A quick note – the Knoll has convinced me to vote for Alfie Lee for Senate. Why? First, he’s actually showed up to all the debates. Second, he’s actually getting out there, and trying to meet people and talk and engage… and that’s really commendable. Finally, he’s enthusiastic about representing students, and that enthusiasm is kinda contagious. He also has a web site, a rarity amongst wannabe Senators.
So I’m going to vote for him.
The largest chunk of the AMS’ discretionary budget, and their largest non-food/beer source of relevance to UBC students, is their services. (Full list here). It should be noted that Services are administered directly by the Executive Co-Ordinator of Student Services, a hired (non-elected) position that serves as the sixth member of the Executive Committee.
Some services partner directly with the University for delivery. These include Tutoring (LEAP), Joblink (Services), and First Step (Orientations). Others can refer to University resources, like Speakeasy (Counseling Services) and Safewalk (Campus Security); in these examples, they work closely with their University colleagues, but they don’t program jointly.
Interestingly, though, many of the Services derive their value from the fact that they’re not University services. The argument goes that AMS provision of the service serves a political/lobbying aim, by highlighting the University’s weaknesses and addressing problems “our way.” These include Safewalk and Advocacy.
It’s Safewalk that often generates the most controversy. It’s the most expensive service, simply because of staff time. Depending on whose numbers you use, it costs on average $30-$60 per walk. That’s expensive. (They used to operate a van, but can’t anymore for some “union reasons” of which I’m not aware.) There are times when Safewalk is rarely used, but those who use it and operate it swear by it, and argue strenuously that it makes a much safer environment. Every year there is discussion about reducing its cost or looking at a new model, but nothing ever comes of it, and it retains its operational efficiencies.
Services are constantly in flux. Three years ago the AMS canned Orientations, then the next year helped build First Step. VP Finance candidate Brittany Tyson advocates making the Student Tax Assistance Clinic a full-fledged AMS Service (it’s currently an AMS club), which would guarantee it a year-round co-ordinator, but at the cost of staffing it.
We leave it to readers:
So, in honour of legal gambling everywhere, I’m proud to offer the following proposition wagers on the AMS elections. Note: these are for entertainment purposes only. And if you use them for any gambling purposes whatsoever, please report yourself to the nearest authorities. Immediately. As well, Elections Insider makes no warranties for any wagers, nor are we a bookkeeper in any way, shape, or form.
President:
Friedrich 5 to 4
Maxwell 70 to 1
VP Academic:
Goodmurphy 2 to 1
Fan Fan 25 to 1
Krayenhoff 7 to 1
VP Finance:
Tyson 9 to 5
Rizov 11 to 5
VP External:
Naylor 4 to 1
Kozwarski 9 to 2
Brush 50 to 1
Masterson 11 to 2
VP Admin:
Naiman 9 to 4
To 7 to 4
Barbarian 50 to 1
Over/Under on number of votes cast for President: 4200
Odds that Darren Peets gets more votes than as hydrant: 3 to 2
Over/Under on time the elections results are announced: 9:45pm
Over/Under on number of beers Tim drinks: 7.5
Over/Under number of appeals: 0.5
Add your own wagers!! Test our ESP!!
Due to a hole in WordPress, this post’s author is misattributed. The follow was written by former Insiders editor Tim Louman-Gardiner.
Those of you who know me in real life know that one of my pet peeves is when the media talk about the media. But thankfully for my sense of dignity, this ain’t the real world.
As you know, the Voter Funded Media (formerly TurboDemocracy… I much prefer that title) contest is running in parallel to the AMS elections. I, like most, am surprised at number of media that are involved. By my observation, they fall into four general archetypes:
1) Involved people who know a lot and write in-depth
I’d put ourselves and the Knoll in this category, for instance. We both have significant understanding of the AMS and UBC, hold strong opinions, and write (relatively) frequently. We’re both insiders, trying to make our knowledge more accessible to those who aren’t. My primary criticism is that sometimes it’s very inaccessible. Much of our writing is geared to people who are already past square one – the high-information voter. (I note with amusement the Knoll’s slogan – “We’re like a slate that isn’t running”. It’s odd, because the Knoll is running a slate!)
