Endorsements Part 1: The Midweek Mark

ENDORSEMENTS. As in years past, we’ve based these on our impressions in the debates and interviews with the candidates. We always weight towards the Ubyssey‘s official interviews, in part because we believe it’s fairest to judge candidates on the basis of their considered opinions in print—and because it’s easier than taking notes. NB: As a Voter-Funded Media candidate, we are technically available for dis-endorsement. Please consider us when writing your FB screeds!

FinanceMateusz Miadlikowski

Acevedo has more experience, but won’t consider selling the Whistler Lodge or pieces from the AMS art collection, and we’re all about those things. CASH IT ALL IN, SPEND IT ON BLOW. Hey, you know how you guys always complain that we only choose established hacks? Well, THIS time we choose the person whose name was hardest to spell! [Related: Sucks to be you, Ubyssey news volunteers! we expect the spelling of this name to be part of your mandatory orientation if M’ski pulls this off.]

External: Tanner Bokor

Why the hell not? The external office has functioned so well this year in part because of Bokor’s strong efforts. He’s familiar with the portfolio and we tend to agree with his stance that public transit efforts are its most important component right meow.

YES, AGAIN

Admin: Derek Moore

Real talk from our endorsement discussions: “Okay, so how can we express in one sentence that someone in a shitty student government job can’t magically make a multi-million dollar construction project run on time?” “That exact sentence.” Yeah, that’s what disqualified Justin and Olivia.

Barnabas has good ideas, but they’re small, easily implemented and won’t have much impact. A mixer in the Gallery isn’t a great success to advertise in your campaign, it’s a Facebook invite and the promise of maybe some free beer. Barnabas also wants to use money in funds to advertise that we have funds, which is nonsensical circular thinking. Don’t we pay someone to advertise things for us? [Yes. Yes. Yes you do.]
Do we love the wizard posters? yes. Are we generally in favour of people who seem like they’d be super great to get high with? yes. Are we capable of taking Barnabas seriously as a candidate? not quite. [SRS BSNS]

Derek stood out as a solid candidate. He spoke knowledgeably about the New SUB. In his Ubyssey interview, he acknowledged that services aren’t under the VP Admin portfolio [PRESIDENNNNT], and  was thus the only candidate to correctly identify what we’re really, really hoping was a trick question and not just the Ubyssey office at 3am totally losing its shit. Because that is also a distinct possibility. [HEY GUYS DID YOU KNOW BEER TASTES BETTER AFTER 2AM? Or seven drinks, whichever comes first.]

Also, DAT VIDEO

Academic: Kiran Mahal

As an incumbent with a strong record, this race was Kiran’s to lose. Hunter and Kessler [Best buddy cop show, or best buddy cop show?] would have needed to put forward a much stronger effort to get over that hurdle.

[Ed note: As Anne rightly points out in the comments below, we kind of screwed the pooch on this one. The endorsement stands—we still believe that Kiran is the strongest candidate and that her status as an incumbent with a good record is an especially strong point in her favour. But otherwise, total boner.]

ANYHOO.

Board of Governors: Mike & Erin

This is always a hard decision, and especially so this year. This is an acknowledgment that we did not pick these names out of a hat.

Mike Silley is a totes dece incumbent; BoG meets only a handful of times throughout the year, so incumbency is, in this case, especially valuable. Silley specifically acknowledged in his Ubyssey interview that the University Act restricts his role in acting in the “best interests of the university,” which is exactly what that question was intended to get at. Silley’s response on differential tuition was one of most thoughtful; he also gave a great response to the move towards online courses which addressed the potential advantages and rapid obsolescence of online tech and bridge-esque programs.

Erin Rennie will be a good foil to Mike and work with him on important issues. And we love her emphasis on addressing student life at the highest level: How long has it been since we’ve heard anyone reference the War on Fun? And how fucked up is that? Her political experience more than makes up for her (medium-sized) absence from UBC affairs—Rennie is an old hack—and she gave smart, strong answers on all the current issues. In particular, we enjoyed her acknowledgment that BoG reps need to remain integrated in student life and keep office hours.

Honourary Mentions: If you don’t like the ones we picked, our second choices were Matt Parson and Tristan Miller. So, you know, pick two out of four or something if you need to.

 

In Part Two, yet to come, we’ll address the two remaining races: Senate and President. So, yeah, don’t mark your ballots yet? we guess.

3 thoughts on “Endorsements Part 1: The Midweek Mark

  1. Anne Kessler

    [Ed: Anne calls us out in this comment, and she’s totally right. Ugh, that was hard to type. We’ve retracted the comments above, although the endorsement stands. Thanks for being calm and reasoned about it, A-cakes.]

    I’d like to clarify a couple things said about the VP Academic Race.

    Firstly, I don’t think I, or Montana, ever said that early release of exam dates was our top priority in the entire portfolio. The list of things you mentioned is definitely more important, and I think that the fact that half the first debate and pretty much all the second debate centered on housing shows that all three of us know this. The Ubyssey asked us which we thought was higher priority: early release of exam dates, an exam database or midterm evaluations of teaching. Montana and I both responded that of these three, the early release should be top priority. I, at least, did not mean that this should be top priority of the entire portfolio. A quick glance at my website shows that housing affordability, fighting for Acadia Park, and exploring more democratic governance models for UBC, to name a few, take much higher priority for me than the early release of exam dates.

    Secondly, my goal with the Residential Tenancy Act was to apply certain sections to UBC Housing and the residence contract. During a debate, I was asked to name one thing in my platform that was different than the other candidates’, and my answer was that we could improve the housing contract that students sign by taking certain parts of the RTA and including them in the contract, with the goal of protecting students from maintenance that can take more time than it should and being removed from residence on short notice. I do not think we should be fighting to have Housing covered by the RTA (nor would this be under the VP Academic’s portfolio). My website has some further information on this, for further clarification.

    Sincerely, Anne Kessler

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.