Month: January 2007

We get a sense there’s some demand for Friedrich coverage. We’ve had several web hits from Maine (Jeff’s home state), and even three people searching for “jeff friedrich condom video” (we’ll save those people some time – click here).

So, what’s the deal with Jeff Friedrich? His platform has more priorities than Paul Martin riding through Quebec on a campaign swing. But thankfully he bolded his big priorities, so only every third sentence is *that* important. So instead of ten single-spaced pages, you really only have to read four!

His platform indicates a huge amount of knowledge, and a deep understanding of issues related to students, as well as those facing the University. He clearly gets it, and has solutions to everything. But could that be a problem? A President can’t fix it all. In recent years, we’ve seen the occasional President swim around in circles, seemingly over-whelmed. In short, without vision. We don’t accuse Jeff of having no vision. But we’d like to know where he’ll spend his time and energy; he can’t possibly focus on the entirety of his platform.

Much has been raised about Jeff running for both President and BoG. I’m positive that being on BoG will make him a better AMS President: there’s so much knowledge that you pick up on BoG, so much of an understanding of how the University operates. However, the converse isn’t necessarily true: being AMS President won’t necessarily make him a better BoG rep. Board members don’t care if your words have AMS backing if the argument is stupid. Conversely, if the AMS has a cogent, lucid argument, the Board will hear it, regardless of whether or not their President is on the Board.

Jeff has been a fantastic VP Academic. He’s brought about some real and important (albeit incremental) change, and learned a great deal about University lobbying. But we’re slightly worried that he sees the AMS Presidency as a mere extension of the VP Academic job. There are worse things, of course. But the AMS President has more of a stewardship role, and needs some real leadership. Yes, lobbying and politicking are very important elements of the Presidency. But there’s an internal leadership that’s required, too.

We don’t mean to suggest that Jeff doesn’t have that. And, regardless, his Presidency will be an valuable learning experience for him. (If he wins. If. Ha ha.) We’ve seen many AMS Presidents, and there’s one constant – they all leave the position as a very different person from the one who assumed the post. The only way Jeff can achieve the majority of his platform is by inspiring people he’s working with, and by empowering people who aren’t him. Which ain’t easy. But if he can pull it off, look for a much improved AMS and University.

(To learn more about the VP Finance position, and see a job description, click here for our information and interviews, and click here for the official AMS information.)

Candidates:
Peter Rizov
Brittany Tyson

Let’s begin by comparing some promises:
Peter Rizov: Trim the red tape within the AMS
Brittany Tyson: Reduce the extensive bureaucracy faced by club and constituency treasurers. (It should be noted that Britany has some good concrete ideas for doing so, including doing much of the work online, and creating a central website with the VP Admin.)

Peter: Ensure that the AMS is ready for competition from the University Town
Brittany: Develop a competitive, sustainable framework for our businesses to guide and protect them through the developments of the next several years.

Peter: Increase funding and funding control and ease of access to clubs and give students direct enjoyment of the AMS.
Brittany: Let me increase the amount of funding available to students through AMS funds, making them more accessible.

Upon closer examination…. they’re the same. Imagine that. So which candidate is more likely to succeed? Brittany says it’s her, because of her experience in the AMS and its Financial Commission, while Peter says it’s him because of fresh ideas and his Commerce education. Which do you trust?

Looking for differences? Check behind the cut.

There are some differences, too.
Peter places importance on transparency and accountability, though provides no measures. Brittany’s platform has no such emphasis. He also amorphously promises a standard to measure service performance, to trigger improvement and growth. His concrete idea is a book swap. We’re not sure how it would work. The AMS used to run one as a business, but it was shut down due to non-use. Perhaps a better way to do it would be to work with the undergrad societies to facilitate faculty-specific ones, and us the SUB as a central hub, with different rooms for different faculties/programs. Finally, Peter promises initiatives to “induce the AMS executives to have more personal contact with students on a daily basis.” Good idea, though he gives us no idea what those would be.

