Andrew Kim was a candidate for ASUCD Senate in the Fall 2007 ASUCD Election running on the GO slate. He failed to win office. He is an intern for ASUCD Senator Eric Friedman and a member of the Internal Affairs Commission.

Fall 2007 Election

Candidate Statement

My name is Andrew Kim.  Participating in student government, I have learned many important lessons on how young people can work productively, despite our disagreements and often differences, to better serve our student body. I am driven by a belief that if we stand united we will be more effective in advocating for improvements that benefit all UC Davis students. Although, I am a leader in my fraternity and many other orgs, I am mindful of the many issues that impact all of us; and I strongly believe that our student government is most effective, when we focus our collective energy on tackling priorities that benefit the most students possible.  For instance, negotiating with the UCD Administration to lower costs of parking permits and to help incentivize summer school; sponsoring more events in academic and professional development. I believe there are many more issues that can unite us, and I look forward to serving our campus and community.


You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

2007-10-02 00:00:57   I met Andrew today at IAC, spoke to him later outside the MU. He is a really nice guy, very passionate, and I hope to see him do well this election. —GregWebb

2007-11-12 17:33:15   I spoke to Andrew about all of his platform issues and though I found him to be pleasant conversation, at least two of his issues seem redundant (and the third is lacking causality). —DanXie

2007-11-14 07:28:36   As an Internal Affairs Commissioner, Andrew Kim decided how to vote on Eric Friedman's "reprisal" bill by looking at Cem Turhal, who nodded to vote yes. Such a partisan vote on a frivolous matter doesn't give me confidence in him as a potential Senator. —BrentLaabs

2007-11-14 22:32:43   "[Andrew] is a really nice guy, very passionate..." I agree Greg, but if he can't make an independent decision as a committee member, he should NOT be elected as a ASUCD senator. If one's gonna be in a position of power, they need to be able to think independently. Part of being a leader, of any kind, is making decisions that YOU, not a peer (though if you're representing a constituency, you may want their opinion), feel is the right one. If Kim is elected, although he's part of GO, he's representing the interests of ALL of the students of UC Davis, not just veteran GO members. —MattBlair

2007-11-14 22:52:18   Matt took the words out of my mouth, I was very disappointed with Andrew yesterday. —GregWebb

2007-11-18 13:34:29   I may agree partially with what you are saying, but that entire room is biased and Laabs you made it into a joke. Show some respect for the undergrads that sit in that room and don't come back, your air guitar is not a neccessary addition. —HSeigenfeld

  • Brent Laabs is like the village elder that has all the answers, so yes he should be there - it's a public meeting. He wasn't airguitaring out of disrespect, the room needed that. We were seeing a bill that was essentially one of where the legislature was acting like the judiciary. I voted against the bill because of that, not because there was bias in the room. And I would also say that the bill in question was the joke. - GregWebb

2007-11-18 15:18:12   Greg Webb you are more of a joke than Brent Laabs, and if Brent Laabs is th village elder we are in an whole world of hurt. I am a sophmore and find it an amusing to pick apart the weak and emotional displays of the man that is such an inept graduate student that he must spend his time blundering through undergraduate politics. I have no problem with inviting a qualified member of the graduate student body togive advice and insight, but that person has yet to show up and certainly is not Bent Laabs —HSeigenfeld

Apparently nobody told you that Brent did his undergrad here at Davis and never stopped being involved with ASUCD. It isn't a case of him looking for stuff to do because he was bored with his research. -wl

Regardless of what you view, at least Laabs and Webb have made an effort to instill some sort of change on this campus through their ASUCD involvement. I can't say the same for you Seigenfeld, and further, I was contemplating correcting your typoes, but they prove a point about you in themselves, so I think I'll leave them. —Eliyani

2007-11-18 17:32:26   They may "try" to change, and I thank you for not incorrectly establishing they have made a positive attempt, for their actions have only had negative results. —HSeigenfeld

Can you assert what you believe to be negative changes? I like to see some substantiation to claims rendered, though I haven't seen any from you so far. —Eliyani

Brent Laabs practically single-handedly rewrote the elections codes, and made amendments to clean up elections following every scandal, and that is in fact positive change except when groups refuse to abide by them. —MM

2007-11-18 17:55:44   You may disapprove of Laabs actions H., but he certainly isn't "inept." Sure he can come off as brash and uncouth somtimes, but he is far from inept. Inept implies he doesn't do his job. His "blundering thorugh undergraduate politics" is part of his job as the External Chair of the GSA and the ASUCD Historian, at least his attendance of committee meetings would be. A word like inept would more fittingly apply to the outgoing GO senators who followed through on approximately one campaign promise out of fourteen. Feel free to correct me on that point, I have no problem with admitting a mistake.

I don't know much about Mr. Webb's ASUCD involvement, but I doubt it deserves your tactless ad hominem attack.

Anyhow, I don't see how Laab's actions change the fact that Kim was unqualified to be an ASUCD senator.—MattBlair

2007-11-18 18:27:09   I am confused as to what fourteen promises you are refering to, the reason for this confusion is the statement that they have only accomplished one.

I apologize for my "ad hominem" attack, but I am tired of misrepresentations in public place. If anything postings on this and other pages should go through some level of critique and correction before being made ready to the public.

In regards to Andrew's decision it did not change anything and as the vote showed it was extremely partisan, on both sides.

So please to anyone reading do not aid in the petty squabble, I would request you only clear up inaccuracies shamelessly related to the public. —HSeigenfeld

  • As I wrote in the Jesse Rosales comments area, the alternative to having a moderator is increased participation from more of the community. If you truly feel that people such as BrentLaabs and GregWebb are spreading misinformation, then we will need other knowledgeable users on the Davis Wiki to exist and write the factual information (I am not saying these 2 people have done this, but as you can see this can be a subjective decision given multiple opinions). So, since there will be no moderation in the foreseeable future, I would encourage you, and others like you, to continue participating. - Paul Amnuaypayoat

2007-11-18 18:43:23   Three non-LEAD commissioners, including myself, voted with LEAD on this one. It wasn't partisan at all, the two GO commissioners voted to support Eric Friedman. If they had a legitimate reason for their vote they should have brought it up. The two GO commissioners did not speak during discussion and have not indicated why they voted the way they did. It's silly partisanship on their part, in my opinion. —GregWebb

2007-11-18 19:22:53   Greg you openly support lead and so do the other members of that room aside from the two GO members. —HSeigenfeld

  • Regardless of if we support LEAD or not, the people that voted against Friedman's bill gave reasons for doing so. Bleckman and Kim did not. - GW
    • A bad bill is a bad bill. Calling it a partisan attack is a cop out. -JimSchwab

2007-11-18 21:13:51   Please stop commenting on events you were not privy to, no offense, but it being a bad bill is not the question at hand —HSeigenfeld

  • Then that's your problem, the quality of the bill is what should be debated, not political bickering. - JamesSchwab
  • Who is privy to what? I don't get it. Privy to an IAC meeting? -ph