Again, (again, again) it begins... (SU Elections)

shay_562

shay what do you mean?

What I meant was exactly what I said above; his manifesto seemed rather Citibar-centric, as did the "€2 Drinks!" flyers he's been handing out, and while Citibar is insanely popular with one section of college, there's just as many who wouldn't touch the place with a bargepole. He may very well have contacts with other clubs - where have Halls parties this year been held? I don't live in Halls, so I genuinely don't know what he's been doing out there - but if he's going to sell himself on Citibar, then any of the negative images that go along with Citibar go along with him too. As well as that, if he has been focusing on Citibar more than other clubs this year, that could pose problems in the future - club contacts are insanely fickle things, and his work last summer could be worth nothing if he's been spending all his time working for another club in the 6 months since then.

I'm not trying to make this into an "angry race" - after the unpleasantness with the Smurfs last year, I doubt anyone wants that. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to criticise him for (what I would percieve as) the bad stuff on his manifesto or in his track record. Equally, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you Orlaith, but we clearly have very, very different views of the guy.

Moorsy

shay_562 wrote:

What I meant was exactly what I said above; his manifesto seemed rather Citibar-centric, as did the "€2 Drinks!" flyers he's been handing out, and while Citibar is insanely popular with one section of college, there's just as many who wouldn't touch the place with a bargepole.
.

Well to be honest candidates ‘sell’ themselves on what they have achieved in their area. Ed has achieved something outstanding in his area, ents, and for ‘that section’ of college. Any night I have been in citibar it has been absolutely packed and fair play to him for it. If somebody has the innovation and courage to stick their neck our on the line, whether it’s for their own benefit or not, should be respected. You must remember that citibar has nothing to do with halls ents or SU ents, the only connection, as far as I know, is that a trinity student runs it.
I don’t know what way I will vote in ents but getting a venue in Dublin to serve pints for 2 Euro does show good skills.

And on your other point about getting a bar in Luce hall it leads on to another point. The lack of good ents events this year is because there is no longer a venue for gig’s never mind at least a bar, which could facilitate that. Luce hall has to be made into a student centre for any good ents events to happen. It must be allowed to hold gigs and it must have a bar accessible for all students.
Your lacklustre approach of ‘ohh there’s no point in doing that’ is so debilitating to the student union when trying to get things done. Students must support what they want to see, not what they think the rational outcome will be.

TheIceMaker

Was David Quinn chair of council last yr?

Yep.

Captain Planet

Anyone have any thoughts on how candidates did at hustings?

mizz.yelof!!!

Captain Planet wrote:

Anyone have any thoughts on how candidates did at hustings?

halls or dining hall steps you talking about?

xebec

I was at the Dining Hall steps hustings earlier. Some very good speeches, some very poor, some in between and one or two that were mildly amusing...

Claire Tighe sticks out as the best of the bunch, one of the best I've heard in my 4 years tbh.

What was Halls like?

osd

mizz.yelof!!! wrote:

halls or dining hall steps you talking about?

Either...

(Xebec gave a small rundown on his thoughts of the dining hall hustings on the SU Message boards)

Jager Man

At hustings on the front square John Tracey (president) was atrocious. He was slated by three questions and then Andrew Byrne got up and gave a fantastic speech, heard he did even better in Halls. Sounds like its gona be a landslide for Byrne, pity bout Tracey, one must feel empathy.

melekalikimaka

Jager Man wrote:

At hustings on the front square John Tracey (president) was atrocious. He was slated by three questions and then Andrew Byrne got up and gave a fantastic speech, heard he did even better in Halls. Sounds like its gona be a landslide for Byrne, pity bout Tracey, one must feel empathy.

thought the opposite tbh, as did others i spoke to, andy had nothing great to say and didn't have any 'planted' questions

PHB

didn't have any 'planted' questions

What do you mean by that? What's a planted question

Claire Tighe sticks out as the best of the bunch, one of the best I've heard in my 4 years tbh.

She did give a good speech, but she has a shocking lack of any sort of journalistic integrity, so I'd imagine she'll fit in well in college newspapers.

shay_562

Claire Tighe sticks out as the best of the bunch, one of the best I've heard in my 4 years tbh.

You're sure there's not the tiniest bit of bias going on there? Though she was pretty good - seemed genuinely passionate about it, and it seems like she knows what she's at. She was certainly better than Neasa, who seemed kinda wooden (and there's nothing worse than someone forgetting part of a rehearsed two-minute speech and not being able to cover for it.)