Brittany argues for renovations of the SUB, for two major purposes. The first is sustainability, to ensure sustainable waste disposal with more recycling facilities. The second is to reduce wait times, like Pie R Squared, to renovate and reduce wait times. This is a plan of the current VP Finance, and has been on the agenda. Nevertheless, it’s a good idea and an important priority.
Brittany also proposes an “AMS Card” or “AMS Dollars” to use at AMS businesses. In addition to making things cheaper for students, it could also increase use as well as awareness. In its rudimentary form, it’s an easily implementable idea with tremendous potential. Finally, we like her idea of creating an AMS Service to help students with their taxes. This currently exists, on a volunteer basis, and outside the AMS. While we don’t know where she’ll find the money… but that’s her job, right?

Both candidates also favor a referendum to link AMS fees to inflation. With any luck, this may be the year we finally see it.

We’ve received many questions about voting. A few are worth answering publicly:

What’s the Ubyssey Publication Society Board of Directors?
The Ubyssey paper is published by editors. Those editors report to the Board, which has very low-grade oversight of the paper’s operations. The Directors pretty much just handle business-y type stuff, and eschew editorial interference.

Who are the candidates?
I have no friggin’ clue. I go to school with a couple of them (Jeff and Jeremy) and they’re nice guys, so you should vote for them. The Ubyssey takes the AMS to task for not communicating with students, but doesn’t see fit to mention the elections for its own Board. Which are student-wide. Go figure.

What’s the Student Legal Fund Board of Directors?
Besides a playground for law school resume-padders? A very important fund that supports student-interested court challenges. When students take on serious court cases, they can turn to the SLFS for support. The Directors administer the funds and decide which cases to take on.

I have no idea what’s up with them. Their formerly functional website is no longer operational, so your guess is as good as mine.

What’s with the joke VFM entries?
We actually like the joke entries. If they’re bringing an actual perspective to the race, and trying to add some value, then we’re happy they’re involved. But there are probably people doing this because there’s “free” money. Putting in no effort and expecting remuneration. We’ll leave it to voters to determine which media outlets are attempting to engage with the election, and who are screwing around with an otherwise interesting experiment.

However, some are coming from AMS Directors. If you wonder why people see the AMS as a joke, look no further.

Before our endorsements, a quick word. We offer these endorsements not to end our coverage of the elections, but to launch it. We have biases, and, to a reader of this blog, these should come as no surprise. So this is just a starting point. We’ll still post issues of the day, and this will still be a forum for discussion and debate, as it’s become. And we’ll still bring you the best information faster than any other site, so stay tuned!

These endorsements weren’t easy. They really weren’t. We spent hours meeting candidates (sometimes twice if we wanted to chat more) and getting a “feel” for them. We read their platforms over numerous times. And, as you’ll see below, our minds aren’t completely made up. But in fairness to the candidates, and in the interest of openness, now that our minds are made up, we proudly present our endorsements.

President: Jeff Friedrich
To us, we felt Jeff was a well-rounded candidate with tremendous experience. More importantly, he knows how to lobby, how to build relationships, and has a sharp mind for the politics of the job. He’s achieved a lot as VP Academic, and know he’ll continue that as President.

VP Academic: Brendon Goodmurphy
We didn’t know Brendon very well before this race, but a few qualities stood out. First, he’s a very good learner, and doesn’t pretend he knows more than he thinks. He has a good critical mind, and channels his frustration with the University in a very constructive manner. He’s thoughtful, insightful, passionate and intelligent, and will represent students well. Out of all the candidates in this election, we believe he is the most caring and passionate. We’re excited about what his energy will bring.

VP Administration: Sarah Naiman
First, we hold her opponent, Suvina To, in the highest regard. It was difficult to not support her, but we feel that the position needs fresh and energetic vision, and some vigour. Suvina brings tremendously insightful experience and skills, and we hope she stays involved with the AMS next year. When the VP Admin has been successful in the past it’s been because s/he had energy and a clear vision, both of which Sarah brings. The student life portfolio needs a shot in the arm, and Sarah in the VP Admin portfolio is the person to do it.

VP External: Joel Kozwarski/Matthew Naylor
Here, we’re split. Gina is endorsing Joel Kozwarski, Tim’s endorsing Matt Naylor.

