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.
Cambridge Common 
“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.
Dear Anonymous:
I don’t know who you are, but I bet that I’ve forgotten more about the UC than you know. So let’s get a few things straight:
1) The UC will elect the new VP because that is the process mandated in the Council’s governing documents. The UC has no other choice.
2) Ian resigned of his own free will. He could have fought whatever calls for his resignation or impeachment resulted from his “entrapment.” Given the high threshold for recalling a Council officer, a two-thirds vote, it is highly likely that he would have been maintained in office.
3) The UC did continue on with business as usual after the election. I think everyone on the UC was willing to give the split-ticket a chance and certainly no one went around trying to find a way to get rid of Ian. That some members, over the course of the semester, observed that Ian was not pulling his weight (or even a fraction of it) and complained about it is not going against the mandate that Ian had when he was elected. The student body elected Ian to do a job, not simply hold an office. If he did not do that job, members of the UC are not trampling over the wishes of the student body in asking Ian to perform those tasks he pledged to fulfill when elected. Ian resigned without attempting to remedy the situation.
It is, quite frankly, bizarre that someone would resign and then allege that they were forced out due to some conspiracy when there was never an attempt by that person to refute the charges against him or attempt to fulfill the duties of office.
4) Ian being an “outsider” (and really now, how do you make someone who’s been on the UC since their freshman year an outsider?) is not a valid excuse for not even performing the basic tasks enumerated for the Vice-President. I don’t think that your version of democracy includes the conclusion that you seem to draw. Aren’t you essentially saying that there should be no criticism of our leaders when they fail to perform their jobs because some transcendent spirit of the democratic process mandates that an elected official has a right to office no matter their job performance? I don’t know if I like your kind of democracy and if you think about it, I don’t think you really support it either.
5) It is entirely valid that the students who elected Ian should ask that he perform his job and that the UC members he works with hold him accountable. Who else is going to see his on the job performance?
6) Clay Capp had nothing to do with last summer’s bounced check fiasco. At most Clay can be blamed for the Science Center non-payment, but even then Clay was one of a list of people who could have been blamed. Bottom line is this – the Treasurer only pays what he knows is owed. The Science Center was just as culpable as any member of the UC. So please, stop the name-calling. (Also, note that it’s ironic that you criticize Clay for not doing his job well when Ian stands accused of not doing his job at all.)
While I understand that Ian may have felt like an outsider, it’s not an excuse for what transpired over the past few months on his end. He should be held to a higher standard than “right to office.”
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.
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.
Ian did take his job very seriously. As we’ve all found out from the UCRC and the ensuing debate on each of the points it proposed, reforms can take time. Finance committee reform is no different.
The whole Springfest thing is unfortunate, but it was kind of a bad idea anyways. I’m somewhat mystified as to the actual job description of the UC VP. I appreciated Einkauf’s post to Uc-General a few hours ago on the new responsibilities that will (if they pass) be given explicitly to the VP. I think this is a good idea, as the “tradition” of the UC VP planning Springfest goes back as “far” as one year ago.
Sure, Ian could have been more active or more visible, but that’s just not his style. I, for one, was excited to see the finance reforms. I still am, and I think the UC needs to be much more careful with money next year (UC’ers, I think you know what I’m talking about). I agree with Crimson staff position published today reminding the UC that Ian was elected for a reason–he represented a dissenting voice in the highest echelons of UC power. I hope any new UC VP will reflect the student body’s wishes here.
In any case, the argument is never as simple as “Ian was lazy and stubborn,” or “Glazer was unwelcoming in an attempt to force him out of office.” The truth is somewhere in the middle. The bottom line is that the two just didn’t get along. Ian and Matt are two very different people. Where Matt (as SAC chair) sometimes had to compromise student interest in part to achieve rapport with administrators and lasting reform, Ian was on FiCom, a role that forced him to be uncompromising and demanding of himself and others. Putting together a person who worked mainly with people outside the UC with a person who worked almost wholly with people inside the UC was supposed to bring a complementary advantage. What stopped this from happening is anyone’s best guess. But neither Matt (and his “kabal,” lol) nor Ian deserves all the blame. Matt should have been more open to allowing Ian to question UC legislation, proposals and long-term plans he thought were questionable. And Ian should have been more willing to take on many of the “traditional” roles of a UC VP. Fine.
