Hallmark Awards: HIA PROJECT

1.ABSTRACT: Competition in politics has a way of distorting the truth, and the news media that cover politics are not immune to this competition or distortion.

During presidential elections in particular, voters are flooded with tainted data from news media that affect unbiased reporting while forwarding private agendas at the expense of the truth. Consequently, voters are often left, at best, misinformed, and, at worst, disheartened and apathetic about the entire voting process, as voter turnout rates continue to decline.

“The Informed Voter” project sought to address this competition in politics issue by researching and then presenting (10/25/12) to the college community impartial information on the 2012 presidential candidates. In particular, we researched the history and tenets of political parties and then focused on 5 main issues in this election: economy, education, environment, foreign policy, and health care. Our main objective was to allow student-voters to make an informed choice, despite competition’s negative effect on politics and political news coverage.

2/3. THEME: First, because 2012 was a presidential election year, with political topics everywhere, it made sense. Also, many officers had strong political opinions. While not every project member loved the idea, the vast majority voted on it; the rest accepted it. Next, David and Alemu attended the Honors Institute, were intrigued by the ways this specific theme was approached in breakout sessions, and had notions of hosting a debate on campus between local candidates.

REDUX: 2012 was a presidential election year, which made the choice easier. Also, many project members held strong political interests. While not everyone favored the theme, the vast majority voted on it; the rest accepted it. Next, David and Alemu attended the Honors Institute, were intrigued by the approaches to this specific topic in breakout sessions, and had notions of hosting a debate on campus between local candidates.

4. RESEARCH:

5. RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS: Analyses and conclusions based on our research included a confirmation of our project and its focus: students needed to register to vote, to be informed on the issues (in general and in this particular election), and then to be pushed to vote. Thus, The Informed Voter Project would concentrate on the 2012 presidential election, the two main-party candidates, and their positions. Our research also led us to the five major issues we thought relevant to the student-voter: Economy, Education, Environment, Foreign Policy, and Health Care. It also allowed us to shape the coherent structure of the presentation: introduction, major parties and tenets, Obama’s and Romney’s stances on the issues, and 10 reasons to vote. (Pashinski confirmed later.)

We also concluded the best format for sharing this research was a PowerPoint presentation, along with informational pamphlets. We decided to hold it on campus, on a Tuesday or Thursday, during the designated 11-12:30 lunch break, and in a large room located in the middle of campus (as opposed to its periphery). This would maximize student attendance. Our Determination of Action was to provide valuable community service by creating informed voters – not just registered voters or voters for a particular party (as some groups had done). Ryan made this astute analogy: Getting people to register to vote was fine and maybe even the minimum for such a project, but without giving them unbiased information so they could make an informed choice when they did vote was as irresponsible as giving them a gun and not teaching them how to use it legally or properly. Others agreed, adding analogies to the Internet, driving, food, and sex.

Our target audience was the campus community: student-voters primarily, faculty and administrators second, local residents third. We also determined that student-leaders (as opposed to faculty or others) present, assuming all significant leadership roles.

We wanted to distribute this information in a controlled setting, avoiding the interruptions that often come with political discourse, so we decided on a presentation to students. Armed with this unbiased information, they’d share it off-campus with friends and family, allowing us to reach the community at large.

6. OBJECTIVES:

After attending the national convention and its HIA-related seminars, attending the Honors Institute, participating in regional webinars, studying the HIA booklet, and following given models, officers collaborated on the following objectives with their advisor:

 complete a HIA project for our 5-Star Development Plan, overall chapter goals  take informed action “designed to make a lasting impact and contribute to the betterment of society”  improve and demonstrate skill development – o advance leadership skills by creating “opportunities for leadership and learning as leaders through service and advocacy” o sharpen critical thinking skills by academically researching substantial expert materials on a significant societal issue that impacts local, state, national, and international affairs and drawing research conclusions to develop project ideas o gain and show awareness of how using multiple perspectives augments understanding and improves decision-making o hone problem-solving skills “by developing an in-depth, action-oriented project” related to competition and by overcoming logistical obstacles, varying political ideologies o enhance collaborative skills by coordinating with other campus organizations o strengthen analytical skills by quantitatively and qualitatively analyzing this project and assessing future opportunities  increase the Society presence on campus  meet the college president’s challenge for “something political” during this presidential election year  continue “supportive relationship” with the administration by assisting their meeting the following “institutional goals”: o “Provide a foundation of core knowledge and skills; Develop contributing and culturally competent members of society; Design a quality educational experience accessible for all learners; Develop partnerships within the community to contribute to the […] social advancement of the region”  combat voter apathy, especially among college students  create informed voters, short-term (this election) and long-term (lifetime)  share essential, unbiased data so student-voters may make informed decisions  ultimately address the campus’ culture of complacency by fostering, within our chapter and throughout the college, “a stimulating environment for intellectual growth and challenge”