As for the rest:

President - Andy's speech wasn't great, but he really came alive when answering questions, and was by far the more impressive of the two. Tracey wasn't bad, but did get hit with my favourite question of the day, "So, last time you got less first preferences than John McGuirk. What's changed?" - also, promising a swift resignation if you can't come up with €20,000 of sponsorship outside of current donations isn't exactly a confidence-inspiring campaign move.

Welfare - Pretty even (I'm ignoring Daire for obvious reasons) - both seem to know what they're at and both have plenty of experience. No huge howlers, but equally, nothing to especially differentiate them from each other.

Education - As above - neither of you were spectacular (sorry guys), but equally, neither of you said or did anything so bad as to stop people from voting for you.

Ents - Felt kinda sorry for Barry, since one of his biggest achievements this year (BESS day) couldn't be mentioned in his speech. Still, though, he fluffed the question on societies and clubs being represented by Ents - all he had to do was point out that he's been on both sides of it. Ed was pretty good, and did publicly promise not to make a personal profit next year, which is good.

Coke - I really wish there had been a "Yes" speaker. Seriously, what was she on? "They haven't been charged of anything yet!" - of course, because we take justice to mean "guilty until proven completely innocent". I heard talk of a "Yes" speaker heading out to Halls tonight - anyone out there able to confirm this?

What do you mean by that? What's a planted question

Getting someone you know (preferably not wearing one of your t-shirts if you've got a lick of sense) to ask you a straightforward, pre-prepared question to allow you to expand on your policies and generally look good, or alternatively, getting someone to ask a particularly tricky question of one of your opponents that's guaranteed to trip them up. It's not exactly honest, but it's a relatively fair way of playing the system (in that further outlining your policies only works if you've got good policies to begin with, and if your opponent is so weak as to be trip-uppable it's better that it happens before elections than after)

thought the opposite tbh, as did others i spoke to, andy had nothing great to say and didn't have any 'planted' questions

When you say Andy didn't have any planted questions, I'm gonna assume you mean the latter of the above, that no one was placed there to ask him anything awkward; to be fair, if there were planted questions for John, it's probably because of the intense stupidity of some of his policies.

She did give a good speech, but she has a shocking lack of any sort of journalistic integrity, so I'd imagine she'll fit in well in college newspapers.

Meow. Anything in particular behind that comment? Beyond general dislike of the Record.

Andrew 83

PHB wrote:

She did give a good speech, but she has a shocking lack of any sort of journalistic integrity, so I'd imagine she'll fit in well in college newspapers.

You have continually brought up this lack of journalistic integrity thing in this thread, making reference to last year's TN in particular at one point if I remember correctly. Well I won't dwell on year's I wasn't responsible for and don't know to hand this year's stories in the Record and TN but I feel I can stand over my year as TN editor last year.

I'm going to go through here the front page stories of each issue. While I admit there was occasional sensationalism in the headlines, the facts of the matter were always presented in the article, and to the forefront at that.


Issue 1
a) US Military Funding - This was factual, came straight from the college themselves (who admitted it), and is of clear interest to many students. National broadsheet papers went on to cover the story - they obviously found it legitimate journalism.
b) CSC threaten legal action on TN - while I admit this was a bit tabloidy, broadsheets use this technique too. We had a story written and ready to go but had to pull it at the last minute due to the legal threat so this was the easiest way to handle it. While I agree we could have handled it better, I don't think it can be overly criticised.
c) Registration Fee doubles in 4 years - Factual, and of immediate relevance and interest to all students.
d) O'Toole cancels speech in protest of Bacik snub - Interesting enough as it revolves around a Trinity professor, both parties involved are well known and liked by many students. Was originally covered by nationals so legitimate.

Issue 2
a) First year Nursing students protest at St James - Factual. Refers to a big protest by Trinity students and highlighted issues they were concerned about. Important and totally relevant.
b) Donations to Trinity Reach Record Level - Factual. Came straight form the college themselves. Of interest and relevance to those who both support and worry about growing levels of outside funding and/or influence.
c) SU Embarrassed by Coke/Nestle double cock up - Factual and amusing piece on the SU contradicting both boycotts in one move.

