mgopodcast
regents
andrea newman

MGoPodcast Supplemental: Regent Candidates Comment Count

Seth November 5th, 2018 at 7:22 AM

Voters on Tuesday will have a chance to select two candidates for the University of Michigan Board of Regents, serving an eight-year term. While these are partisan positions on the ballot, we do not see them as partisan posts. Because Michigan no longer offers straight-ticket voting you have to go find the candidates and vote for them specifically.

MGoBlog interviewed the four leading candidates: Democratic challengers Jordan Acker and Paul Brown, and Republican incumbents Andrea Fischer Newman and Andrew Richner. While the staff of MGoBlog reserve the right to privately (e.g. on Twitter) share whom we'll vote for, this podcast is not an endorsement of any of these candidates, though in full honestly all four candidates would do a fine job serving the university for the next eight years. Even if you are not a voter in the State of Michigan you might find the podcast interesting since it touches on many important issues currently affecting the university (and doesn't really get into any hot-button political issues outside of that).

The candidates were asked the same set of questions. Their interviews have been edited some to remove flubs or to allow the candidates to gather their thoughts. The topics:

  • Why did you become/are you seeking to become a regent?
  • Tuition control/The Go Blue Guarantee/Full cost of living
  • Student housing (if it wasn't covered above)
  • The "Dear Colleague" letter, the recent trial, and shaping Michigan's internal sexual assault policy
  • Transparency and institutional integrity in the wake of Larry Nassar
  • Ethics and the best way to handle investments
  • Change one thing about the University of Michigan (but you can't have money for it)

They are presented in the order they were recorded, as follows:

Paul Brown

starts at 2:08

Jordan Acker

starts at 20:52

Andrea Fischer Newman

starts at 54:37

Andrew Richner

starts at 1:13:32

-------------------------------------

Personal Disclosure: Though he was a bit younger than me, I (Seth) know Jordan Acker personally from our youth. To avoid any appearance of favoritism I was not present for Acker's interview and I had nothing to do with its editing (that was David). Also Brian once in the early days of the blog excoriated a Michigan football article that Acker wrote as an undergrad. That is discussed on the podcast.

The Park in the Library Lot is a Stupid Idea, Everybody Says So Disclosure: Brian has a spiel at the start for Ann Arbor residents to Vote No on Ann Arbor Proposal A.

-------------------------------------

MUSIC

  • "The Yellow and Blue"—University of Michigan Marching Band
  • "The Victors on Ukulele"

THE USUAL LINKS

Comments

Vote_Crisler_1937

November 5th, 2018 at 7:41 AM ^

As someone who has also known Jordan Acker since childhood and is currently his neighbor, I have been SO CURIOUS what this blog would say about his regent candidacy. Glad you guys put this together I will hang up and listen. 

Joined: 11/07/2011

MGoPoints: 15506

Leaders And Best

November 5th, 2018 at 7:43 AM ^

How many personal injury attorneys do we need on the Board of Regents or plain attorneys for that matter? Because Jordan Acker would make THREE personal injury attorneys (and 5th attorney) if he were elected. Not saying that should be a huge or only factor in making a decision, but it would be nice to have a diverse Board with a range of experience. A Board with Acker, Behm, and Bernstein on it would not be achieving that. I would think Michigan with its wealth of alumni in different fields could do better than this. I am not sure how the Michigan Democratic party goes about selecting candidates for regent, but I am disappointed by their lack of diversity. We need to take the university regent selection process out of the hands of the political parties.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22312

Leaders And Best

November 5th, 2018 at 8:50 AM ^

I didn't mean to single out any of the regents' qualifications. I was just making the point that we need to remove the political parties from the regent selection process. The Democratic party has a lot of fundraising from trial lawyers so I am not surprised when we get THREE personal injury attorneys as candidates from them. And the Republican party is just as bad with both parties leading to the clusterfuck on the MSU Board of Trustees. It needs to stop.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22312

Seth

November 5th, 2018 at 9:22 AM ^

I agree that regent should not be a partisan position, but not on your characterization of Acker, since most of his career since graduation has been in public service. I think if he hadn't gotten sick and needed UMHS to save his life a couple of years ago he'd be running for U.S. Congress and most likely winning a seat. As with many other regents, Michigan is really profiting here off the fact that some of the best would-be candidates for higher offices would rather pursue normal careers and serve the university.

I also think you're vastly underestimating how many young attorneys work in personal injury. Might as well complain that too many bloggers are former message board posters.

Joined: 10/14/2008

MGoPoints: 149219

Leaders And Best

November 5th, 2018 at 10:49 AM ^

Like I said, I was not taking a shot at his qualifications or commitment to public service. But this is a university and should be above the political process. Attorneys are not the only ones committed to public service, but they are overrepresented in our political parties and higher offices. And for me, commitment to public service or suitability for higher office aren't necessarily the highest on my criteria for qualifications for regent for a university. Like you pointed out, I don't know much about the law and young attorneys. But the vice versa is true as well, and if you stack the board with attorneys, what do they know about medicine or a health system? Or Engineering, Business, or Music? With a university as large as Michigan, I think it is important to think about that. Does another attorney bring more depth of experience and knowledge, however qualified he or she may be, to the board than someone else could? I doubt it.

