Burnt Orange Report

I like several other people I'm sure stayed up late to read the Daily Texan and Student Review Panel endorsemts in Monday's issue.

I ran a quick breakdown by writer. The sums will differ due to some people endorsing more positions and the inclusion of a few independent candidates.

(I)= Ignite / (C)= Connect

Daily Texan Editorial Board: 12(I) / 17(C)
Gladney-Lemon: 13(I) / 18(C)
Angell: 8(I) / 13(C)
K-T: 24(I) / 15(C)
Wasey: 8(I) / 14(C)
Kennedy: 18(I) / 23(C)
Billingsley: 12(I) / 23(C)
Livingston: 13(I) / 22(C)
Litt: 15(I) / 17(C)

Of course, the top two races are perceiced as the most important...
-Pres-
Jessica Rice (I) = 7
Omar Ochoa (C) = 2
-VP_
Elizabeth Brummett (C) = 4
Colby Hanks (I) = 4

Thanks John, I was just about to do that, so thanks for saving me the time. Yes, I'm the most Ignire tilted panelist, but it's 24/16 if you include Nursing which I left out so it didn't get printed.

That said, Chris and I were the only ones to endorse in all 41 partisan race (when you count in my indepent vote in LBJ) I had 5 extra Ignite votes from those race mose common for panelists to not endorse, Graduate and Union Board. In addition, my sole vote for Ignite's candidate in Fine Arts pushed up my total. Those aside, I'd still end up even with the upper range of Ignite votes- Kennedy and Litt. There were also two popular SG types that I didn't vote for (Livingston and Hart) which were really hard for me. But I have reasons for not including each, which are more personal.

I can understand why Connect tried to get me off the panel, then again, there was no Ignite candidate I voted for because they were simply ignite. Platforms didn't drive the race for me, issues, reponses, and personality did. I think that is apparent in the comments I wrote.

I'd like to add something to my good friend JW's post:

The three most important races:

Pres
VP
-SEC Pres_
Julio "JV" Vela = 4*
John Grube = 2
Justin Burniske = 1
Joy Phillips = 1

* In the commentary Mike says he prefers JV but it doesn't appear in the paper, in the paper Chris Kennedy goes for JV but it doesn't appear online. Can anyone fill me in?

important as percieved...

Certainly Matt. That race keeps shifting around under my feet. I don't really know if there is a 'best' candidate, but let's just say that so far, I've cast three votes of endorsement for three different people in that race, with Justin being the lone sole I havn't.

And Justin is a great candidate too.

The Daily Texan hit the nail on the head when they said taking SEC president off the ticket allowed for better candidates.

I hate to admit that I was opposed to the idea at first.

Whether or not ticketing is bad or good for SG is a matter of debate that would be fun to see taken up somewhere. On one hand you get better campaigns through cooperation and large budgets and in theory heightned awareness. ON the other hand you often have people asking their unqualified friends to fill in seats.

Yeah I didn't have enough time yesterday to write up comments on all of the races. I'll submit my comments on the full set of races sometime tonight.

For JV my main reason was that unlike other candidates with vague promises, JV had several specific changes he wanted to make and exhibited that he had opinions on what could be improved over this year. But overall it was a hard race to judge and they all seemed well-qualified.

And thanks for the ticket breakdown, J.W.

I might be hated for saying this, but I think that the SEC president shouldn't be elected by students at large. I was involved in the Union a while ago when it was called the TUC and even considered running for chair at one point. My good friend Keith Rainwater led the leadership and organizational change that is now the SEC.

For the most part a lot of the platform and issues that the SEC president faces are alien to most students. I feel that the members of the SEC and the Union Board are much more qualified to make a better determination of who is best for the job.

This is where I disagree, though it is a good discussion to have.

1. The TUC became too incestious becuase of the internal election process and Keith helped lead the chance to the SEC. It got so bad that the SSFC nearly refused to fund the TUC (This is how it is has been told to me).

2. A lot of platforms and issues that the SG candidates run on are alien to the student body as well. I mean, who knows which VP candidate would serve better as chair of the Student Services Fee Committee? Or which president has better UTSAC policy? An SG exec committee might be more informed when it comes to choosing a successor but would anyone argue for that?

3. The SEC is young and hopefully the election process, in addition to outreach, will help people better understand the SEC. In fact, i'd argue it already has.

4. The SEC President, not to toot my own horn, is an important position that the student body should have a chance to elect. The campaign has produced some interesting proposals as Karl-T has mentioned (Justin & JV in particular have put some together, which seems to be the reason for JV's success). As we get used to independent campaigning I think you'll see more concrete proposals for students to compare and vote on.

I just spent a couple of hours reading Bryon LaMaster's assessment of the Dallas "CEC" meeting on Monday and several pages of comments on that subject. On the one hand I was elated, on the other, saddened. I was elated because enough precinct chairs signed the petition to cause a meeting to be called. I was saddened that the petitioners didn't know what to do once the meeting was called to order. They were in charge, but didn't realize it.

The whole affair sounded eerily like what has happened here in Bexar County. We have called CEC meetings here and the results have been almost identical with what happened in Dallas County. It as if the same individuals were conducting the show.

A few hours spent reading Title 10 of the election code and party rules would go a long way to getting our party back on track. Two points:(1) I understand that many chairs wanted to "air" their grievances. A CEC meeting is no place to air grievances. Once the CEC meeting is called to order, the people's business is paramount. The responsibilities of the CEC should have been addressed--and nothing else. If you have a grievance with someone, take 'em to court--or meet them on main street at high noon like in the olden days. (2) The membership itself is responsible for maintaining order. Robert's Rules tells how that is to be done.

Now back to the game.

John McConnell Democratic Precinct Chair
Precinct 3047
Bexar County, Texas