Issue 3
a) Planning permission fiasco may see top floor demolished - While the headline spells out the worst possible case scenario the article highlighted the third planning application in which Dublin City Council were looking for that to happen if their conditions weren't met, this was spelt out in clear detail. There is precedents of forced floor demolitions and these are listed.
b) Phil under fire for Islamic fundamentalist outburst - Had been in all the nationals, article referred to media and political reaction. Totally legitimate.
c) Ogra Shinn Fein kicked off campus - Factual, of immediate interest to students. Was picked up by many nationals both broadsheet and tabloid: again they obviously deemed it legitimate journalistically.
d) Redundant CSC employee wins compensation - Factual. Of interest to some students.

Issue 4
a) Schol exams likely to be scrapped within a year - This issue was the most tabloidy but I stick to my point that the headlines outlined possibilities and then gave all the details in the first paragraphs onwards. Stated how college was considering a proposal to switch schol awards to those who achieve best in end of year exams. Was picked up in national broadsheets so again, they thought it legitimate.
b) Starbucks is coming to Trinity - Factually stated from the get go a story, told directly to us by the Head of College Catering, that Trinity was in negotiations with named outside companies to take over catering in some areas. There are indeed outside catering facilities in the school of nursing and elsewhere.
c) College Health Service announces end to free treatment - Given to us by the medical director of the college health service. I knew from my time in the SU that this had been on the cards for ages though I don't know if it has yet been implemented. Our printing of the story seemed to lead to renewed sU activity in the area.
d) USI in crisis after double resignations - Relevant to students as it's the national body, particularly given the fact that both officers resigning had been TCDSU sabbats the previous year so people would know who they were.

Issue 5
a) Chomsky apologises to students for lecture cancellation - Factual, regards a popular figure internationally amongst many students who rarely visits Ireland and gained significant media attention while over.
b) Ocean Colour Scene set to play ball - Factual, regards Trinity Ball headliners: of immediate interest to most students.
c) Kearney makes first moves towards modularisation - Factual, I believe what is mentioned is currently being implemented in some departments, the article clearly states that it is reporting a meeting which took place and says what happened there. Of immediate relevance to many students' courses and how their degree marks will be calculated. Picked up on by national broadsheet so they thought legitimate.
d) Trinity FM in piracy cock up - Amusing piece about a silly mistake. I'm sure many students would be interested.

Issue 6
a) Abusive email allegations against presidential candidate - Factual and relevant seeing as he was running. John was given about a third of the article in direct quotations to give his side, can't ask fairer than that. Picked up by national magazine so they thought it was journalistically legitimate.
b) Holidays set to be slashed in terms shake up - While this is yet to happen the article immediately makes clear from the off that it's a proposal being examined. This was factual and it may yet happen at some point.
c) 30 euro each for dope smoking guinea pigs - Tabloidy headline I'll admit but factual and followed on from a similar case picked up on by nationals. Indeed this story was subsequently picked up on by national papers so again they deemed it legitimate.
d) Provost: I knew nothing of pentagon funding - Factual, Provost's recorded response to direct question from TN on issue. Shows up lack on information on potentially major issues in college. Direct follow on from earlier front page article. Completely legitimate. Article went on to give details on many other issues Provost commented on in public meeting.

Issue 7
a) Arrest in Front Square after foiled GMB raid - Factual, comments from witnesses, college security, and gardai.
b) Seventeen votes hand Quinn win - Factual, gives winner of Presidential election so of immediate interest to students.
c) Student 'traumatised' after intimidation by Fianna Fail senator - Factual, includes quotes from student involved, of interest to many students.
d) Emabarrassment as SU recruits for Coke - Interesting article again showing up a bit of a contradiction between SU policy/mandates and practice. Direct interest to many students.

Issue 8
a) Coca-Cola to pay 1m euro in economics lecturers' salaries - Factual, comes straight from leaked strategic plan and confirmed by college. Of interest to many students on both the level of Coca-Cola and also outside funding, as highlighted before in earlier issues. Story picked up on by national broadsheet so once again they thought it legitimate.
b) Cutbacks could see language schools terminated - Refers to new college plans on resource allocation. Quotes SU President and head of college departments on issue. Immediate interest to many students. While language schools have not been cut yet, surely the Acting situation shows the fears were not that misguided?
c) Bebo boss blasts college censorship - About a major issue for students in other colleges at the time. States Trinity's position, comment from head of Bebo exclusive to Trinity News. Of immediate interest to students.
d) 2,000 euro stolen from VDP office - Regards a major robbery from a charity run by students on campus. Dreadful thing to happen and important to highlight.


