breaking news (no, seriously)
Ian Nichols, the Vice President of the Undergraduate Council, has just resigned. The Crimson has a short article. I am as biased about the situation as it gets. My roommate is the Pres. and I ran the campaign for him and Clay (who writes for CC) in the fall. I have watched as Ian continually shirked his duties, leaving them for other members of the UC leadership to take on, burdening what were already tremendously busy lives. He was put in charge of running Springfest, and not only did he not take part in the organization, he was on vacation and out of touch for the entire weekend.More on this later, but for now, let us just celebrate that we will be getting an actual vice president in the next week.
posted by andrew golis @ 7:20 PM
28 Comments:
"we will be getting an actual vice president" now?
oh will we?
don't you mean one that will be elected by 50 people rather than 4000? 50 people, most of whom worked on a particular campaign?
wow, this is such a democracy. it's BULLSHIT! kick the honestly elected guy out by not working with him and threatening him with impeachment, then replace him with your own political failure and financial embarassment friend.
an actual vice president it will be. ha.
no offense Ian's friend (our Ian), but you've got your facts a bit mixed up. First of all, the now resigned vp was elected by a little more than 1500 people, 50 more than the person who won. Second of all, doesn't it say anything to you that the people who worked with Ian closest had no interest in supporting him and supported someone else?
Maybe it says that, just as was proven true over the last few month, Ian had little interest in doing any actual work. Ian didn't leave because "he was threatened with impeachment," Ian left because when people complained he had no argument for why he hadn't done anything all semester, knew that, and had no choice but to put his tail between his legs and go home as a do nothing failure.
And by the way, by "an actual vp", I meant someone who will actually do something.
excuse me, 50 more than the person who lost.
it was an election. it was a close election, sure, but 4000 people got to make that choice and elected IAN NICHOLS.
now 50 people will vote to choose the new "actual vp".
those 50 people rallied around the most likely winner (ie Matt Glazer) and were forced to rally for his no-talent-assclown running mate of his choice.
THAT ASIDE, once Glazer-Nichols had won, it was the duty of the folks at the UC (ALL ELECTED representatives) to continue as they had been, led by a new pres and vp. if the new exectuive members, all of who worked on the Glazer-Crap campaign, were so partisan and wholly immoral and shortsighted that they could not rise above the December election and refused to work with Ian JUST BECAUSE HE BEAT THEIR LAME CANDIDATE then that is truly a shame.
it is a shame for the process, it is a shame for democracy. it is a shame for all the people who worked so hard to get Ian elected - AND WHO WON. It is not only a betrayal of this campus's choice, it is a betrayal of everyone who elected the current UC. because those people elected Ian Nichols their vp.
It is undeniable that on a team, if you're counted as an outsider from day one, then that is what you will be. if ian was made the outsider, then he was barred from working effectively with others on the UC. to use that against him amounts to ENTRAPMENT AND BETRAYAL.
i had mad respect for Matt Glazer, but no more. he is not a good person to have orchedtrated this.
I don't disagree that it's better to have a vice president that elected by the campus, but I think you should talk to Ian about that problem. The reason it's a shame for democracy is that Ian so thoroughly disrespected all of the people who voted for him. This line he's pitching to you (or you're pitching if it's you Ian) that "people wouldn't work with him" is just not true.
I watched he and Matt sit down together at the beginning of the semester to work out their plans. They decided Ian would be responsible for two things: Springfest and finance reform. Ian was not in town for the week before and the day of Springfest (hard to plan and lead a $15,000 event when you're not there) and the finance reforms aren't done. I know for a fact that Ian didn't speak at planning meetings, that he planned to go to speak to the Crimson Ed Board about council reforms (which he ran on being a part of) without even reading the various bills, that he screwed up multiple attendance records and sent some to a friend of his to be funny (and attendance is really the basics). Doing any of these things (speaking at Springfest meetings, figuring out what needed to be done at them, attending Springfest, working with Lauren (who I assured you would have excitedly welcomed someone's help, regardless of campaign stuff etc.) to plan the event so that she wasn't doing it alone, going to Springfest, reading the council reforms, doing attendance) wasn't hindered by any sort of unwillingness to work with him, it was hindered by his unwillingness to do them.
Your rhetoric is nice, but my simple question is: if you believe so much in democracy, what did democratically elected Mr. Nichols do? Don't the people who voted for him (as well as the people who didn't) deserve someone doing an actual job? That's the difference.