2) Serious coverage from people who aren’t heavily involved
For this, look at Myrfield or the Thunderbird. Both collectives ought to be commended for trying to add some perspective and depth of coverage to the AMS elections. But it’s clear that they don’t know the issues much themselves. Which is fine, because they’re more journalist-y than analyst. Their appeal is more towards the mid/low-information voter, and a baseline understanding of the candidates, if not the issues.
3) Joke coverage from people contributing to the discourse
I’d throw Eat Cake and the Radical Beer Tribune into this category. And I really appreciate them. While there’s no serious issue-based coverage, they both engage with the candidates and the process, and in doing so contribute to the election. There’s a huge value-added, and they bring something that I can’t possibly hope to. Plus, look at the RBF photos. They’re downright amazing. (Image at right courtesy RBT.)
4) Supid entries trying to scam money
Let’s just call this the Duncan-Kearney media group. As far as I can tell, they’re just after beer money. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but a far more deserving entry will finish ninth to the “name recognition” crew. Come to think of it, there’s a profound arrogance required to say “I’m gonna win this based on how popular I am.” And Directors, AMS Councillors, ought to treat the AMS process with a little more respect. It was put far more eloquently by an anonymous commenter: “I do have a problem with AMS councillors misusing their reputations and this money for doing absolutely NO work whatsoever with the elections.”
I’ve also been asked to stop taking pot shots at the Ubyssey. Sorry guys, no dice. The Ubyssey is content to take pot shots at the AMS elections candidates with significant regularity, so I’m happy to return the favor. But a suggestion that AMS elections are full of tools (see: cover), and a “we don’t care” endorsement for the person responsible for making sure the Ubyssey’s offices still exist, tell me that they’re not trying to earn students’ confidence. But more importantly, guys, the 1980’s called, and they want their hackneyed sense of disaffected cynicism back. It’s often the last reserve of the uninformed. Maybe it’s the AMS’ fault for not issuing press releases like UBC Public Affairs – now that’s a guarantee of Ubyssey ink! (Full faith/credit: their news coverage has improved significantly over the course of the election.)
So, what’s the impact been of VFM? I’d suggest that it’s influenced the candidates more than it’s influenced voters. The occasional voter will be swayed/convinced by something they read here or in the Knoll (or the Ubyssey… see, that’s my attempt at humour), but, more importantly, it’s changed the candidates’ perspectives on the race. There’s actually been a discernible campaign of ideas in most races and, more importantly, these have evolved over the past two weeks. Now much of this hasn’t made its way to most of the voters, but I can’t help but feel it’s probably producing better candidates.
More importantly, it’s helped those who already want to be engaged. It can be very hard to get information about the AMS and UBC, and the issues. And for those who want to cast an informed vote, they had a bit more information this year. I guess that’s a victory, right?
What are your impressions on the VFM, and on the candidates? Is it making a difference? I know most candidates would probably argue that they’ve been a huge time drain… so I’d ask those candidates, was it worth it?
I’d like to give my impressions on the election campaigns this past week.
First of all, I’m happy to see that the debates have improved by a lot – the debate structure has been changed to allow for elaborate answers, and the candidates in turn have done their homework.
The Wednesday VP Academic debate for example was highly impressive with Jerry Fan Fan and Brendon Goodmurphy having well thought out directions in terms of lobbying for student housing.
Despite of opponent Peter Rizov’s objections from the last debate, Brittany Tyson moved away from the “experience vs nonexperience” spat and focussed on her ideas including the AMS card, end of the day price drop at AMS food outlets, 99cent Pizza Fridays at Pir R Squared with donations to services, more support for the TACS assistant clinic. 
The Debate on Friday was distracting due to the Guitar Club having a full-out concert at the SUB concourse. To my surprise VP External Candidate Joel Koczawarski didn’t show, and his opponents Matt Naylor and Chris Brush both finished strong.
However it was hard for Tim and I to believe it was campaigning period. Why? Because we’ve seen no active campaigns this past week, with the one exception of Jeff Friedrich and his partner standing outside the SUB with a sign.
Sure, most corkboards on campus have been plastered with posters, and I’ve received a handful of emails from candidates soliciting votes. But I have seen zero classroom announcements, no flyering, no spectacles. This is political lobotomy!
