Month: January 2007

Today’s Candidate’s Debate left me with a foul taste in my mouth – it lacked particularity, depth, and informed opinions (and therefore, any possibility for even an hint of a constructive dialogue).

To criticize the layout of the debate: giving the candidates 30 seconds to answer a question was simply insufficient, and an attributing factor to the lack of particularity which left the audience dissatisfied. On one hand, the (few) informed candidates in the room were prohibited from providing the elaborate explanations which a lot of the questions demanded; on the other, the uninformed candidate was allowed to hide behind a generalized, nebulous narration of “connecting to the students” and “putting students first”. As another reporter pointed out, to “put the students first” was a mere baseline of the jobs these candidates are aspiring to take on. At times it seemed as though the audience was more knowledgable on the portfolio and issues for each position than most candidates (with notable exceptions).

Tristan Markle speaks as other BoG candidates look on

The BoG Debate

The Board of Governors consists of 21 members, out of which there are currently only two AMS student seats. The voice of the students at this ultimate decision making body on any funding allocation (for buildings, programs, research – ie any effective change within the University) thus needs to be eloquent, informed, and have conviction. The candidates in the room were Aidha Shaikh, Rob McLean, Jeff Friedrich, Darren Peets, Tristan Markle and Melody Ma. Within their restrictive time frame most of the candidates did a good job of presenting themselves and why they wanted to be elected.

BoG Candidates

Briefly: Rob McLean cited his involvements with the Arts Undergraduate Society to be secondary to the wealth of knowledge he accumulated at the dinner table (by virtue of his political family – sister Lianne McLean a former student senator, and his father David McLean a current faculty representative on Senate). Aidha Shaikh, having spent her high school, undergraduate, and current graduate years all at UBC, said her positive and rewarding experience on the Graduate Student Society inspired her to contribute further to the campus. Jeff Friedrich gave his reasons for running for both President and the Board: that it made sense of the spokesperson of the AMS to convey the AMS position at this powerful body. Darren Peets, a long time member of several University committees on campus development, and previously the mastermind behind the Fire Hydrant, stated that it would be difficult for the administration to cut corners in his presence when making key decisions. Tristan Markle believed that too much experience working in student government made you a sedated part of the system, where you ultimately work for the university. His main issues included tuition reduction and a consultation between Musqueam and the developers on campus. Melody Ma, a second year science student, said she wanted to start with “small things”, such as the poor drainage system at UBC resulting in the many puddles we see around campus.

Incumbent student Governor Omar Sirri asked what each candidate thought about the conflicting loyalty to the University as a Board member vs. the students who elected them to office in first place. Jeff (and to an extent Darren) argued that a student BoG rep had allegiance to the Board through the lens of a student. This makes sense as the student is elected by virtue of being a student, so a conflicting opinion from the rest of the members is the very raison d’etre for the student seats in first place. But at times there could be scenarios in which a collective advancement of the university would result in a setback for the student. Perhaps Omar should have given a particular example, as I can see that the hypothetical tensions could be resolved differently depending on the context. Nevertheless, from a principled perspective, all candidates unsurprisingly stated they would prioritize the interest of the students first.

Omar Sirri asks a question to the BoG candidates

VP Academic and University Affairs

To me this is the most important exec position, as the portfolio entails Campus Development, Campus Safety, Hiring, Academics (huge in itself), and Housing. I was overall disappointed at again, the lack of time that was given to the candidates, but also at the candidates themselves who either were not prepared or had a very limited understanding of the issues at stake. During this time, and for the VP External debate, I found myself wondering why certain candidates wanted to run for an AMS Executive position in first place, if they were so ignorant of the very job which they would be performing in the upcoming year.

Bruce Krayenhoff makes his opening speech

Bruce Krayenhoff, a Masters student in Physics, presented his main reason for running in the election: that there simply wasn’t enough student engagement, and that it was due to the fact that the AMS was so removed. His solution was a Citizen’s Assembly which he argued would curb the esotericity of student government.