The one thing I AM worried about is that Ian was pushed out of office solely because of his conduct surrounding Springfest. The fact that he was out of town served as a catalyst for those who didn’t like him to range threats against him. Ian was a dick for not helping enough with Springfest–I mostly agree with that statement. But there’s no excuse for pushing out a rep whom the students voted for in retaliation for one transgression. As I understood it, Ian was elected by the student body as a dissenting voice, not as the planner of Springfest. In failing to help with Springfest, then, he DIDN’T fail the student body or the UC. Now that it appears there will be no dissenting voice on the exec board of the UC, the student body is all the worse off for it. THAT’S too bad.
Mr. Slack:
Thanks for your reasoned response and I appreciate your willingness to realize that the situation is more complex. There are a few things in your post, however, that I must take issue with.
First, as you rightly note, Ian could have been more active or more visible. I couldn’t care less about his being visible, because some of the most active members of the UC rarely have their names published in the Crimson. On the question of being active, however, I must disagree. It wasn’t a matter of style that Ian wasn’t active; he truly wasn’t that active. (Indeed, how does style have anything to do with it? Are you saying that he had a non-active style and that explains his non-activity? Doesn’t that essentially amount to an admission on your part that Ian didn’t do a whole lot?) I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for those Finance reforms because they’re not in the works. Ian was not serious about reforming the UC finances (and by that, I mean the Finance Committee) this semester. We’re all still waiting because nothing was done. Reform takes time, I agree, but there was no move in that direction this semester – especially from Ian. And in Ian’s case, I don’t know if he ever really worked for finance reforms in previous years.
Second, I’m not surprised that you agree with the staff position (seeing as how you likely had a key role in crafting it) that essentially lets Ian off the hook. Ian elected as a dissenting voice? Please. Go back and read your endorsement of Ian in December. There wasn’t a whisper of Ian being a dissenting voice. If nothing else, that endoresment suggested that Glazer and Ian would work great together because, even though they weren’t on the same ticket, they worked in the same way. It’s funny that you think Ian had a voice in any echelon of UC power, ever. To be honest, and I say this as a friend of Ian’s, Ian had very little voice in anything the UC did prior to his becoming Vice-President – by his own volition. Quite simply, Ian didn’t do much. The Crimson’s endorsement of him in December shocked UC members who had watched Ian work over the years (and truth be told, Mr. Slack, I think that the campus would be shocked to learn how that endorsement was engineered). Ian had rarely worked on the UC before he became VP beyond his very basic FiCom duties, in fact he was often in attendance trouble, so I don’t see why it is surprising to anyone that he continued his non-working work ethic even after his election. Ian was a good FiCom Rep in interviewing student groups, and there’s no doubt that he had their interests in mind when making recommendations for grant amounts on FiCom. But that was the extent of his work, and that’s the bare bones job description of a FiCom Rep. A Vice-President of the UC should not be a bare-bones style worker.
Finally, the impetus was not Springfest…it seems rather that Springfest was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I don’t know how you can suggest that his failing to help with Springfest was not an example of him failing the UC. I just doesn’t make sense. Let’s tweak that sentence a little and see what you think. “In failing to help with the Crimson’s editorial operations, then, Mr. Slack didn’t fail the student body (this is a tenuous relationship, I realize) or the Crimson.” See. Puts things in a different perspective.
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?
Firstly, I want to say that I haven’t taken the time to read this whole exchange. But I feel like I need to address andrew’s opening comment
“I have watched as Ian continually shirked his duties, leaving them for other members of the UC leadership to take on”
You have? You’ve watched this? Really? As far as I can recall I’ve barely seen you all semester. And shirked from my duties? This is what you think? Which duties, exactly, were continually shirked? Springfest? The event that is primarily funded and put on by the president’s office for the entire college — staff, faculty and all? And their families? I was indeed out of town the weekend in question. I had had very little interest in attending the event. Is that what I was elected to do? Run and attend springfest? And what other duties, then, were shirked?
I don’t think you have any grounds to be making these allegations. People seem to be blogging here under assumptions that are derived from your comment above, but it is unclear to me from where it stems.
And Jamal Sprucewood? Who are you to comment on my activity on the council? Another person from the Glazer-Capp campaign, perhaps? Your statements about ficom reform couldn’t be further from the truth. I can’t imagine why you would make such a claim.
Anyway, I think it is interesting to hear my old campaign foe, andrew gollis, so adamnntly praising my leave and attacking my record on the council, which I don’t have the energy to defend at this point.
Ian,
Thanks for posting. I would love for you to comment here about your role in FiCom reform. If I’ve made a mistake I will certainly copy your comments and make them a post on the home page with an apology to you for mischaracterizing your record.
– Jamal