Risking the label of UBC Dinosaur, I want to reflect back to the days when slates were still around. I ran with a slate, namely the now legendary (and infamous?) SPAN slate – Student Progressive Action Network.
A look back at slates…. behind the jump.
Planning started in November.
Former VP Admin Josh Bowman and VP Academic Laura Best who were both elected the previous year on SPAN spent an entire day informing us on the issues. There was a 40 page long information package on all of the issues from tuition to campus development to waste management of the SUB. Regardless of which position we ran for, we were well-informed on all of the issues.
We booked a theatre and practiced classroom announcements. We spent hours taking the perfect photo for our flyers, coloured overheads, and posters. There was one colour and a logo which identified us all. There were patches to be worn on bags, sweaters, and our support network was encouraged to wear them.
There was strength in numbers. Each of us had signed up at least 20 volunteers who were willing to flyer, poster, make classroom announcements. 
getting ready for a huge postering spree
We solicited the support from clubs, informal support from undergraduate society execs, and shook hands with sorority presidents. The campus was painted red – there were balloons tied to trees, patches, posters everywhere legal (and illegal?), we even had people flyering at the Broadway Skytrain station out in East Vancouver. 
Our campaign schedule started at 8am, and ended at 8pm on an early day. There were events to be attended thereafter: beer gardens, concerts, anywhere where we would expect UBC students to be.
I’m NOT saying that it’s impossible put on a similar campaign without a slate. It just takes a heck of a lot more work and a larger support group for one individual. The learning curve is ten times higher as there is no advice passed on in an institutional manner. Spencer Keys’ presidential race is a prime example of a well coordinated campaign – it was realised through the strong support of his peers. But then again, Spencer Keys had been trained by a slate prior, when he ran for VP Admin in 2003 and the next year for VP External with Students for Students (SFS). Either way, everyone knew his name. People who I didn’t know were interested in politics talked about Spencer Keys.
So it doesn’t feel like there’s a real election going on. There is no buzz in the air, and the energy seen in other years seems lost in antiquity. Where is the movement?
by Sophia Haque, AMS VP Finance
Currently, students pay $196.98 in student fees towards Intramurals and Athletics–whether they use the program or not. IF they choose to participate, they pay:
It’s not cheap being an active student on this campus. What’s worse? UBC students pay more than most other schools across Canada to access fitness facilities.
This past year, Athletics asked the AMS to run a referendum asking for a $40 increase in athletics fees. Where would the fees go?
1) Towards building a bigger SRC and 2) towards lowering user fees by up to 50%.
More room and lower fees? Sounds great, but when the AMS approached Athletics to figure out how the money was currently being spent, Athletics became reluctant to share any information and was particularly wary of the information going public. After many conversations and much detective work, the AMS was able to obtain the numbers it was looking for.
Of the over $6 million dollars collected in student fees, less than $800,000 is dedicated to Intramurals/UBC REC activities. In other words almost 85% of student fees are going towards funding/subsidizing varsity sports–a level of sport that a very small percent of UBC students can ever dream to participate in.
What the AMS has done, and the plan for the future, behind the jump:
What has the AMS done about this?
The AMS took the stance that it would hold a referendum (and thus, give students the opportunity to decide for themselves) under two conditions: Athletics would be more transparent with their budgets, and would decrease user fees.
The second demand was made primarily because Bob Philip, Director of Athletics, commented at AMS Council that one of the main reasons fees couldn’t be reduced without a new, larger building was because of the lack of space. Their underlying concern would appear to be lower fees means more people means poor quality of service/facilities. This implies that fees were kept artificially high, potentially preventing lower income students from having access to UBC REC facilities. The AMS argued, that before we ask students to pay more, Athletics should first decrease user fees (conversations with Bob had indicated that there was sufficient funding to do so) and give students the opportunity to access the current facilities.
Where do we stand now?
Bob Philip has agreed to make the athletics budget numbers accessible to the public. Athletics has also budgeted a $50,000 decrease in user fees for 07/08 with Bob citing plans for a 70% decrease in user fees over the next 2 years. However, after a recent conversation with Alnoor Aziz, Associate Director of Finance for Athletics, the chances of seeing the 70% decrease is slim. UBC Athletics, as an ancillary of the university, may be faced with higher overhead charges as part of the university’s plan to cover its deficit.