While these are just front pages I think you can understand that I don't really have time to go through every single story we published but front pages are surely representative and the major issues. That's every single story right there. I stand by them and truly think that far from being cliquey we brought many important issues to the student population - and to those further afield.

Many academics complimented me on the paper over the year and commented on how they used it as a source of information too, often first learning things from us. We forced some important issues into a public light. I was also complimented by many national journalists and won the editor of the year award which was judged by a national broadsheet. The paper itself was shortlisted for a record number and brought home many of them. This would not have happened if these national journalists did not have confidence in our journalistic integrity. I have since worked in a national current affairs magazine where people were familiar with TN and never had anything but praise for my time there.

I also feel I took a strong line for things editorially while the news reports were factual and objective. For instance I called on the SU to stand up fro things like free health care. I also called for the SU to fight for defibrillators. While I was never told whether it was down to my editorial partly or not, a few weeks later the SU did just that and I was delighted to see the Sports Week event take palce which funded their purchase.

When things were done which were positive I applauded them, when things I thought were wrong took place I criticised them. I stand by my paper and feel it made a positive contribution. I hope most would agree rather than continually slur the good work many people put in to the publications - TN, Record, Miscellany etc. There's many great people in all, people I know to have nothing but the highest levels of integrity.

melekalikimaka

melekalikimaka wrote:

thought the opposite tbh, as did others i spoke to, andy had nothing great to say and didn't have any 'planted' questions

shay_562 wrote:

Getting someone you know (preferably not wearing one of your t-shirts if you've got a lick of sense) to ask you a straightforward, pre-prepared question to allow you to expand on your policies and generally look good, or alternatively, getting someone to ask a particularly tricky question of one of your opponents that's guaranteed to trip them up. It's not exactly honest, but it's a relatively fair way of playing the system (in that further outlining your policies only works if you've got good policies to begin with, and if your opponent is so weak as to be trip-uppable it's better that it happens before elections than after)

What, like John Tracey getting someone (who happened to be his campaign manager) to ask him a question, who then proceeded to ask Andy a question at the JCR? There's nothing technically wrong with that (though usually campaigns get someone who isn't connected to that campaign to ask the question!) but if you're going to comment on Byrne doing it yesterday, I think it's should be said that Tracey did the same.

shay_562 wrote:

also, promising a swift resignation if you can't come up with €20,000 of sponsorship outside of current donations isn't exactly a confidence-inspiring campaign move.

Can anyone actually go into further detail on this? I suppose I'll find out tonight at the presidential debate, but I've only heard rumours of the plans for an affiliate president and have yet to see any flyers or anything in writing.

Coke - I really wish there had been a "Yes" speaker. Seriously, what was she on? "They haven't been charged of anything yet!" - of course, because we take justice to mean "guilty until proven completely innocent". I heard talk of a "Yes" speaker heading out to Halls tonight - anyone out there able to confirm this?

I have to admit to enjoying the debate whenever Coke comes around. I was at Halls, and the person for the No side (i.e., keep Coke out of SU Shops) was an incredible speaker. There was also someone from the yes side there.

Still no sign of anyone coming in to SS Engineering.

osd

Myth wrote:

I suppose I'll find out tonight at the presidential debate, but I've only heard rumours of the plans for an affiliate president and have yet to see any flyers or anything in writing.

I'm perplexed by this policy myself. Is there a time limit for securing the funds or could he technically resign after 364 days in the job and hence avoid crossover training!
The presidential debate is barely being publicised at all.. A quick one liner in the generic email. Are there posters up?

Yeah, they're up on the SU noticeboards. I assume they're up on CSC ones too.

Unsure if this has been said, but David Lorrigan is a legend.

Awayindahils

Myth wrote:

David Lorrigan is a legend.

Seconded.

Stargal

shay_562 wrote:

Ents - Felt kinda sorry for Barry, since one of his biggest achievements this year (BESS day) couldn't be mentioned in his speech.

Why not?

xebec

Is there a presidential debate on T:fm this afternoon?

What time's the Phil debate at?

7pm, in the GMB I believe.

Edit: 7:30pm according to the SU e-mail.

xebec

stargal wrote:

Why not?