Brendon Goodmurphy, an interdisciplinary student, and co-chair of the Student Environment Centre and AMS Councillor, stated the student’s educational experience here at UBC was dismal according to both Macleans rankings and the NSSE survey (National Survey of Student Engagement). He was vague about what he would do to address this large issue, which to me was pertinent to disclose as in my view (as a senator and having worked on the academic portfolio for several years) it would entail changes at a large scale starting from the very core of hiring practices of the University (tenure track requirements included).

Brendon Goodmurphy answers a question

Jerry Fan Fan, a current senator, told the audience that he couldn’t possibly enter his planned career in finance without having made a contribution to the student body. He didn’t present any constructive ideas or priorities, except when pressed by the journalist from the Thunderbird. He then went into a pessimistic admission of his personal experiences with the University. He said the students faced “resistance from all sides” and therefore he was unsure of what he could substantially accomplish. He told the reporter he would have to think really hard about what he could do, and commented that he probably wouldn’t sleep tonight.

Jerry Fan Fan

A reporter asks a question

I was disappointed with the candidates, especially as I hold this position in particular to a very high standard. Within the wide range of committees which the VP Academic sits on, and the saturated portfolio, I was disheartened to find that none of the candidates had a good and clear grasp of any of the issues that they could have presented. Brendon Goodmurphy talked about “saving the Farm” in a hasty response to a question, but he seemed frazzled and merely mentioned that he would “talk to the faculty of Land and Food System” to see “what can be done” to convince the administration that the farm had value to the research and education on this campus. I would have rather seen him mention the many developments which
have already started, such as the collaboration with the downtown eastside patrons in building their community gardens, or the gradual switch in attitude towards the farm by the administration, instead of leaving the topic in a rhetoric resonating that of two years ago.

Bruce Krayenhoff had the innovative idea of transforming the bookstore into a library system, wherein students could borrow a textbook for a school term using their student card. While I am attracted to the idea of not having to pay 900$ per year on my science textbooks, I was skeptical of the feasibility of this. As Bruce rightly mentioned, the University makes a respectable profit each year from the bookstore, and that would be the very incentive of the administration to fiercely oppose this idea.

Jerry Fan Fan reintroduced the idea of bait-books, bait-laptops, and bait-cameras (something he mentioned in his last campaign), but didn’t go into much detail.

The discussion on campus development disintegrated into a general discussion on whether or not student housing was needed on campus. The simplistic nature of the debate was self-revealing of the lack of understanding of (and in all fairness, lack of time to elaborate on) the particularities such as aspects of the Main Campus Plan, University Town, the endowment project, and our prior lack of input in the administration’s development planning process (such as the permits board).

Overall I thought Brendon came out as a caring candidate, though again vague and unclear on the issues. Bruce had some good ideas which were somewhat out of the normal portfolio of the position. I’m unsure if Jerry Fan Fan is able to overcome his nihilistic view of the ability for a student electorate to accomplish anything, nor am I sure if even then he would convince me that he was a capable candidate.

VP External

If I had to put the VP External candidates’ knowledge of the issues (U Pass/Translink, Lobbying group alliances, Tuition, relationships with other universities) onto a scale of zero to ten, I would say that they spanned from zero all the way to ten.

Thomas Masterson

Thomas Masterson was the first to admit his ignorance of the particularities of the job. He stated his reasons for running as being a very satisfied student with his university experience and wanting to bring the same to others. He claimed his diverse background in different jobs and having been on varsity athletics team gave him ad edge in being able to relate to students well. He also wanted to increase student spirit on campus.

Matthew Naylor, AMS Councillor and the Secretary of the Science Undergraduate Society, gave a well-rehearsed speech of his priorities: lobbying as a united front with other schools in BC, improving the BC Grant program, and working with an active External Commission.

Matthew Naylor

Joel Kaczwarski, having sat on the Development Board for the AMS, and a director of Model United Nations, had a very similar platform in wanting to work with other universities and colleges of BC, and revitalizing the External Commission.

Chris Brush introduced himself as a political science student and as having positive energy.

