OK guys, I'm back.
It was a long day, an interesting one to say the least. As always the observer here are my thoughts overall:
In regards to Pat Williams himself: Pat showed with incredible background and knowledge that his qualifications far exceed what is needed to be a regent. He is incredibly knowledgeable, connects with the right people in the room, and is a very good orator. His overall knowledge of the university system is very good. I've never personally questioned that and he made it very clear today that his background gives him very good qualifications. As we all know, that is not my issue at hand here. He has a masterful way to provide very "political" answers that are indirect and sometimes didn't even get to the actual question asked. He would weave his words in and out of multiple examples, he would hop from a singular football example, reference the entire campus rape/assault issue, then tie football back in, then reference the Saudi issue, then bring up a football issue again. The way he weaves his statements, without having a lot of prior knowledge you'd think he was always talking about football. A casual listener at one point would have thought he said the football team had 7 to 9 rape accusations and 64 "incidents" when he was actually (I think) referencing the entire campus issues.
Mr Williams was also questioned about another recent statement he made, what I'm unsure of is if it was on behalf of the state, the board of regents, or just his own opinion. The Senator who asked the question, the tweets I read from concerned fiscal conservatives seemed to be under the opinion that he had made a generalized statement on behalf of the board of regents which was possibly confusing and maybe inaccurate. His answer went off-track, the senator tired to re-direct the question but did not seem satisfy what the senator was looking for. This is an interesting trend. While I haven't read the statement on the surface the suggestion is that this would be the 2nd statement he's made and been identified as a regents that has been misquoted/out of context/spoken on behalf the board without their permission. It could suggest a concern for a trend here.
On Mr Williams supporters: "The Machine" is well run. His speakers for the most part had well organized statements, made their reasoning clear, most did not attack the opposition. He had a wide-array of support, there were 15 speakers but many more that were just there as well. He had NEA-MFT, AFL-CIO, ASUM, and other groups who stood in his support. There were just a few curious statements. A few people characterized "my side" as a political attack. One speaker told a story about the Cal football program from the 70s which had no tie-in to the matter at hand, unless if the UM has suddenly been found to also be taking tests for players and buying them prostitutes... There were funny stories as well. It was well organized as I expected it. Pat's support base is far and wide. Most did not bring up the concern that the opposition has at all, I think maybe 1 or 2. Their petition organizer had someone show up and read the cover to their petition and that was pretty much it.
On the 5 speakers in opposition:
- Jim Foley was well prepared and well spoken. He drove a few points home and admitted that he believes Pat if Pat says that he was taken out of context. Jim's more broad message struck me as one that wanted "the discussion" to move beyond name calling, side taking, and hard-line stances. He talked about the timing of the comments, the immediate national concern, the follow up. One thing that I thought might've unraveled his argument was when he called the Missoulian a bunch of 3rd rate reporters. In the middle of a speech about healing and moving beyond titles/name calling that (IMO) should not have been in there. I noticed on twitter that was the one big takeaway from the liberal/leftists following - they pounced all over that.
- Patrick Duffy spoke at length about the implications of Pat's comments. He said he's a god-parent to one of Pats children (or grand children) and recognized that he was probably losing a lot of friends making his statements.
- Mine was... mine. I was quick b/c I was under the pretense of having to speak quickly. I brought up I'm a democrat, this petition is not a politically motivated attack. I made mention that there are other comments also given to ESPN as well. I closed with the fact that I've heard from parents, former players, and current players. I was there to speak on behalf of those who could not, the people who were broadly painted as thugs by the comments. UM employees have been held accountable for their words and we expect the same.
- Joe Spieker, quick statement of similar opinion, did not want Pat representing any student.
- Ryan Featherston's dad (didn't catch his name). He was real quick, in fact I missed most of it just getting back to my seat. I think he was just mad his son was characterized as a thug with the general comments.
------------
Afterwards several republican senators and I talked quickly, I just wanted to thank them for their time. I did also thank Tom Facey who had represented me before I moved out to the western end of town. I was very re-assured by the comments I was given. I was told that petition numbers aren't the deciding factor and there's so much more at play. There's a lot of other things being considered and the testimonies, while important, are just a small piece to the overall puzzle. Two senators told me that many hearings with vastly outnumbered opposition have still tilted to the opposition because of more compelling and issue-based arguments.
This isn't over - I'll have a fresh call to action in the morning.
Finally I want to thank everyone for their support. My email inbox, my facebook page, my twitter account, my text inbox were over-flowing with support today. And I'll also say that the Williams supporters were very friendly and cordial. I even talked with one on a correction afterwards. There was no intimidation or "in your face" action. It was professional and respectful.
me a river.
