Tag Archives: matthew naylor

A Procrastination Post! Your April News for N00bs

1 Reply

Confidential is back, Koerner’s isn’t, and surprise, surprise the AUS is a shit show once again.

Brian vs Ryan vs Student “Court” vs Naylor vs OMG Enough Already

So the AUS is a goddamn nightmare. It all started with this document that makes no fucking sense and hurts our cute little headband decorated brains. As a fellow sexy blogger once said, “most of it is irrelevant shit amounting to intellectual masturbation.”

So, n00bs: Naylor was the AUS Elections Administrator and isn’t a fan of Student “Court” as referenced by “the rising scourge of kritarchy.” Student “Court” dislikes Naylor because…we’re not quite sure. Let the battles commence.

In the AUS Presidential election, Brian beat Ryan by one vote. Ryan filed an appeal to the SC over a single ballot that he thinks was ambiguous and should therefore be spoiled, meaning it wasn’t a tie, meaning Naylor’s tiebreaking vote wouldn’t count, and meaning that Ryan would be EL PRESIDENTE.

However, SC went all power thirsty like the Volturi and began to “investigate” the situation. They ramble about the background of the election, how paper ballots got fucked up, how the results apparently caught on fire, and concluded that in the end there was STILL A GODDAMN TIE (seriously, we’re not making this up).

However, what is really alarming (think black iris thirsty alarming) is how they then deem the election VOID AND OF NO EFFECT. SC was simply asked by Ryan to “rule” on the validity of a certain ballot. Instead, SC found that the way the AUS elections were run was in violation of AMS code because they lacked appeals procedures (yes, we actually looked up the code). They also made this ruling without looking at the AUS 2010 General Election Regulations which includes the appeals procedures.

Whatever, its now all a moot point because Brian resigned in a professional letter to AUS Council in which he signs it “peace out, dawgs.” Be still, our gangsta meme hearts.

More sparkles and #procrastireading after the jump!

Continue reading →

Gossip Sunday: Too Many Memes

4 Replies

Lazy Sunday.  We’ve been called a gossip rag enough times that we may as well act like it.

Anyone sick of tsk-tsking the AUS for innumerable (okay, three) candidate mis-steps yet?  We’re watching you, Mary Leong and Michael Haack, but HOLY JESUS Ryan “Not Too Fine to Fine” Trasolini, read the manual, son.  Additionally, rumor & our inbox have it that one of the Presidential candidates has started offering cash money for VFM coverage. But of course, we’re all way too srs jrnalism bsns to take that deal, amirite?

Friday night also saw the kickoff of UBC Votes events, beginning with a well-attended concert at the Pit. Your Confidentialites were too busy being anonymous/sucking face to pay much attention, but luckily AUS Voting Committee Superstar Taylor L. brought along her camera.  Hence, we’ve got these for you:

First, AUS presidential candidate Mike Silley.

imminent warning: lacks logo, date, time, approval

AMS Elections EA & CRO, also Second-Cutest Couple [#barf]

cause : effect

But by far the highlight of these photos was our first opportunity to cry APPARENT SLATE

quick, while he's facing away

CANOODLIN’!!1!!!11! OUT. RAGEOUS.

Wonkettes we ain't.

3 Replies

What’s this? A post without pictures?

Well, yes.  VFM got an email today with some shiny new potential referenda, much less sexy than the old referenda.  And sadly—not because we’re ladies, but because we’re normal forward-thinking people—legislative procedures make our heads hurt.  We had to consult codemonkeys to bring you this highly scientific breakdown of What Might Be on Your Ballot:

NUMBER ONE!

What It Says:

1) “Do you support the amendment of the AMS Bylaws as presented, based on the recommendations of a consultant hired to review the operations of Student Court, for the purpose of revising the rules concerning Student Court?  This revision would make Court decisions binding as soon as they are sent to Student Council, increase the amount of the fine the Court could levy on individuals, require that the Court include judges from faculties other than Law, and remove the Court’s power to interpret the AMS bylaws and its power to rewrite referendum questions.”

What It Means:

  1. Fees: Revises the upper limit of the fees student court can impose.  Currently this is $10.00—not exactly a deterrent.
  2. Finality: In 2008, Crompton v. Elections Commissioner (ie: LougheedGate), Council overruled student court and overturned their verdict.  These changes would mean that this could no longer happen.
  3. Power to interpret: if you and someone else have a disagreement on the interpretation of a piece of code, you would normally, a la Civics class, ask the judicial branch (aka Court).  Questions like these would now be referred to the Legislative Procedures Committee, currently headed by our Chairman Naylor.
  4. Referenda questions: The court decides what a “clear question” is—important when presenting to an unengaged student body.  Changes indicate that this would now be Naylor & the Legislators’ problem.  (BTW: band name?)
  5. Composition: Some changes to the composition of the court would be prescribed—namely, that of its seven judges, at least two must be from faculties other than Law.  (But how will they pad their resumes now??)

NUMBER TWO!

What It Says:


2) “Do you support the amendment of the AMS Bylaws as presented, based on the recommendations of a special AMS joint committee, for the purpose of revising the rules concerning Student Court?  This revision would eliminate alternate judges, require that there be judges from at least two faculties hearing any case, and set out new rules for referendum questions.”


What It Means:

  1. See No. 5, above, with minor changes which don’t concern you, peon.

Of course, all this fun times & happiness may turn out to be for naught, depending on whose interpretation of elections bylaws wins.  (See, we told you this wasn’t sexy.)  In order to put these beauties on the ballot, they need to be motioned up by Council.  Problem is, the deadline for referenda is the 15th—five whole days before Council next meets.  And since elections code, as we’ve learned, is writ in steel, well.

But hey, at least you learned something about your student society today!  Namely, that there’s a very real reason we pay people to have a vested interest in this stuff.

(With files from our Very Secret Expert, who can totally apply to us to have his name on this post.)