7. COLLABORATION:

 On campus, we reached out to the SGA, Psi Beta, and History and ACLU clubs. Ultimately, only the SGA collaborated; the rest withdrew.  Other campus personnel we worked with included the Master Scheduler (room reservations), Food Services Manager (pizza), Printing Office Manager (posters), and the Student Activities Director (coordination).  We also reached out to all professors and deans to help promote our event in their classes (extra credit).  Off campus, for the originally planned debate, David’s team contacted the candidates for the 11th Congressional District seat, challenger Gene Stilp directly and incumbent Representative Lou Barletta through his office. When this project folded, they contacted State Representative Eddie Pashinski, who graciously appeared at our presentation.

8. LEADERSHIP ROLES: Research, Panel, and Logistical team leaders were Ryan Flaherty (tenets and reasons to vote), David Fox (economy), Leah Kowlaski (education), Rainy Boyle (environment), Emily Lynch (foreign policy), Dana Williams (health care). Naturally, Mary Sullivan and Dr. Housenick also participated.

These officers led the research teams, coordinating Society members and outside club members.

These Panel positions were assigned based on strengths and interests; people volunteered for the issues related to their majors and major interests.

Because David had contacted Barletta and Stilp, he'd be the one to contact Pashinski.

Due to school policy, Dr. Housenick was to secure permissions from Academic Affairs and other administrators.

As for advertising and releases, Ryan, Dana, and Leah assumed these leadership roles.

9. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT:

 First, a small group of officers and members attended the 2012 National Convention and participated in the various skill development seminars and HIA-themed sessions.  Also, David and Alemu attended the 2012 Honors Institute.  Officers led Information Sessions during each semester’s membership drive.  All officers headed fall and spring Induction Ceremonies.  Individually, officers brought in new members by promoting the Society in their classes and social circles.  Further, two officers spoke at faculty in-services as the student-speaker, promoting the Society and its projects.  During chapter meetings, we exchanged public speaking tips for our presentation and discussed public relations strategies with Mary Sullivan.  We contacted, negotiated, and coordinated with local political candidates. Initially, this meant Barletta and Stilp; later, Representative Pashinski.  Lastly, we utilized Dr. Housenick (English professor) for the development of research questions, strategies, and resources, as well as for proofreading our writing.

10. ACTION: Our primary objective was to create informed voters, so our project action was an educational presentation, The Informed Voter, held on October 25, 2012, less than two weeks before the general election.

We utilized PowerPoint to display the material in a convenient manner. We also printed copies of the PowerPoint so people could take notes, take the knowledge with them, and, if they had hearing or seeing problems, follow along at their seats. We distributed these handouts that day and also placed them around campus afterward. An electronic version was placed on our chapter Web site.

We also made pamphlets, using Publisher, to distribute the same information in a shorter format. We gave these out at the presentation, placed them around campus, and put an electronic version on our site.

We also designed, made, and distributed voting-themed buttons.

Prior to the presentation, we laid the groundwork. First, we encouraged students to register to vote before the deadline. We used the school’s intranet to broadcast messages and asked instructors to mention it in class. We supplied registration forms – at several places around campus – and even (confidentially) collected and mailed them in bulk. Next, to advertise The Informed Voter presentation, we used the same methods; additionally, we designed posters to hang around campus. Dr. Housenick increased the allure with “free pizza” messages. He also bought “patriotic” decorations for the room and made signs from our PowerPoint. We also posted around campus explanatory notices on the Voter ID Law.

After the presentation, we placed posters, signs, decorations, and pamphlets on our bulletin board outside of the cafeteria. We also donated leftover pizza and soda to our campus food kitchen.