As it's a Rag week event the EC decided that mentioning it would be deemed as sponsorship of his campaign by Ragweek and would therefore lead to fines/removal from the ballot.

Not sure I agree with it, if Ragweek were promoting his campaign then fair enough but he should be allowed to mention work he has done...

Stargal

xebec wrote:

As it's a Rag week event the EC decided that mentioning it would be deemed as sponsorship of his campaign by Ragweek and would therefore lead to fines/removal from the ballot.

/smacks head

Are you serious? Why didn't they instead ban him from mentioning RAG week? That way he would have been able to talk about BESS day on its own and people wouldn't have associated it with RAG week. God. That's a pretty dodgy decision.

Also didn't Niall Hughes mention BESS day in his manifestos/flyers/speeches etc (and rightly so, cos it was a big event) when he ran for Ents a couple of years ago? As far as I remember that was during RAG week too, wasn't it? So what's changed?

osd

xebec wrote:

As it's a Rag week event the EC decided that mentioning it would be deemed as sponsorship of his campaign by Ragweek and would therefore lead to fines/removal from the ballot.

Not sure I agree with it, if Ragweek were promoting his campaign then fair enough but he should be allowed to mention work he has done...

As far as I'm concerned this is a silly ruling... Is it not in the best interests of the students to know the track record of a candidate? Seriously those involved need to step back and see the big picture! Experience in SU related events (I know the CSC and other societies are heavily involved too) should be allowed to mentioned, after all this means that they know the existing structure of the Union and how things are done. All plus points in my view.

ilovemybrick

stargal wrote:

Also didn't Niall Hughes mention BESS day in his manifestos/flyers/speeches etc (and rightly so, cos it was a big event) when he ran for Ents a couple of years ago? As far as I remember that was during RAG week too, wasn't it? So what's changed?

its irrelevant that a previous EC did not fulfill their mandate.

As it's a Rag week event the EC decided that mentioning it would be deemed as sponsorship of his campaign by Ragweek and would therefore lead to fines/removal from the ballot.

your facts are wrong. the reasons are based on the precedent set by the decisions that were made with regards to other infractions by candidates during the campaigning. they are a matter of public student record in the fine book in the front office of SU.

xebec

Could you explain how my facts are wrong? Why exactly is he not allowed to mention BESS day?

Precedent is not justification for a decision.

Andrew 83

That's stupid. Should an Education candidate not be allowed mention that they've been a class rep/convenor?

osd

ilovemybrick wrote:

its irrelevant that a previous EC did not fulfill their mandate.

Hold on a sec here... This EC seems to think that all previous EC's got it wrong with differing issues. Firstly it was the butchering of the policy handbook by messing around with motions passed by Council. We saw how important original wording was when the divisions occurred within Exec last year about the USI Constitution and yet the current EC are riding right over precedent there.

Now this silliness. As far as I remember Niall Hughes or some other Ents candidate was told not to use the Ents logo on their manifestos (and had to thus use a black marker over the logo on each manifesto) and another time some candidates got in hot water because they ran events personally during the election time specifically to show who was a better Ents officer. Both were far more exploitative than working on a BESS day.

Would the EC have ruled that mentioning the various Disability Weeks I've run over the years (as part of my job) were unfair to mention as it would have seemed like promotion?

shay_562

Off topic, but since it was brought up here:

Schol exams likely to be scrapped within a year - This issue was the most tabloidy but I stick to my point that the headlines outlined possibilities and then gave all the details in the first paragraphs onwards.

This one annoyed me because it was, if not wrong, then at the very least deliberately misleading. While the schol exams were technically being 'scrapped', there didn't seem to be any question of abolishing Schols themselves, simply incorporating them into the end of year exams. Using a deliberately misleading headline to try and attract people into reading the article smacks of tabloid journalism (to me, anyway).

Abusive email allegations against presidential candidate - Factual and relevant seeing as he was running. John was given about a third of the article in direct quotations to give his side, can't ask fairer than that.

Except that I did ask fairer than that at the time; I thought it was disgraceful that John was given a prominent platform to attack the Hist and try to dismiss the allegations against him when there wasn't a single comment or request for information from the other side to offer a defense. Presenting only one side of the story can hardly be regarded as 'factual'.

Can anyone actually go into further detail on this? I suppose I'll find out tonight at the presidential debate, but I've only heard rumours of the plans for an affiliate president and have yet to see any flyers or anything in writing.