Gina’s thoughts: I used three standards – knowledge, competence, and political stances. From the knowledge point of view only Joel and Matt qualified. Matt clearly knows the issues better. Both have credible track records/experience. My interactions with Naylor on council have been fairly limited – he was by no means outstanding or impressive at council meetings. There is a list of off-record statements (from him and people who have worked with him closely) which have made me doubt his ability to work with others (openness to other ideas), take criticism and make judgement calls in politically sensitive matters. Joel may not know the issues as in-depth as Naylor, but he will learn. Ian (outgoing) learned and did a good job, and it doesn’t hurt that he is also endorsing Joel. Joel is calm, rational, very thoughtful and a solid candidate. I have trust and faith in Joel K and thus am voting for him.

Tim’s had the advantage of reading Gina’s reasons above. The Liberal thing doesn’t matter – Gina had no problem campaigning with Holly Foxcroft when the latter was President of the Young Liberals, and there’s no evidence that it hurt her ability to lobby. So, why Naylor? He cares, knows a great deal, and is uniquely passionate. And you can learn policy – you can’t learn passion. People with Matt’s almost rabid enthusiasm are so rare and, when one offers their help, you’re foolish not to take it. He has a lot to learn, makes mistakes, and is young. But a good leader will learn how to make the most of Matt’s considerable talents and work with him. Look at his campaign organization? Wouldn’t you want that on your side?

VP Finance: Brittany Tyson
We agree that this is a portfolio in which experience counts, and building a rapport with the incumbent is a good thing. Brittany’s combination of experience and well-considered approach to reform should serve student well.

BoG: Darren Peets, Jeff Friedrich
Both these candidates have more experience on campus development and student representation issues than the others combined. And working together they’ll be a uniquely powerful force on the Board. For Jeff, it will make him a much stronger President (though the converse doesn’t necessarily apply.) And Darren has, through U-Town, learned to work well with administrators while still putting administrators on the spot like nobody’s business.

Senate*: Tariq Ahmed, Jaspreet Khangura
Yes, we’re endorsing the incumbents right now. Both have been excellent advocates for students this past year. Jaspreet in particular has brought her pass/fail initiative towards fruition, and deserves another year. We’re leaving our ballots open, though. We don’t know enough about the remaining Senate candidates, so will pass a final decision in the future. But we know and have seen enough of Tariq and Jaspreet to know that they will continue to do a good job on senate, especially given the slow bureaucracy that this particular body is known for.

Tonight the student senators were invited for dinner with Stephen Toope. I had attended several dinners with Martha Piper, the former president, so I was wary of another superficial, “schmoozy” conversation.

It was a surprise to me that out of the conversations which unfolded at the dinner table, I received the distinct impression that this new UBC President was, well, different.

Don’t get me wrong – Martha was instrumental in attracting the “hotshot” researchers that we showcase today. The number of research papers published in Nature out of our labs each month is impressive and rivalling the ivy leagues. And this helps the few (under)graduate students who are involved and learn, without question. She also focussed a lot of her attention on doubling the endowment which, in the long run, will help students.

Martha Piper at Senate, March 2005

The Martha era, though, is notable for a decline in focus on teaching and learning. The climate at UBC is not supportive of students. There is a hostile “bottleneck” atmosphere which ruthlessly “weeds you out”. The laboratory equipments are old and falling apart. Buchanan is old and reminiscent of a high school in terms of architecture, yet the biggest undergraduate faculty traverses it and calls it their home. The class average of Chem 233 is often in the 50s. Tuition has doubled this decade. In such a competitive strenuous unsympathetic atmosphere, would I really want to retrospectively support this system? Would I not rather get the heck out and never look back?

So, why might Toope be better? Read more after the jump.

Questions were asked to Prof. Toope about the NSSE survey results. He said that the administration wanted to publicize the results. Why? Because the survey was of good quality and the data valuable (recognizing UBC’s dismal performance in the three years it’s participated). He asserted very strongly and very passionately that for all of the executives of UBC, the NSSE survey results were the number one priority on their agenda. He spoke of Carl Wieman’s initiative to evaluate the student’s experience, and the SHINE initiative to give graduate students mentorship from faculty members. Drawing from his own experience of having attended a liberal arts college, he mentioned that perhaps a pass/fail system should be implemented when taking electives (he did this, impressively, without Jaspreet having to bring it up first).

