Op-Ed in the RG from UO Student VP Nick McCain, on behalf of the EMU Task Force, 8/26/2012:
As a task force we identified the main reasons why the last referenda failed and decided to take it upon ourselves to learn how we could effectively communicate the importance of the renovation to our peers. In an attempt to further educate our peers, increase voter turnout, and combat voter apathy, we decided to explore innovative and creative marketing strategies.
No apologies here. He’s defending the report from RBI and the task force’s use of student money on it and the methods it proposes. Bold move. (Or I suppose you could read it as refusing to address the RBI issues. Not so bold.)
Did he defend the report, or the motivations for retaining RBI? You have implied numerous times that UO representatives back the recommendations of this report, but I haven’t seen anything to support it.
Robin Holmes has repeatedly supported the use of “any means necessary” tactics to pass her proposal for the renovation. Last year, Holmes and other Student Affairs staff prepared to launch a similar type of campaign but the ASUO leadership conditioned its referendum on Student Affairs pulling all of its staff and resources from any kind of involvement with the referendum.
Got docs? I’ll post them.
Thanks for those, keep them coming.
Despite all the loud cynicism that tries to frame the EMU renovation aspirations as some admin conspiracy to screw the students, Mr. McCain and the student task force have put forth the case that indeed many students believe in the merits of this project and are working hard to present the case to fellow students. The RBI report may not have been a good idea and has been dropped, but I look forward to seeing if this student task force can recover their poise and run a good outreach effort in the coming weeks.
I heard a rumor that the administration was paying students (perhaps EMU task force students) to work on the campaign to pass the referendum. Do you know if this is true, and do you think it’s acceptable?