even declared. Nothing against David, to the contrary I will be the first to say that he knows more about county government than anyone else in District 5. But knowledge alone can't be the basis of my vote. We had no knowledge of how he would vote for Chair, and I had questions as to how his "Libertarian streak" would affect his support of social services and public health programs I consider vital. That said, it ended up being a non-issue as he dropped out before getting in.
So there we were, still no candidate and the semester winding down. With the filling deadline on January 2nd, I thought that there was a chance that we might not even get a single candidate on the ballot. To me, that was the worst part. And to their credit, I applaud both Conor O'Hagan and Wyndham Manning for caring enough about this District to actually run for the seat. It's easy for the rest of us to hurl stones at them, and while I agree with Jason Smathers that they both have a lot to learn about campaigning and local government, the fact remains that they stepped up to the plate.
It amazes me that in a city with as much political history and involvement as Madison, with a campus that had the second-highest voter turnout in the country in 2006, that we would have only two people who wanted to run for this seat (did I mention it pays $8,200/year?).
A week before finals, Scott Resnick told me that he had found someone who was interested in running for the seat and asked if I wanted to meet with him. I met with Conor, and after a short conversation about what his values and policy priorities would be, agreed to help him out. At the time, he was the only person I knew of who was interested in running for the seat. I helped him get his paperwork filed and got him in touch with Citizens for Dane County's Future, the progressive caucus of the non-partisan County Board.
On January 2nd, I was in Iowa for the caucuses when I heard that Wyndham had jumped into the race. Certainly not unheard of, Alder Eli Judge was a late entrant into his race as well if memory serves me, but nonetheless unforeseen. Scott had by this time signed up as Conor's treasurer, and was working with him on crafting a message. It was about a week later that I learned that Conor had asked Molly Rivera to be his Campaign Manager. (I should point out that both Scott and Molly are members of the Executive Board, but both are ex-officio members and cannot vote in EBoard endorsements.)
Since our return to school I've been helping Conor by giving policy and campaign advice (insert Korn campaign joke here...) to the best of my ability, while still keeping my focus on the Presidential Primary coming up on February 19th. Regardless of what anyone might say about the campaign two years ago, I think I've learned quite a bit about campus politics since then and am much better suited to help out in a race today than I was back then.
I want to briefly point one thing out. I have never been contacted by Wyndham in regards to his campaign, and while I'm hoping to meet with him sometime this week, it's my impression that he feels a CDM General Membership endorsement is beyond his reach. I think he made a serious error in writing off our endorsement so quickly. He had a chance the other night to bring new supporters to our State of the Union Party to make sure they qualified to vote under our clarified attendance rule but chose not to do so. If Mr. Smathers' column today was accurate, and Wyndham began this campaign as a "half-joke" then I guess I sadly overestimated the level of involvement of this campus in the greater community. That said, I'm still willing to meet with Wyndham, offer him any advice he may ask for, and be of service to him on any questions he has about the College Dems and our endorsement process.
Again, I'm under the impression that he doesn't want my help. That's fine, understandable, and he has a very intelligent man in Jesse Russell running his campaign who I'm sure knows much more about local politics than I do.
Given my involvement in Conor's campaign, I decided that it would be best to avoid any appearance of impropriety by removing myself from the EBoard recommendation process (along with Scott and Molly). Despite the statement that I'd want my involvement in the race to be "shady," I removed myself in an attempt to remove all doubt and would have gladly told anyone exactly what I had done for Conor if they had asked. The rest of the board conducted the interviews and came to a final decision (without Molly, Scott, or myself in the room). The product of which was a "No Recommendation" from our Executive Board based partly in the inexperience of both candidates and partly in the belief that any recommendation made would be tainted with the appearance of impropriety. I stress "appearance" because I think that by taking myself and the other involved members of our Executive Board out of the meeting, what was left were six voting members who went in with truly open minds. Anyone is welcome to question that, but I believe that how we chose to conduct our process was fair to both the candidates and our members.
That pretty much brings us up to date. We have no more CDM events scheduled between now and our endorsement meeting, and our Rapid Response Chair Anna Smith is in the process of updating our membership list to reflect all of those people who have turned out at our events this academic year. We are also getting an updated list of paid Democratic Party of Wisconsin members, our other requirement for voting at our meetings.
I hope that I haven't been shrewed in this process. I hope that I've contributed to the candidates a little of what is most important to me as a lifelong resident of Dane County and that I've done so in a way that was fair and open. I should have written this sooner and put much of the speculation to rest, and for that I'm sorry. If you have questions that I've failed to address I'd encourage you to ask them on the comments section so that I might be able to respond publicly to them.
One last thing: My focus right now has shifted back to where it should rightfully be, and that's on our GOTV Campaign for the Presidential Primary. We've had an extraordinary response from people who are willing to volunteer and be Dorm and Ward Captains (look for new Ogg Hall to make a statement) and over the next couple days we'll be finalizing our plans for that effort. I, for one, am hoping for a Super Tuesday that answers few questions and shifts focus to us two weeks later. It'd be pretty sweet to see Barack, Hillary, and John all in one week (Kucinich reportedly going to campaign in Hawaii [can you blame him?]).
Again, let me know if you have questions about the process or my involvement. I'm very happy to answer anything that I can. Thanks for your time, I think this may exceed the length of some of David's past posts...
14 Comments:
"I think he made a serious error in writing off our endorsement so quickly. He had a chance the other night to bring new supporters to our State of the Union Party to make sure they qualified to vote under our clarified attendance rule but chose not to do so."
I wouldn't say he wrote it off, but considering he knew of your's, Molly's and Scott's involvement with Conor, perhaps he didn't know what to think.