When asked about the potential merger of the Faculty of Forestry with Land and Food System, he promised the students that consultation would be sought out as soon as it came up as an agenda item before the executive. He enthusiastically affirmed that student consultation would begin at an early stage. Furthermore, and this is delicious for anyone who knows Martha Piper’s philosophy of University governance, he stated that he was “not a CEO of a corporation”, but that the university was a collegiate group of people and his job was to try to facilitate dialogue to work on arriving at a decision.

This may seem like very generic things for a President to say, but I have never seen the UBC administrator focus so much on the student/learning/teaching side of the institution. This was reaffirmed verbally several times at the senate meeting tonight when he talked about the endowment fund.

I have a feeling Professor Toope’s approach will make a few faculties unhappy because of their relative de-prioritization; this is an inevitable outcome in an attempt to balance the research and the learning which goes on here. In the past we’ve seen the Faculty (ie the researchers) receive a disproportionate amount of support from the administration. I’m hoping that Toope will balance both.

I realise this is the honeymoon year in which the new president is still figuring out his own role, and thereby treading carefully in many areas. But he has already shaken a few things up, such as improving the communication and reporting relationship between BoG and Senate, the two highest governing bodies. Overall, I can’t help but be optimistic that he has a balanced, diplomatic and visionary agenda which will not only advance the University in many aspects, but will actually uphold the Trek2010 vision in its truest spirit.

So…………… there’s a ton of info on this site. And could take a while to peruse. So we’ve made this post. It’s each candidate in 25 words or less. We’ve sent out questionnaires, had interviews, and met with almost all the candidates, read all their write-ups… and have distilled each candidate down to a few words. If you’re looking for one-stop voter shopping, look no further!

(But make sure you look further…. down the page! Our Issue of the Day post is about the educational experience. That’s important… right? So read, comment, and enjoy!)
It’s all behind the jump.

President
Jeff Friedrich – The experienced dude, who wants the AMS to be relevant, to you and for lobbying. Very knowledgeable about the AMS. Prioritizes the educational experience.
Maxwell Maxwell – Started off as joke, but learned lots and developed a strong platform. Feels the AMS isn’t relevant to students, wastes money; better parties, less clique-ism will fix it.

VP Academic
Jerry Fan Fan – Favors “student interests over AMS interests” but doesn’t really know how they differ. Wants to use WebCT to post UBC information, and prioritize campus security issues.
Brendon Goodmurphy – Thoughtful, insightful, activist who balances a strong ideological vision with practical concerns. Realistic, constructive goals. Priorities are engaging on development and governance issues.
Bruce Krayenhoff – Supports “Citizen’s Assembly” idea to engage more students and stimulate democracy. Argues for affordable housing and representative development decisions.

VP Administration
Sarah Naiman – Prioritizes “student life” and “community” and bringing more people into the AMS/SAC. Wants to hear more from students!
Suvina To – Very experienced with SAC, and knows the hurdles that people and clubs face when trying to get involved with AMS. Wants to hear more from students!

VP External
Chris Brush – Likes the existing U-Pass, argues for cheaper student housing.
Joel Kozwarski – MUN organizer. Wants united provincial lobbying, improved transit service, and more student grants.
Tom Masterson – More interested in student life than VP External portfolio. Argues that his inexperience is his biggest strength, and that he’s a quick learner.
Matthew Naylor – Policy wonk. Wants united lobbying, a tuition cap, return to grants, a stronger External commission, and student-friendly BoG reps. A Liberal.

VP Finance
Peter Rizov – The new and fresh ideas guy. Honest. Not gonna lie, steal, or run the AMS into the ground.
Brittany Tyson – The experienced insider. Sharp-minded. Not gonna lie, steal, or run the AMS into the ground.