Looking ahead, the referendum question is back on the table for discussion which poses both an opportunity and a threat for the AMS. It’s an opportunity because an athletics referendum question can almost guarantee quorum by mobilizing the support of varsity athletics and UBC REC enthusiasts. And, it’s a threat, since a fee increase question for athletics decreases the AMS’ chances to increase fees (by indexing them to inflation, for example).
So what are your thoughts?
How is Kevin Keystone (current AMS President) voting in the AMS Elections this year?
Enjoy!
So I think it’s about time that I put my name behind some people running in the AMS Elections. Congratulations to every candidate – it takes serious courage to put your name on a ballot. Without further ado…
President: Jeff Friedrich
VP Academic: Brendon Goodmurphy
VP Finance: Brittany Tyson
VP Admin: Sarah Naiman
VP External: Thomas Masterson
BoG: Jeff Friedrich, Darren Peets
Senate: Jaspreet Khangura, Tariq Ahmed, Alfie Lee, Raymond Pan, Hillson Tse
Wanna see why? Check behind the jump!
President: Jeff Friedrich
I think it’s very obvious that Jeff is the better candidate, so I’m not going to elaborate much. It’s been a real pleasure working with Jeff this year, and many times I felt like he was already doing my job. He’ll make a memorable president – I’m looking forward to it.
A word on Maxwell: kudos to him for running and bringing some attention to the race and key issues. I’m not talking about the cheap beer, I’m talking about communicating with students, and he’s absolutely right – the AMS does have shitty PR. On another note, Max is a friend of mine, and he’s been a really important support for me during my term. Shame on the person who dared e-mail him with nothing but personal attacks, and sign off calling him a faggot. No-one deserves that, least of all Max.
VP Academic: Brendon Goodmurphy
Brendon has some great ideas, good politics, and although he isn’t completely up to speed on the portfolio, he’ll learn quickly. He has the additional benefit of sitting on AMS Council, though I don’t think that’s a prereq for this position. Bruce has an interesting idea with the Citizens’ Assembly, and maybe it should be tried out, but the body who should be consulted on student opinion is AMS Council. That’s what they’re elected to do.
VP Finance: Brittany Tyson
Brit first joined the Finance Commission when I hired her to be my Vice-Chair. That was one of the best decisions I made my entire term as VP Finance. She’s smart, passionate, hard-working and astoundingly charismatic. She’ll make a terrific VP Finance. Although I was testament to the fact that VP Finance doesn’t require much experience, Brittany has a huge headstart. And with all due respect to Peter, not having experience is no excuse for not having a platform.
VP Admin: Sarah Naiman
Sarah has the right idea about VP Admin: it’s not just about SAC and the SUB, it’s about campus life in general. Call it VP Student Life. Although the YouBC TV idea might be a little wacky, her ideas are all about promoting campus community, and that’s what we need. I think SAC could be much more student friendly, and between Sarah and Suvina, I think Sarah’s more likely to advocate for change.
VP External: Thomas Masterson (with a long explanation)
This is probably a big surprise, but I’m voting for the underdog. When Ian took the position, he knew very little about it, and about post-secondary education lobbying in general. That convinces me that with hard work and passion, the position can be learned. I think Thomas has that, and he’s also really into school spirit, something close to my heart. Although it’s not necessarily his portfolio, Jess Klug was into it too, and it made her all the better a VP External for it. So what about Joel and Matt?
I think they’ll do great jobs too, which is why I’m not worried. Joel’s and Matt’s plans for a united movement are tried, tested, and haven’t worked before – both the past two VP Externals have pushed for a united “Students for BC” and didn’t get far. Doesn’t mean we should stop trying, but the plank doesn’t do much for me.
Joel’s into decreasing the involvement of the private sector in the university – I’m yet to really be convinced that’s a bad thing. I do think that the university’s academic priorities need to not be swayed to only market-driven priorities (eg. science and tech), but I don’t think that means shunning private dollars when they come. And I think the university is very concerned about protecting academic freedom, so I think you can have your cake and eat it too. In short, I think Joel has the right heart, but perhaps policies that are a little too, dare I say, radical for me (gasp!).
