UPDATE 1:46, P.M.:?After contacting the candidates, it seems that no one was interviewed for this position. Both Rahul Kamath and Qi Zhang were not interviewed, but only submitted their letters and received rejection e-mails a couple of days later.
—
After we found out a few weeks ago that Mark Woulf had been appointed to the non-voting student position on Alcohol License Review Committee (arguably one of the most powerful committees tied to City Council), there were rumblings that this went over the head of everyone — mainly because nobody told the rest of ASM that the appointment had been made. Nor had Bryon Eagon or Eli Judge, who pushed this through City Council.
Of course, you have to understand that they don’t need to consult them. It’s probably a good idea to do so, of course, but it’s not essential.?
However, it seemed like there was enough that was odd about the appointment that it needed a little digging. So a week and an open records request later, we have some more information on the process.
Who are the applicants? Let’s have a look:
– Kelvin R. Santiago-Chaparro.??Seems to be very invested in how alcohol pertains to drunk driving deaths (he notes that over 30 percent of alcohol related deaths in Madison were under the age of 25.), but notes that it is “Unfortunate that sometimes the approach taken by those in charge of alcohol policies turns out to be a punitive one[…]” Also mentions that he a research assistant for the Traffic and Operations Safety Laboratory.?
He seems to be part of a specific area of alcohol research (and one which doesn’t exactly pertain to the largely carless student body, but at least he’s aware of some alcohol related problems.?
– Andrew Bond. Included his resume, but seems to have no real experience pertaining to the position.?
– Joseph Goldfine.?A 25-year old student who works at Amy’s Cafe. He makes a point of this, arguing that a bar-centric perspective might be helpful on ALRC. That neglects the fact, of course, that the Tavern League already has a representative on the board.?
A 20-year old junior, she stands out for having actually discussed something regarding alcohol with one of the other members of ALRC, Dr. Pamela Bean. (who can be seen here arguing that an increased beer tax could fund treatment for alcohol abuse) She seems to at least talk of a balance between responsible alcohol use and defending the downtown nightlife.
– Qi Zhang. A medical student dealing with public health issues, she makes it clear that she is also interested in DUIs. Asks for more clarification as to what the job entails. Adam Sheka follows up and tells her it would be meeting with City Council members, preparing for meetings, etc. She seems to be far off the mark from what ASM would be looking for, as she seems to give credence to the prohibitionist hissing that comes from some of people in this city.
-Ben Heidemann. Not much to say here. Junior going into law who feels the position would “provide insight into the dealings of the alcohol licensing process and will work to strengthen my future career.”?
Sorry, this is not an internship.
–Rahul?Kamath?(broken into two pieces, click on last name for second page). This is interesting. 30 year old PhD student (which, I’m sure works against him here) who is studying behavioral economics. He sure knows how to make his case: In addition to working for the US Dept. of Transportation, he makes it clear what his area of study is: “…incentivization methods, enforcement of contractual obligations, [and] business/governmental relations…” Given the fact that he’s been studying this awhile, it might have given him an edge. And as for the whole “complex analysis” thing…hell, just look at his website. He had me hooked just from the In Rainbows topic alone. (and Hipsters, my god, hipsters?)
-Lastly, but certainly not least, we have Mark Woulf. (same break as last time.) He applied using the same credentials he used in his City Council run (normal student, member of the alcohol and other drugs task force), except this time, his run for City Council was used as credentials. He misspelled the name of the special assistant to the chancellor on community affairs and makes the repeated claim that the university is wrong to try and curb underage drinking.
What’s more, his record during the campaign should speak for itself — here’s a guy who wanted to end bar raids, despite the fact that he has no real power (even if he was an alder) over what police do. Then, when he talks about getting his chance to affect the situation when the police and bars meet under the banner of ALRC…he gets appointed and doesn’t attend meetings regarding the specific bar incidents he mentions!?
Now, I know that Woulf said he had family affairs to tend to, but I’m pretty sure ASM asked for availability in it’s e-mail request for applications. He was the only applicant who did not provide this. And he was picked.
So what do we make of all of this?
1. The position is designated for the Chair of ASM or his/her designee. It’s left up to the chair to decide how that appointment process happens, but in this case, the outgoing chair, Brittany Wiegand made an executive decision as to what to do, although the e-mails indicate Adam Sheka, the former Shared Gov. Committee chair, consulted.
2. It looks like this was all done within the span of five days. The first application came in on Sunday, April 26. The last one came in on April 30 at 4 p.m. (that one was from Woulf). The rejection e-mails were sent out the same day at 9:55 p.m. So let’s make it clear — once all applications were submitted, they took five hours to decide.?
3. What’s more, it seems they did not conduct interviews with the applicants.?The e-mails sent to applicants who didn’t make the cut say the following:?
“Thank you for applying for the position. We had several extraordinarily qualified candidates for the seat. After reviewing?all of the letters,?another student has been appointed to the seat.”
In addition, two of the applicants, Joseph Goldfine and Kelvin Santiago-Chaparro, confirmed they were not interviewed for the position. There is the possibility that interviews were conducted with a few people, but all signs point to the likelyhood of that being slim to none. Especially since Wiegand’s e-mail to Junger informing him of the pick of Mark Woulf made it clear that they looked at all the applications and Wiegand picked Woulf.?
Now, it’s within her right to make that pick, but should it really be that way? Especially when it only took a couple of hours to make up her mind and no one was interviewed for the position??
Junger commented on this in a story last week, stating that Woulf was the most qualified as none of the other candidates had any real student government experience.
Seems to me that there was at least enough diversity of experience in the candidate to merit a closer look. Hell, maybe since our appointee hasn’t actually attended a meeting yet and it was made by the last chair, we should have a second go at this appointment process.