BoG
Jeff Friedrich – Experienced, knowledgeable. Also running for Pres.
Melody Ma – Dislikes campus drainage, amongst other things.
Cris Marincat – Likes communication, consensus, listening.
Tristan Markle – Dislikes corporatization, extravagant development, undemocratic governance.
Rob McLean – Related to a senator AND a former Arts President. Will represent students.
Darren Peets – Former hydrant. Been to more meetings about development than this list combined. Including Jeff. Knows more, too.
Aidha Shaikh – Passionate about communication with students, tuition/financial funding, and development issues.
Hillson Tse – First-year commercialization-fighter!

Senate
Tariq Ahmed – Incumbent, law student. Articulate, professional, well-reasoned.
Jaspreet Khangura– Incumbent, med student. Advocates pass-fail system for electives. Passionate, articulate, professional.
Alfie Lee– Wants to bridge the disconnect between students and the admin. Very eager and keen.
Daniel Lin – Wants to communicate better with students. Absent from debate.
Raymond “Peter” Pan– Wants to change the exam hardship rules, library hours, and communication.
Lawrence Song – Wants to increase effectiveness by tightening curriculum and working with profs.
Hillson Tse– First-year apathy-fighter!

Out of all the ongoing races, arguably the academic portfolio (Senate, and part of VP Academic) has received the least amount of attention in debates and media sources. While we constantly discuss issues surrounding access to postsecondary education we rarely take time to consider the quality of the education which we struggle to receive in first place.

Jeff Friedrich has repeatedly pointed out that students find their educational experience unsatisfactory. He’s right. Quantitative and qualitative surveys both back him up. Consider the 2006 National Survey of Student Engagement results (link) which say that UBC students are 3-4 times more likely to say this than at other Canadian schools.

There are lots of reasons, including our own personal backgrounds, programs, and personalities. But some issues are more frequent than others; from our time at UBC, on the BoG and Senate, here’s what we’ve seen:

1. Exam schedules suck
Two 3-hour exams on one day, one the next morning. Three exams in two days. The current definition of academic exam hardship is 3 exams within 24 hours, but most students would agree that having 3 exams even within 30 hours or 48 hours leaves very little room for sleeping, eating, and even commuting (especially on weekends.)

Student senators have made some changes in the way exams have been scheduled, but the effect has not been substantial. We still see the clustering of exams and it hurts student performance.

2. Grading curves
Consider psych: averages are set at 65% with a standard deviation of 3%. There are pros, to curves, which can help when an exam is particularly hard, and to compare students against each other. But it makes things hard when students one year, may be smarter, work harder, or just perform more strongly. There are also informal curves, where instructors have a rough idea of what they want the class average to look like.

3. 24 Hour study spaces (or the lack thereof)
In many universities, there is at least one official facility which is open 24 hours to people who wish to study outside of their crowded residence room or their loud or otherwise distracting home. Sometimes students need a place to work – nights are no exception.

There are some “unofficial” buildings where students are not kicked out past closing time of facilities (Woodward, Forestry though only for forestry students), but these buildings are not safe because there is no security. We deserve a safe, well lit study space on campus open to all students, and it’s not the SUB (which is poorly lit and has no academic work space.)

4. Poor communication around teaching evaluations.
There’s a colossal gap in the feedback loop. There is no response, no follow-up to teaching evaluations. They have no perceived teeth. As a result, there’s little incentive to fill out a thoughtful, thorough, and constructive form, which would benefit the instructor (and future students). The instructor isn’t held accountable, and mediocrity is allowed to perpetuate itself.

The VP Academic and student Senators have continued to lobby the University to publish the teaching evaluation results online, with a pilot project in the Faculty of Arts on its way (link). But this isn’t good enough. We need more accountability at the departmental level with the help of resource centres like TAG (link) to encourage instructors to improve on their teaching skills.

5. Teaching skills
The criteria on which tenure is granted places an unduly emphasis on research over teaching; naturally, teaching suffers. While teaching evaluations play an important role on the tenure track of a professor in some departments (such as the Department of Family Practice), in most department this role is minimal at best. (Now is also the time to act. UBC is hiring a new VP Academic, and students need to seize this opportunity to put this on the agenda.)

Moreover, VP Academic candidate Brendon Goodmurphy raises a good point: there should be financial incentive for Teaching Assistants to participate in workshops to be trained in instructional skills. (Currently TAG offers these for faculty and grad students on a space-restricted basis. Link) This will develop grad students’ careers if they hope to go on teach, while compensating them for their time. Obviously, it would also benefit the students. Teaching can be difficult; the more training opportunities, the better.