A question was asked on the dichotomy of having two lobbying groups in Canada (CASA/CFS), and how the historic political rift between the two groups has hindered the attempts at lobbying the Province in conjunction with other BC schools. Most BC colleges and unis are CFS schools. Joel answered that there were common goals with the postsecondary institutions of the Province could come together on, while Matt Naylor said the time was right for united front lobbying especially at this current political climate in which the CFS faced internal turmoils (SFU, Douglas College, etc). The other candidates expressed their unfamiliarity with the issues but stated that they agreed that collaborations with other schools was a good idea.

There was no real debate in this race as Tom and Chris were uninformed, while Joel and Matthew didn’t differ very much in their stances, except that Matt Naylor seemed much more rehearsed in his speech and by virtue of having been in student government this past year was able to provide more detail than Joel.

Just like in the VP Academic “debate”, the particularities were lost and the dialogue was broken down into general concepts of “yes we all agree that the External Commission should be utilized effectively”, “yes we like the UPass and to bring better bus service to UBC students”. How can anyone disagree with those broad statements????? I had never before attended a debate where the candidates were so unprepared.

Chris Brush and Joel Koczwarski

Tim and I have spent a good hour with each VP External candidate this week, and will write a more in-depth impression of them all.

Sidenote: Which current AMS Executive said the following today?
“I kinda wish I had run for BoG, but I’d rather leave the country.”

We’ll get to the recaps of the “debate” soon, but I’ve been asked by a few people to comment on the relationship between AMS and BoG representatives, and I intend to do so.

I’ve heard it said that the reps on BoG can represent the AMS, because the AMS represents students, and anything in students’ best interests is necessarily in the University’s best interests. While this is logically appealing, it’s not sound.

Why? Many will blame “the University’s corporate nature.” There’s nothing the University can do about its corporate structure and Board; that’s mandated by the University Act. The real reason is the corporate structure of the AMS. Like it or not, the AMS has a corporate structure, with a Board of Directors, with all the fiduciary responsibilities of a corporate Board. Yes, there’s Directors’ insurance, lawyers, all those “real-world” things that neo-Marxists might like to pretend we don’t have to deal with. But we do.

That can lead to a conflict of interest. Usually, that’s not a problem. On tuition, development, and financial aid, it’s unlikely that there is any conflict. In fact, on things like that, I believe very strongly that the student interest is the University interest. But let’s say the AMS enters into a contract with the University (they already have hundreds), and things go wrong, and it ends up in court. When that happens, the Directors are always named. And someone who’s a Director of the AMS and of the University will be named in both lawsuits. Which, ladies and gentlemen, is a genuine, bona fide conflict.

Here’s an example. Directors have a responsibility to give full disclosure to their organization, as an outflow of their fiduciary responsibility. Let’s say AMS and UBC are negotiating a contract, and the AMS has a particularly sensitive confidential reason for entering the contract. Someone who’s a Director of the University has a responsibility to the University to disclose that information, and someone who’s an AMS Director has a responsibility to keep it secret. Again… that’s a conflict.

The problem with the argument that UBC interests = student interests = AMS interests is the last premise. In not all cases do AMS interests directly relate to student interests. Never mind the fact that it’s almost impossible to monolithically characterize student interests (hello tyranny of the majority!), but there are times when the interests of the AMS as a corporate entity must be considered as separate from those of students. Not necessarily different or opposing students, but they need to be considered separately.

So yes, in perfect happy world, AMS, student, and UBC interests are always the same thing. It makes sense in lobbying. But being a Director is about more than lobbying. And to pretend otherwise fundamentally ignores the reality of the AMS corporate structure.

The nomination forms for Tariq Ahmed (Senate), Tristan Markle (BoG), and Thomas Masterson (VP External) have all turned up.

Now back to the issues! Make sure to read and post to the Issue of the Day post!

Genocide Awareness Project (GAP)and Pro-Choice students at UBC, March 2005. (photo by Gina)

Consider the following:

• McGill University banned Blood Services from blood drives in their building because they ban men who’ve had sex with men from donating.
• Carleton passed a policy preventing anti-abortion groups from getting funding. (link)
• SFU’s student society has an activist stance regarding the genocide in Darfur.
• Concordia explodes with rage every time its student council mentions anything related to the Middle East.
• UBC’s AMS has, in recent history, debated policy motions on Darfur, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Iraq, and even held a (phony) referendum on the legalization of marijuana.