11. ANALYSIS-OUTCOMES: By the numbers:

 5 officers worked on the project (research, writing), and 3 officers (+ Dr. Housenick) delivered the presentation (the other officers were sick). 44 students, 2 non-students, and 6 staff/faculty attended; 0 administrators appeared (though all were invited).  The staff photographer photo-documented the event, and a picture and report were submitted to the newspapers but not yet published. A similar report was sent to Middle States.  In terms of resources, we distributed 55 pamphlets, 30 copies of our PowerPoint, and 50 buttons. We ordered 10 large pizzas and served 3 2-liters of soda.  Although everyone received an exit survey, only 29 completed one. o the majority learned of the presentation through the “free pizza” intranet messages o after our event, their “voting attitudes” were basically the same but “going to vote now that I have more information” was higher o in terms of “voting experience,” the majority hadn’t voted before o to explain low voter turnout, they responded that the 2 biggest reasons were “lack of favorable candidates” and “disenchantment toward the system” o most believed that “competition in politics” was “extremely important” but “unfair” o most said their “level of informativeness” rose because of this presentation, from “not informed at all” to “very informed” o thus, they agreed that informational sessions like this were “extremely necessary

Qualitatively:

 We were pleasantly surprised by the turnout.  Many students came up to us afterward, socializing over pizza, and offered favorable responses regarding the information, the objectivity, and the need for more unbiased political dialogue. Some noted how “refreshing” it was; others shared their appreciation for the lack of "usual political BS." They felt "informed."  Also, we again got the Society name out there, associating it with leadership, scholarship, fellowship, and service.  Further, doing this project helped us grow as scholars: having to wade through heavily biased material was eye-opening; we discarded a good deal of sources because of this, but it honed our research abilities.  Because of the obstacles (below), the officer team bonded, learned how to persevere and deal with other groups, other students, administrators.  Ultimately, the process of planning, presenting, speaking, problem-solving, and analyzing has helped us become better leaders. These soft skills will help us stand out on the campus and in our individual fields.  The group has agreed that the most valuable aspect of the entire project was the information itself – not only did the voters become informed but the presenters did too. This has taught us about the history of our political system, party ideologies, media bias and the influence of competition, and the candidates’ personal views. Those of us who weren’t thrilled with this topic have gained a deeper appreciation for politics and for voting, and those who liked it from the beginning have had their goal to reach more people strengthened.  In terms of obstacles, we encountered them from unexpected places. First, our original plan was to host a debate on campus between 2 local candidates; the challenger was willing but the incumbent proved more difficult. Although we were persistent in our contact, we ultimately had to switch projects in the interest of time. Then it was dealing with campus unions to square away a room for our presentation. Dr. Housenick had to help with this. Another obstacle was when we reached out to other campus organizations to collaborate and form research teams. Initially they were eager to participate, but when they learned of the amount of research and the objective nature of our goals, they grew silent. Throughout it all, however, we kept our focus and determination, and we persistently assumed more responsibilities to achieve our ends.  Lastly, as with all chapter projects, we continue to battle the pervasive culture of complacency. It’s a hard to fight to get people involved. Sadly, only the campus minority wants to do/learn more than is absolutely necessary.

12. OPPORTUNITIES: Although we're pleased with the overall project, we realize there's plenty of room for improvement. Most notably, we want to develop an online component (chapter Web site, school site, and especially social media sites). This would allow us to reach more students (those off campus, with conflicting schedules, too lazy to attend). Perhaps we could simulcast via Skype or videotape and upload to YouTube. An online presence would also be a convenient and attractive way to display and store our materials.

We'd like more administrators to attend, too. We invited the president, vice-president, and all the deans, but none could attend. Perhaps we need to plan such events sooner to accommodate all schedules.

We also need to find ways to get more clubs involved. We invited four campus organizations to collaborate with us, and only one ended up helping. The others originally expressed interest but then balked at the work involved and at our leadership.

Similarly, we must get more chapter members involved, in the research and in the presentation. Once again, the officers did all the work.

If we want to influence lifelong learning habits, we'll need to host this event each year. While each election may be too much, perhaps focusing our energies on the general election would be better. We could also focus on local candidates, too, concentrating on the most contentious battle.

Perhaps more research could be done on our area, its historic and current demographics and voting habits. Perhaps we'd gain a deeper sense of community by researching more than the national tendencies, or perhaps the local research would enhance the national.

One thing that was left undone was an "exit poll" of LCCC voters: We did all this work up to the election but need follow it up – how many voted, for whom they voted, did our presentation have any effect on their decisions. This goes back to our first point: Utilizing online technology would help us make use of this opportunity.