6. Classroom Size
This is probably the hardest to tackle in terms of institutional structure. The prototypical first year chemistry class has 250 students enrolled, classroom is over-crowded, and the professor literally lectures. Two-way communication is impossible. The learning experience diminishes as there is little room for dialogue between instructor and student. In fact, the learning experience diminishes in reverse proportion to class size.

So these are six major issues in the educational experience. But we want to know more… what are the major issues you have with your learning experience?

Also, where the candidates stand is behind the jump:

Brendon Goodmurphy: Supports mandatory, paid TA training, publish teaching evaluations, promote/expand LEAP
Bruce Krayenhoff: Allow borrowing textbooks from the library
Tariq Ahmed: Diversity of curriculum
Jaspreet Khangura: Driver of the pass/fail system, more student space, earlier exam schedules.
Alfie Lee: More interactive learning environment.
Raymond Pan: Better exam hardship policy, longer library hours
Lawrence Song: More study space, less restrictive exam hardship policy

We haven’t written much about the BoG race. So I will.

To begin, a some candidates say, well, nothing, and offer us platforms with platitudes and no evidence of depth of analysis/understanding. That’s not to say they aren’t intelligent, thoughtful people; in fact, they deserve significant credit for putting themselves out there. But the BoG responsibility is one that demands a baseline knowledge and experience: you only have five meetings in the year to make an impact. That’s a steeeeeeep curve.

Chris Marincat wants us to believe he’s understanding and a consensus-builder, and he may well be, but there’s no evidence in any of his writings to indicate that. Rob McLean wants us to vote for him because of his daddy and sister. A campaign based on nepotism – yikes. Hillson Tse, an apparently enthusiastic and energetic first-year student would clearly be out of his depth altogether on BoG. And Melody Ma has the opposite problem altogether: her platform consists of a string of grievances against the University. While they’re valid and often insightful, BoG isn’t the forum to change these.

We’re left with four candidates. One of the three is not like the others: Tristan Markle. He has some excellent ideas, including ethical investment of the endowment, and a more democratic BoG where students (and other elected reps) can actually get motions on the agenda. However, his rhetoric betrays a radical ethic, and a somewhat careless demeanor, neither would serve him particularly well on the Board. To suggest that the voting bloc of elected members is concerned with education is to imply that the appointed members aren’t; similarly, to characterize the institution as “archaic”, “pompous”, and its members anus’ as receptacles for developers’ appendages might reflect valid sentiments, but aren’t likely to endear him to them. Is sucking up good policy for a BoG rep? Of course not. But nor is pissing them off. How would you respond to that?

To compare the platforms of the remaining candidates is an exercise in similarity, though there are some differences. Darren Peets brings the focus on minutiae that comes with his years of experience on campus development boards, committees, and working groups of various kinds. Aidha Shaikh understands the issues of communication, and brings an understanding of the level of strategic decision-making that takes place on Board, rather than merely getting bogged down in detailed complaints. And Jeff Friedrich‘s platform is one that is heavily influenced by the student political world, and well-versed in UBC lingo.

(An important side question: can one person do the job of President and BoG rep simultaneously? YES. In fact, he’d have more depth of knowledge, he might be better off. And time’s not an issue; time spent learning the issues helps both jobs. There are some conflict issues, though. Jeff ought to seek some best practices guidelines on how to handle them should he win.)

Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much time for the race to develop. The candidates had a forum on the first day and, since, haven’t been heard from. This is unfortunate. Hear that, AMS Elections? One of the strengths of VFM is that actual issues have emerged; it’s a shame that BoG (and Senate) aren’t getting opportunities to engage in that discussion, at least not in the officially sanctioned way.

Who governs UBC? Right now it’s a complicated balance between the University’s BoG, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). In short, UBC’s BoG has the final say on development on campus, provided it conforms with various strategic plans (OCP, etc) that are the purview of the GVRD.