As for Matt, he’s got the experience and the political background, but his platform is also a mix of current AMS policy and ideas that I don’t think hold much water. I haven’t yet been convinced that we could do much to convince the provincial government to pick appointees we recommend. I’d be interested to see the “long-term tuition proportion reduction agreement”, but that essentially means either a tuition freeze and more government money, or tuition hikes and proportionally more government money. Both of those are pretty standard lobbying policy.
So to recap, I vote Thomas because I think he’ll bring a different flavour, and he won’t have trouble picking up the job. That said, I won’t be disappointed if Joel or Matt win.
Board of Governors: Jeff Friedrich, Darren Peets
I think there’s a whole lot of logic having the AMS President also sit on Board, and I think Jeff’s already made the case. As for my second seat, I pick Darren. He’s been around forever (really. since Strangway) and he’s extremely well-versed in how the BoG runs, and how to make things happen. He also has the right attitude about the position: if you aren’t willing to play the game, you’ll get shut out. I think there’s also value in having a grad student on BoG.
Senate: Jaspreet Khangura, Tariq Ahmed, Alfie Lee, Raymond Pan, Hillson Tse
Jaspreet and Tariq are obvious candidates: they’re already going strong, especially Jaz. I’m looking forward to seeing her Pass/D/Fail initiative happen. As for the others, they represent three of the four candidates (other than Jaz and Tariq) who had write-ups in the Ubyssey, and I thought they had decent things to say. Alfie wants extended library hours (it was done by Senator Gina Eom, so there’s precedent), Raymond wants to review the exam hardship policy (a very typical platform point), and Hillson is concerned about academic fraud (word of advice: see if you can get one united plagiarism policy for the entire university – right now, they’re faculty-specific). I was fairly satisfied by those choices.
So that’s a wrap! Best of luck to all the candidates, and hopefully no hard feelings.
Love,
Kevin K.
Remember a couple years ago, when there was the Architectural Competition for University Boulevard? (Click here to see the documentary depicting the process.) For those who weren’t here, University Boulevard is the area from the trolley bus loop to the bookstore, including the gym, the Aquatic Centre, and the plaza on the South side of the SUB. There were three designs, and the campus voted for the one they liked. The winning design is at left.
The idea was to create a “hub”, a central area on campus. It would create a mixed-use plaza, housing new administration buildings, shops, a cinema (ha!), and the underground bus loop. Another notable feature – the market housing lining the boulevard. (This writer believes that the basic idea of creating more of a “hub” on campus is a fundamentally good idea, but this idea is seriously flawed… read on!)
Criticisms abounded. The plan destroyed all open green space, would create an automobile thoroughfare where there probably shouldn’t be one, would hurt the SUB, place market housing right in the core of campus, and, most poignantly, destroy the grassy knoll.
Interestingly, the project has gone through no end of trouble. First, the jury approved a version different from that which people supported in the vote. Then there was the issue with the re-location of the outdoor pool. Next, the architects dropped out; rumour has it that they had difficulties working within the constraints of UBC Properties Trust. Add the cost over-runs, the division of the project into phases, the issues with the bus loop, and you’ve got a fiasco.
It came to a head in summer 2006 when the Board of Governors had a “fish or cut bait” meeting in Kelowna, where they had to make a final determination about the future of the project. It passed. But consider that the project was initially supposed to begin construction in late 2005; a year later the completion date was early 2008. Now, with no firm architects on board, the completion date is even fuzzier. At the last Board meeting, the discussion of the Boulevard was in closed session, reports Darren Peets, which indicates that the conversation is sensitive and probably weighty.
The implications, positive and negative, are weighty. Yes, it might create more community, a more vibrant “heart” to a campus that very dearly needs one. But at what cost? Of green space? Of the SUB’s health? Of market housing right at the student core? As well, the University is going through a hard decision; what ought the AMS role to be? A complete re-design? Scrapping the project? Continuing it, with major changes?
Where the candidates stand:
Jeff Friedrich – Specific “zoning” regime for student housing.
Jerry Fan Fan – Lobby University to allow only non-competing businesses. Have to be practical, not idealistic.
Brendon Goodmurphy – Prioritize study space, student and local businesses, student housing options, green space, and student employment
Bruce Krayenhoff – Include affordable student housing.