As for bringing supporters to the SOTU party: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that rule instigated because Ashok packed a CDems meeting with supporters who had never been to a meeting before?
How is packing the event right before the endorsement meeting with supporters just so they can vote the next week really any different? If Conor or Wyndham brought friends who have never done anything with CDems, just so they can vote for their buddy the next week, isn't that the same thing as what Ashok did and equally shady?
He knew our involvement, but he also knew that we wouldn't be part of the interviews. Whether or not you think that's good campaign strategy is up to you, but I wouldn't have given up on any endorsements before they happened.
As to your second point, I agree with half of it. First, our system of attendance is by no means perfect. Scott told me this evening that many of the people on the Obama EBoard have never signed in at a meeting (perhaps they did last night), but if they hadn't we really have no way of allowing them to vote in the endorsement.
It basically forces people to pack two meetings if they have non-CDems supports instead of one. Again, not at all perfect, but an improvement.
The other point is that they have to be DPW members. That's a $10 contribution to the Democratic Party that is pretty significant to a lot of Mr. Kumar's supporters who quite simply hate our party.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Scared of criticism?
No, Hack Job/You Deleted My Post, we just don't appreciate mindless drivel and useless personal attacks. We like discourse and actual substantiated arguement.
I think both Erik and Oliver bring up an excellent point about attendance and the ability to participate in endorsement voting.
I agree that the ten dollar donation to the DPW does prevent many would-be packers from voting. I also agree that increasing the number of meetings that need to be attended would help. However, two meetings might not be enough. Three would be good, and perhaps there should be a time requirement. To prevent any endorsement-seeker from packing CDM events for three meetings right before the endorsement vote, require that two of the three required meetings must be at least one month before the endorsement vote.
The first reasoning is that people who run may not know they want to run until two months before the endorsement vote. It makes it hard to find a bunch of supporters to pack CDM events in that short amount of time.
The second reasoning is that it forces would-be packers to come to multiple meetings throughout the year and see what CDM is all about. They could go to the kickoff, then a speaker sometime in October, and then the event a week before endorsement. It might actually build membership, as they become more involved with CDM, and it severely limits how many people would pack an endorsement vote.
To sum up:
1) Keep the $10 dollar DPW donation.
2) Increase required meeting number to three, with two of the three at least one month before endorsement.
Mindless drivel or an inquiry into the truth?
I don't even know if I've signed in at meetings. I paid the $10 though. Will I even be allowed to vote?
*takes off blogger hat for a second, puts on College Democrat hat*
The endorsement meeting will Conor's second College Democrat meeting, ever. The same for Manning, after both attended the State of the Union address event.
They might be college democrats, but are they College Democrats?
Paul makes good arguments for an increase in voting right requirements. Shouldn't we expect the same from candidates before possibly giving them an endorsement?
"Shouldn't we expect the same from candidates before possibly giving them an endorsement?"
I think we endorse the candidate (or candidates or neither) who will best represent the College Democrat views. I don't think the endorsee necessarily needs to be a member of the organization. A plus, most definitely. However, if you look at groups like AFSCME or SEIU or any other political entity that offer endorsements to candidates in any race, the individual they endorse is rarely a member. The mere fact that someone may be a member does not make them better than the other, in any race.
As to the meeting requirements, it really is the most feasible and fair way. Flaws, it has many. However, requiring attendance at more meetinngs is almost a burden because of schedule conflicts, etc. I know that my freshman year I was not able to make any College Dems meetings the first semester but still kept up with the organization through the e-mails, etc. It's not that I wasn't interested or committed. It just wasn't doable.
While I appreciate Paul standing up for me (and perhaps Eric) on this one (I don't know what was deleted as I was asleep...), this is one post in particular where I would like to hear the "drivel" come out.
My piece was a complete account, our comments should be as well.
My question of whether or not I can vote next week hasn't been answered.
If you have been to a College Democrats meeting or event this school year (and you have - I've seen you at several, and I'm almost certain that you signed in or were signed in) AND since you paid your membership fee to the DPW, the answer is yes.
See you on the 6th.
This post has been removed by the author.
Suchita,
"I don't think the endorsee necessarily needs to be a member of the organization. A plus, most definitely. However, if you look at groups like AFSCME or SEIU or any other political entity that offer endorsements to candidates in any race, the individual they endorse is rarely a member. The mere fact that someone may be a member does not make them better than the other, in any race."
There are two problems:
1. It seems silly to have membership requirements to vote -- obviously in an attempt to prevent packing (a good thing to prevent, may I add) by a candidate -- if the candidates themselves are exempt. It doesn't seem to be coherent policy.
2. Unlike unions, student organizations are more accessible. As a student, neither of the two candidates are going to be card carrying members of SEIU (most likely).
But, I can't help and wonder if this had some influence on the E-boards no recommendation, so I do think, behind the scenes anyway, my point was evaluated.
"As to the meeting requirements, it really is the most feasible and fair way. Flaws, it has many. However, requiring attendance at more meetinngs is almost a burden because of schedule conflicts, etc. I know that my freshman year I was not able to make any College Dems meetings the first semester but still kept up with the organization through the e-mails, etc. It's not that I wasn't interested or committed. It just wasn't doable."
I think it would be smart for the exec board to always have the right to override the endorsement rule. I imagine there is some stipulation in the status quo. It would be smart to make those names and the justifications for the addition public information, in the interests of transparency.
LUCKILY, none of this will really matter this semester. Manning isn't going to pack the meeting because he's not Austin "Karl Rove" King, who was willing to bus in non-UW students for the meeting.
The fact we're even having a discussion on this really shows how pathetic and unresonable the influence of adults, not students, but grown men like Austin King had over student organizations at UW.
I'm glad it's over.
Post a Comment
<< Home