However, what happens when there’s a conflict? What happens when UBC thinks development conforms, while the GVRD doesn’t? (See the Marine Drive Residences, for an example.) In these situations, the governance conundrum is apparent. Who ought to have the final say in how UBC’s property is developed? UBC? GVRD? Students? Vancouver? Right now, nobody really knows.

There are four generally considered options:

1. Status quo. UBC autonomy, with some GVRD oversight, to ensure compliance.
2. UBC joins the GVRD, and all development must be approved directly by the GVRD permit board, like any other development.
3. UBC forms its own municipality, with a municipal governance structure all its own and separate from GVRD/Vancouver
4. No municipal gov’t controls on UBC whatsoever

In addition, there is a movement to amend the BoG composition. Some argue there should be more student seats, though, that might not be the most sturdy basket in which to store all your eggs. And while BoG reform is important, the Governance Review is already happening, so where the candidates stand is important.

There are some very important questions inherent in the options.

• Who votes? Residents, students, resident students?
• How to reconcile the vastly different interests of students/non-students?
• Who provides municipal services?
• Which should be more powerful? An elected council, or BoG?
• Should institutional (classrooms, student-only residences) and non-institutional development (condos) be treated differently?

So, once again, back to you. The AMS instigated a governance review, at the GVRD level, to consider this very question. So we leave it to you: which option is preferable? What should the AMS’ role be? Should there be a municipal government at UBC?

Where the candidates stand:
Darren Peets: A municipal government regime at UBC is a good idea.
Jeff Friedrich: Any governance regime must include students.
Brendon Goodmurphy: Hasn’t made up his mind, but is leaning towards a municipal structure at UBC.
Bruce Krayenhoff: Continue my predecessor’s work with the GVRD towards giving students a real say in development decisions.
Joel Koczwarski: The Provincial seats on the BOG should be chosen through an electoral process. The more democracy in the BOG the better. And proportional rep for students.
Tom Masterson: Equal rep in proportion to the amount to which we fund the University.
Matthew Naylor: Lobby to ensure that the appointed BoG reps have student interests in mind.

Today marked the second VP Administration debate. I use the term loosely. Generally speaking a debate involves a clash of ideas, and usually some disagreement. These candidates? Well, they just don’t. They generally agree. Students need to be more involved in renovation decisions, there needs to be less red tape for SAC, we need to be more responsive to commuter students, the SUB needs to be more accessible, and we need to plan for the advent of University Town. Not to diminish the above points; they’re all fair and valid. And I’m glad they’re priorities. But they don’t help us distinguish the candidates.

(The only conflict was Lougheed the Barbarian’s not at all staged fight with a brutal assailant. But even more impressive were the reflexes of the J-School photogs; they bounded to cover it as though it was a race for a Pulitzer.)

That having been said, the candidates are still distinguishable. It’s quite clear that Suvina To views her job through the lens of a SAC veteran, someone who has a very in-depth understanding of the student bureaucracy, and its inherent hurdles. By contrast, Sarah Naiman views the job through the lens of someone who’s focused on student life, and is very interested in building/developing it through the job. These are two good, valid perspectives, and either would make a very good VP Admin.

This corner was disappointed, though, with the lack of depth they showed on SUB Sustainability. Neither had thoroughly thought through (say that three times fast) how to make the SUB a more sustainable building, one that can serve as an example of green buildings for students. Only “more recycling” and “reduce energy use” were really considered.

When I was running Imagine UBC, one of my colleagues had a great idea, which I’m proud to appropriate for these purposes. Which was the “sustainability audit.” It’s refreshingly simple: ask the UBC Sustainability office (or Sustainability Ambassadors) to go through the building, observe its operations, and come up with recommendations to make it more sustainable. With Imagine, we were able to reduce waste by a significant order of magnitude. I have no idea whether the AMS has done such a holistic review in the past; if they have, have the recommendations been implemented? (I also think there’s huge strategic value in engaging directly with the University on questions of sustainability.)

The real value of this site is to hear other opinions, though. So we’re asking you: what, in your experience, can be done to make the SUB more sustainable? And by sustainable, we mean in every way (though with an obvious bias towards the “greening” element). We heard the “People’s Potato” in an earlier comment, and that was a very interesting idea…. any others?