I would think and hope there are a number of qualified candidates that would be willing to serve the university from fields like the sciences, business, medicine, education, humanities, or the arts, and it would be nice to have candidates whose resumes don't look so similar to the others. I didn't mean to single Acker out, but just my two cents on the issue.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 22312

Girlbleedsblue

November 5th, 2018 at 2:15 PM ^

There just aren't that many people interested in board work.  I'm sure there are some who are not trial attorneys, but by and large the people interested in board work are going to be people who are willing to get mired down in details and do a lot of networking and talking in order to make something happen.  It's a good fit for an attorney who also appreciates policy work.  It's probably a good fit for a non-profit or business leader who likes collaboration.  It's expensive and exhausting to run a state-wide campaign and it's not a sexy position like other statewide offices.  

Your point about removing political parties from the process is interesting because I currently hold a "non-partisan" office and I found the campaigning to be much more substantive than if we had an affiliation attached.  I mean, I was able to come to people with a blank slate and present my case, and I won based that campaign.  On the other hand, a statewide race is so expensive and demanding that by removing the parties, you will be left with only a select group of individuals who could conduct that race.  Really it would eliminate a lot of people from being able to participate.  My race was very small in comparison.  I can't imagine running a statewide race without party support.  Even with tons of money, it's very difficult to establish yourself with the voters.  It's probably more (little d) democratic to have political parties involved in the process.  

 

Joined: 10/25/2014

MGoPoints: 1721

Section 1.8

November 5th, 2018 at 10:32 AM ^

I'm an AV-rated lawyer per Martindale, and I would dispute your characterization.  I think I had been in practice for 20 years before I got it, after a lot of big circuit court trials.  It is NOT a rating that you get by buying a set of books.  It is a real peer review rating.

 

Joined: 01/04/2018

MGoPoints: 1167

carolina blue

November 5th, 2018 at 8:19 AM ^

YAY ITS THE MONDAY MORNI....oh. 

 

Carry on then. 

 

I have no real issue with it as it seems you went out of your way to be impartial, which is good. Just the initial “yay! Football, cackling, frames janklin jokes!” Then the “well, shit, that was a letdown. Guess I’ll have to wait”

Joined: 02/12/2014

MGoPoints: 30259

bronxblue

November 5th, 2018 at 8:37 AM ^

I have no real dog in this fight but it was nice to hear the diverse views of the candidates, with all focused on improving the school.  That said...

I hope that Brian and co. are just editting the football podcast because it spit such hot fire at Franklin that it had to be sanitized for the internet 

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171742

BlueLine

November 5th, 2018 at 9:17 AM ^

Thanks for doing this. It's a great platform for the candidates to reach voters, and a great way for voters to hear what the candidates have to say. This is really valuable.

Joined: 11/05/2011

MGoPoints: 37

crg

November 5th, 2018 at 10:06 AM ^

Since this issue was brought up (albeit obliquely) in the write-up, I somewhat like that people can no longer just straight ticket vote and Now actually have to look to see who they are voting in to represent them.  It just seems wrong to me voting for someone without knowing a little about them (or even their name), but that's just my opinion.

Joined: 04/30/2015

MGoPoints: 75054

MichiganTeacher

November 5th, 2018 at 10:10 AM ^

FWIW, I grew up with Bing Brown. I would never want him as a Regent of my university, or any university. 

Maybe he's changed a lot since then. I haven't had contact with him since high school, really. But he was not at all the sort of person I would want in a position of power.

Best example as it relates to this blog might be on the ski team at Petoskey, he would constantly ski for individual results instead of team results. I believe it cost the team the state championships one year when he skied out of the course at Nubs Nob, when all he had to do was ski very conservatively. I might have the details a bit off - this is a long time ago - but that was the general idea of things.

Anyway, just putting my thoughts out there. Perhaps he has changed a lot since then.

Joined: 10/06/2011

MGoPoints: 9263

MichiganTeacher

November 5th, 2018 at 12:34 PM ^

I actually didn't ski for the school. I did ski, but only recreationally. But Petoskey was an even smaller town back then than it is now, and Bing and I were in some of the same social circles.

EDIT: Oh, but to answer your question, we were older than you. I believe Bing graduated in 91.

Joined: 10/06/2011

MGoPoints: 9263

You Only Live Twice

November 5th, 2018 at 12:26 PM ^

I have no problem with plaintiffs' attorneys in office, in fact a strong plaintiffs' bar serves as part of checks and balances.

I don't agree with Brian on Proposal A, I am voting yes.

Joined: 09/14/2013

MGoPoints: 9615

theintegral

November 5th, 2018 at 1:10 PM ^

Thanks for providing this service.  Although I did do my due diligence prior to voting (absentee, already), I probably would have been swayed to change a vote if I had listened to the podcast before voting.

Joined: 10/19/2011

MGoPoints: 1147