Darren Peets – We need to re-consider the project – “why are we doing this?”
Tristan Markle – Set requirement for 25% of students living on campus.
March 8 is International Women’s Day. Established in 1977 by the UN, it is a tribute to the continuing struggle and progress for women’s rights and women’s diversity.
This year at UBC, on this day, the GAP (Genocide Awareness Project) is planning to show pictures of aborted fetuses and try to equate that to the Holocaust, claiming it’s genocide. The GAP is the ultimate misnomer, a semantic exercise in bullshit. They solely exist to make women feel bad about the prospect of abortion, a reprehensible tactic to say the least. The fact that it’s mostly men each year holding those signs is even more revealing of this oppressive anti-woman agenda.
UBC Okanagan and Carleton have banned them. AMS Council entertained a motion to ban them, and the motion was defeated. Moreover, UBC’s Policy #3 states:
“Behaviour which obstructs free and full discussion, not only of ideas which are safe and accepted, but of those which may be unpopular or even abhorrent . . . cannot be tolerated.”
Therefore, they technically have a right to be here and voice their point of view. And one of these writers has previously publicly supported their right to protest.
For the record, Gina despises them with every single fibre of her body. She takes it personal and it’s emotional. At the same time, she sees that they do have the right to voice their views, and she plans on exercising those very same rights by organizing a counter-campaign. Tim was more likely to laugh at them than to be viscerally offended. To look at their argument is to see the most inane of human logic. He always found the GAP argument to be more stupid and ignorant than dangerous, per se.
But we can’t help but wonder, in this case, if the GAP case is teasing at the fringes of freedom of speech. By timing their demonstration with International Women’s Day, they’re making a statement. It’s clearly driven by a lack of respect, a scorn for the institution and for the political beliefs. The right to free speech is not absolute. And while they’re not crossing it, they’re definitely getting close enough to thumb their noses at it.
We support the expression of unpopular ideas. But Lifeline and GAP are coming dangerously close to crossing the line from unpopular and stupid, to hateful.
Click here for the related discussion on Policy Motions.
VP Academic candidate Bruce Krayenhoff’s campaign has some new ideas (“green power” cards, and borrowing textbooks rather than buying them), one in particular stands out. His “Citizen’s Assembly.” It’s generally a very good and creative idea. But I have an important criticism.
In sum, the body operates as follows:
The idea is that it will be more representative of the campus as a whole, which is a problem with the current AMS. Moreover, one of the premises of the argument is that this will give voice to the 87% of people who don’t vote. There’s a significant problem with this argument – this body only gives voice to an additional 12-36 people! This doesn’t reach out to the disenfranchised, it reaches out to a couple dozen of them. In fact, this vests decision-making authority in a body that’s more elite than Council. Additionally, the model suggests that the AMS is low-information, and this hurts engagement. That’s true. But adding another bureaucratic body won’t lower the cost of information; it can only raise it. He also suggests that this will remove self-selection. That’s not true; it is still limited to people who choose to accept the role, unless the AMS plans to force students to participate.
My basic criticism of the model deals with the appointment: random, while an interesting application of Grecian democracy, is inherently flawed, because there’s no guarantee of engaging students in the manner in which they’re connected to campus, and each other. It’s just some random people in a room. So I (owing a debt to Spencer Keys) support a model, similar to Bruce’s, but, in lieu of a random appointment process, choosing a body from among various student groups. Student clubs, residences, Greeks, teams, resource groups… these are how students engage with their University and student society.
So why this model? You’re more likely to get a variety of perspectives while ensuring that they’re students engaged with campus life. Moreover, it validates these groups as important elements in student life. The current model (aka Council) only engages students involved with undergrad societies. Bruce’s model engages only those students who choose to accept their appointments, if they win the lottery. While my suggestion reaches out to students in ways in which they are already engaged. Plus, they have some element of a representative mandate, there exists some context for their involvement beyond the mere hand of Fate.
I should note that, principally, I support Bruce’s idea, or a similar body. Particularly, I like the idea of students bringing ideas before it, and getting a “hearing” on an issue or proposal. But that’s just me. What are peoples’ thoughts on a deliberative student assembly?
Spam prevention powered by Akismet