You know as much as most of us do. I can't find it anywhere in writing; all I know is that Tracey promised at hustings in one of the affiliate colleges to establish another sabbat position for an affiliates officer or resign if he failed; the question of funds was put to him at yesterday's hustings and he promised to secure €15,000 in sponsorship from companies that have an interest in education, saying he could probably reach as high as €20,000 - he didn't set a timeframe on it, though. (This is heavily paraphrased, as I didn't quite understand what the hell he was on about, so you'd be better off asking someone on his campaign team).

Is it not in the best interests of the students to know the track record of a candidate? Seriously those involved need to step back and see the big picture! Experience in SU related events (I know the CSC and other societies are heavily involved too) should be allowed to mentioned, after all this means that they know the existing structure of the Union and how things are done.

Exactly. Just about every other candidate for other positions mentioned things they had been involved in in order to show they had relevant experience; hell, Ed mentions his work with Citibar in his manifesto and isn't considered to be "sponsored" by them. It really seems odd that Barry couldn't make use of one of the biggest events he's organised all year when campaigning.

melekalikimaka

shay_562 wrote:

You know as much as most of us do. I can't find it anywhere in writing; all I know is that Tracey promised at hustings in one of the affiliate colleges to establish another sabbat position for an affiliates officer or resign if he failed; the question of funds was put to him at yesterday's hustings and he promised to secure €15,000 in sponsorship from companies that have an interest in education, saying he could probably reach as high as €20,000 - he didn't set a timeframe on it, though. (This is heavily paraphrased, as I didn't quite understand what the hell he was on about, so you'd be better off asking someone on his campaign team).

i'll get details this noon off him

PHB

You know as much as most of us do. I can't find it anywhere in writing; all I know is that Tracey promised at hustings in one of the affiliate colleges to establish another sabbat position for an affiliates officer or resign if he failed; the question of funds was put to him at yesterday's hustings and he promised to secure €15,000 in sponsorship from companies that have an interest in education, saying he could probably reach as high as €20,000 - he didn't set a timeframe on it, though. (This is heavily paraphrased, as I didn't quite understand what the hell he was on about, so you'd be better off asking someone on his campaign team).

He actually said as high as €50,000. From companies that have an interest in Education.
You really have to wonder what companies would want to pay for another sabbat position (most colleges have two not five!), in the interests of Education, which it's not, it's in the interests of making the SU Presidents job easier.

Well I won't dwell on year's I wasn't responsible for and don't know to hand this year's stories in the Record and TN but I feel I can stand over my year as TN editor last year.

I have no problem with last years News, it seemed to be pretty good for a student newspaper. I was quite impressed with it last year to be honest, it kicked the Record's ass too. My problems are with it this year and the record this year.

That's every single story right there. I stand by them and truly think that far from being cliquey we brought many important issues to the student population - and to those further afield.

What do you think about the Agent this year? Would you honastly stand by that?

When I talk about journalistic intergrity, I can give two very specific examples from both papers.
In terms of the news, The Agent, and to a lesser extent the power list. The Agent is basically a bunch of people, getting together, printing rumours which they have heard, many of which are actually slander, and doing it anonymously, because they have no balls. There isn't a shred of journalistic intergrity in any one of those articles, not an ounce. They are basically a printed gossip column, which is shocking.

In terms of the Record, the article printed about the resignation of the Hist's treasurer, which was written by Claire Tighe.
It basically said 'questions have been raised about his mismanagment of funds'
Not only is this completely untrue, with no basis in fact, it is completely libelous, and there is a strong case history of large wins by anybody who would sue. If the Record was sued, it would lose, and it would be closed down. She wrote this article, and she stands by it.
Aside from the legal issues, which she doesn't have a clue about, it was basically printing rumours that she had heard. Yes those rumours may have existed, although I'd imagine they were just made up, but even if they did, it's just printing rumours and passing it off as a news story.

Both papers have displayed a shocking lack of journalistic intergrity this year, shocking, and anyone involved in them should be ashamed of themselves, or else go and write for the news of the world if it makes them feel good about themselves.
I really don't want to see somebody who thinks thats what student news is about be in charge of the record. I don't know much about her opponent, but she hasn't done anything that shocking, so therefore she has my vote. Not a great choice I know, but what can ya do.