Earlier today I was linked to The Peak’s report on IEC appointments, in which I was briefly mentioned:
Shen gave a less compelling presentation. “Seeing as one day I want to be a lawyer and a judge, I am very capable of being impartial,” said Shen. The Board decided not to ratify him.
I wasn’t planning on discussing the precursors to my application (and I don’t like talking about myself), but this seems like an invitation to do so.
I did inquire about the IEC late last semester (1081), it’s a unique body within the SFSS and the jobs were rather interesting. However, I haven’t really decided to apply as a commissioner, and that was put completely out of contemplation the moment I was elected as the Criminology representative on Forum, since one can’t be on both Forum and the IEC. So for about two weeks, I thought I was going to be a Forum rep, and that’s the end of the story. But that kind of changed a bit on the day IEC appointments were made.
At lunchtime I had a surprise visit by J.J. McCullough (who was still Chief Electoral Officer as of then) who asked me to apply for the IEC. I – of course – promptly declined, citing my imminent participation in Forum. Normally that would be it, but J.J. explained his wish (that I apply) in terms of two opinions: 1) he felt that it was to the benefit of the IEC (J.J. recommended all four applicants), and 2) he specifically noted that my technical background would be valuable. Of course, it took a bit more conversing to elicit my agreement and application, but that’s the basic gist of it. I decided to apply for the IEC at a bit before 2pm on the day appointments were to be made (which was at 3:30pm).
While I have to admit that my speech wasn’t exactly flying with colours (far from it), I’d say it’s not too far from what’s to be expected of someone who had to come up with a speech on minutes’ notice (the speech-giving exercise was a decision made a few moments before they were given), and who wasn’t even planning on being there at that time only a few hours ago.
The ratification (or lack thereof), was not completely (or – I venture to guess – even substantially) related to the speech, and probably had to do with something irrelevant to it. I won’t go into that here.