By the way, can we make a deal? No mean-spirited attacks ok? From this point on I'm simply trying to write what I know to be fact. Spewing hateful rhetoric about Clay or anyone else is actually really hurtful, and doesn't do anyone any good.
threatening him with impeachment was a pussy thing to do because ANYBODY would rather resign than face the embarassment of facing a trial in front of the press and public.
if ian was such a bad VP, why was it sprung on the campus via a stunning resignation?
i say this happened because there was a blatant unwillingness to see ian work at all. the executive boardmembers must have secretly rejoiced as their kabal worked to exclude ian from decisions and work, and then again IN SECRET planned to impeach him.
when faced with this scenario, NOBODy would choose to go through a trial rather than step down. and you are right, he WOULD NOT have been impeached.
but the embarrasment would have made him EVEN more ineffective as a VP.
not to forget that Matt Glazer just WOULDN'T ever really work with Ian AT ALL! there was never shared responsibilty. it is just so bizarro to see complete control by a president - it's like Rohit Chopra again. seriously, what a douche thing to do.
also, there is no way Clay Capp can be defended. he was beaten by Ian fair and square BECAUSE CLAY CAPP HAS NO EXPERIENCE DOING SHIT. proof of fiscal responsibility is the eating, and the UC CONTINUES to have money issues, probably made worse by CLay Crap.
i understand that UC parlamentary procedure dictates that the members elect a new VO - i was just pointing out that in cosideration of the KABAL that the UC is - a Glazer-Crap kabal, it is truly undemocratic.
he was not given an opportunity to fix things AT ALL, they just SPRUNG IT on him
Wow, that was brilliantly reasoned. Let's try this again: what did Ian do? How where people not willing to work with him? How was it that Matt and Ian agreeing that he would run Springfest and then Ian not even being there for it was anyone other than Ian's fault? Why weren't the UC reforms done? Why didn't Ian do the attendance correctly?
The kabal thing is cute, but it's pure rhetoric, I'm interested in facts.
So let's try this again: do you have any answers to any of these questions, or do you just have angry conspiracy theories?
Also, in keeping to facts, why don't we tone down the angry name calling? Please?
And by the way, if I were Ian and I really thought that there accusations were made up or unfair, and I really believed that the people who voted for me had the right to me being in office, damn straight I would fight. But Ian doesn't have a defense, just like you have nothing but rhetoric. Ian admitted to people in person and on the council over the last few weeks that he knew he'd been a bad vice president. He said in his resignation statement "I haven't made the UC my top priority."
If he had an argument, he would have fought it.
I think it's undeniable that he thought resigning was the best way out of this for him, and that's why it happened. No one could have forced him to give up his position on strength of "embarrassment" alone, unless he made that decision by himself.
Also, if he had been threatened with impeachment as Anonymous says, I am quite sure he would have decided for himself as a UC veteran (knowing the high threshold for something as serious as impeachment), that impeachment would only happen if he could not defend that the UC had been his topmost priority. Since his resignation refuted that point totally, it is not reasonable to say that he was forced out by some rhetorical threat, because that's almost like saying Ian did it out of stupidity and is now regretting having stepped down, which does not ring true.
On a different note, Golis, I don't think Anonymous could answer your questions unless he was Ian himself. This argument of "forcing out" will be based in rhetoric unless either:
a) one of Ian's detractors steps up with "facts" of Ian being browbeaten into resigning (which, from above, is impossible), or
b) Ian steps up with a full explanation of his actions as VP prior to resigning, and reasons why he did so. As I said, I think Ian is a smart guy and must have thought through this thing.
Until then, I think it's perfectly valid for all of us to not know why things went down the way they did, and for his camp to say that he was forced out, because that's all they have heard from him.
Also, Anonymous, I don't think you have any rational reason for bringing up Clay except that you dislike him immensely. Please remember that the Council has not yet voted in its next Vice President, and that it could be anyone. As Jamal noted above (and you acknowledged), the rules preclude another popular election, and a democratically elected Council will elect it's own VP. The size of the sample space makes little difference, especially considering the Nichols victory margin was 18 dropdowns (correct me if I'm wrong) and 50/4000 in total, or 0.013.
you bastards. i have a review session and so i can't shout at you fucks, but how do you get out of these facts i heard from ian???
- he wasn't given a chance to fix things despite mistakes apparaently happening for some time.
- the first he heard of people being upset about vp was WHEN HE WAS THREATENED WITH IMPEACHMENT.
- no VP does SHIT anyway! blickstead threw a few more parties and humped a few more uc girls, that's all/
- CLAy Capp was the weakest link in the Glazer-Crap campaign. there is no answer to his screwing up the sc center money RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of the campaign hyuk hyuk. he blamed CLC but CLC and Cristina Adams blamed him right back.
how'd you like them apples?
Wow. You seem to have a lot of anger Anonymous. I'm going to comment because I am neither a friend of Clay's nor of Ian's, so maybe I can be a little bit less biased. I also voted for Glazer and Ian, so I'm one of the students whose vote is being changed in some way. I voted for Nichols mostly on the strength of the Crimson backing him, but I'm not glad that I did. I Matt and Ian's acceptance speeches for the UC, and I was immediately disappointed in Ian's lack of respect for the position and overall dismissive attitude (he talked a lot more about beer and girls than anything else). I think the VP should be involved, whether or not it has been the most important position historically. This administration is trying to reach a lot of goals, and they could certainly use the help of a competent and dedicated VP. I read a lot of things in the Crimson about what the UC has been doing, but I never see Ian's name in there. I also know Matt, and I really don't believe he would try to take advantage of this situation. I agree that there might have been pressure put on Ian to resign, but to say that he was forced to resign with the threat of impeachment seems to be going a little far. It sounds like Anonymous is a good friend of Ian's, and he might be telling you one side of things, but I'm not sure that what he is telling you is necessarily the objective truth. To be fair, some of the other people who have commented might also be getting a biased viewpoint, although the other opinions being expressed are more consistent and logical. And I would really appreciate it if Anonymous would tone down on the vitriolic rhetoric. You might not like Clay Capp, but calling him names makes you sound less reliable and makes me distrust anything you say. You'd be more convincing if you stuck with facts or what you've heard from Ian and didn't move on to attacking the other guy. Honestly, I am not upset that Ian resigned and/or was forced out. I elected him because I thought he would be an active VP, and I'm more interested in having a functioning UC than in having friends in the most powerful UC positions. To that end, it seems like Ian leaving was the best option.
two quick points:
We should keep in mind that, while it's not as good as a pure popular election, UC reps do have some mandate to make decisions for students, so it's not like this is just some random group of people getting together to make the decision.
Second, I'm confused at the vitriolic attacks on Clay, considering the fact that you can ask anyone on the Council, and you will now that he had nothing to do with the complaints made against Ian that led him to make the decision to resign. Besides the fact that your facts about Clay are hugely off base, a continuation of the lies perpetrated during the December election that led us to where we are, it just has nothing to do with the conversation about whether or not Ian should have resigned and whether or not he did any work this semester.
Thanks, btw, for the call for a more civil tone. It actually makes me really sad that people on a college campus, involved in such local politics where relationships and friendships are involved, become so hateful to quickly. I think Ian is a nice guy, I thought Ty was a nice guy, I consider Teo and Samita friends. My support for other people had and has nothing to do with my opinions of them as people and everything do to with their work and their views of the UC. I hope you can try to be civil and make fact, not anger, based arguments.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I have just removed two comments that contained vulgar and inappropriate slander of other people. If the poster would like to repost his argument without vulgarly slandering other people, I will, of course, leave it up. But, as the Editor of this blog, I am responsible for drawing a line between argumentation/productive discourse and crude inappropriate comments by other people. So, please repost your thought without that type of language. Thank you.
excuse me: crude inappropriate comments ABOUT other people.
oh sure, Golis, that'll help promote debate on this website. you using administrator privileges to delete my posts.
and i didn't even bring up Clay in the last two posts that you just deleted?
What the hell is UP with you guys?
Are you worried that people on this campus are concerned with what happened to their student government this week?
it was not slanderous!
i was going through step by step and showing the readers of this festering blog how Glazer and other prominent members of the UC really fisted Ian Nichols in the balls. step by step.
and now since i no longer have a copy of what i wrote down, that's lost forever.
this is how battles are won, Golis, touche. you are evil and you are weak, and so is your friend.
in case that's unclear, that's MATT GLAZER I AM TALKING ABOUT.
Call me crazy, you brown-nosed pricks, but just as I am hopping mad that you guys can get away with this, so are MANY others.
They are all people who trusted YOU MATT GLAZER (because ty moore is a loser) - and you SCREWED THEM OVER.
I am stunned - STUNNED that you guys are getting away with this. the logical conclusion is that the road is paved for CLAY CAPP to become VP. i just get an email telling me that aaron chadbourne is NOT RUNNING FOR VP.
WOW! you guys have some game. clear the way for the friend you wanted in power to get in power. are you secret Republicans all of you? no wait, that doesn't make sense.
CLAY CAPP WILL BECOME VP. iF YOU ARE READING THIS, cAPP, AREN'T YOU ASHAMED? wON'T YOU BE ashamed?
I apologize for the fact that you cannot remember your previous posts. However, it is my responsibility to take down any posts that call other people "gay" or "lickmyballs."
By the way Ian, you're drunk, get some sleep and try again in the morning.
ANdrew Golis, you are gay. Lick my balls.
That, I will leave. Because, well, it's pretty hilarious.
Um, actually, Andrew does not lick balls. I know this. That's libellous. I also know the definition of libel.
Who is this person?! They are hilarious. While I joked that it was Ian above, I don't actually think it is, the writing is too ridiculous and the arguments are too weak. Damn anonymous internet!
this is kind of off-topic but I heard both of their speeches too and I thought Ian's was pretty good (except for when he hit on the uc reporter). he talked a lot about how he wanted to improve the uc, even though he made jokes too. that's just his personality. it doesn't mean he didn't take his job seriously.
Does Slack mean to say, even if the Crimson didn't articulate this in its endorsement editorial, that Ian was elected to be a dissenting voice and not based on any merit of his own?
Post a Comment
<< Home