So today’s question: Should the AMS concern itself with issues that don’t directly affect students? Those primarily outside the University sphere?

Those who support such motions tend to argue the following:

• Student groups have the ability and resources to drive social change, and somebody has to push the agenda. “We have to act.”
• It encourages social debate, and the University as a site of social resistance.
• The policies are good.

But when they come up, there is a vocal contingent who tend to say things including:

• Nobody cares what a student society says; our voice is meaningless.
• It’s potentially divisive.
• We should stick to the business of running a student union.

It’s an age-old dilemma. Sometimes it’s purely in the abstract, but sometimes it has bearings on policy. For instance, what bearing would an official AMS policy on abortion have on anti-abortion demonstrations by AMS clubs? If the AMS has, say, an pro-abortion policy, should, or can, it constitute an anti-abortion club? Or should we even be considering these questions in the first place?

Question: How awesome was the premiere of 24?
Answer: There is no answer. Its awesomeness is beyond the scale of human comprehension.

We’ll have a full post later tonight. But sometimes it’s important to take time out to recognize the truly important issues.

Like 24.

Bonus: Visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc6HbARJ_fQ to relive the explosive final scene.

This morning marked the first public campaigning of the Elections period, with a Presidential forum in the SUB conversation pit. As per usual, the spectators were outnumbered by candidates, “media”, and current execs on their lunch breaks. (Interestingly, only this media outlet and one other had any notable presence at the forum, and questions were more scarce than spectators.)

Regardless, Jeff Friedrich and Maxwell Maxwell put on a legitimate debate. In contrast to previous years, there was actually some intellectual thrust and parry, some clash, some areas where candidates disagreed, sometimes principally.

The tone was set by Maxwell’s contention that the AMS is an irrelevant organization. He was shocked and appalled that he was one of only two candidates running for the top job and, had he known that he was the only opposition, he’d have actually learned a thing or two about the Society. (His ignorance was demonstrated by his constant reference to the “four hundred of your dollars” that the AMS “wastes.” The bulk of that, as Friedrich points out, goes to the U-Pass and to the Health and Dental plan.)

The theme of disenchantment with the AMS was a constant thread. Friedrich’s response largely accepted the premise, but a modified version thereof: the AMS could do better meeting students’ needs, but some of it is also a communications issue.

The candidates’ differing approaches were noted on several issues:

On UBC Okanagan
Jeff Friedrich: We have to work to get all CFS and CASA schools talking, and get them working together more effectively, as a bridge to UBC-O students.
Maxwell Maxwell: I don’t think they’re a real university. [At this point he collapsed into a fit of giggles. It wasn’t funny.]

On Spending:
MM: Reduce the size of the AMS, reduce exec salaries, stop wasting money. Spend it on parties and cheap beer and things to help student life and have killer parties.
JF: The vast bulk of the AMS spending is on health/dental, and the U-Pass, which do meet student needs. There are ways to reduce spending, though, like streamlining portfolios and engaging more student volunteers.

On Lobbying Priorities:
MM: Stop selling out the campus, to expensive condos and destroying student space.
JF: NSSE results are far below what they should be, and the basic undergraduate experience has been quantitatively shown to be lacking.

Frustratingly, Maxwell Maxwell is clearly a passionate, intelligent, and articulate student, but has an insufficient knowledge base from which to adequately represent students. And while his specific ideas about using the AMS to throw parties might not be practical, he’s quite right to suggest that the AMS ought to take a more active role in promoting student life. This corner hopes to see more of Mr. Maxwell (if that is his real name…) involved in these in the future. Dude, if you’re reading… stay involved!

1) Why BoG?
Why BOG? To stick it to the man.

2) What experiences do you bring?
I am currently a SUS representative on the AMS student council, and am familiar with its archaic modes of conduct and pomposity, which is good preparation for the even more colonial Board of Governors. I will make noise on BOG, and report back to AMS duly.

3) What would your priorities be?

1. Democratize “the BOG”, so that students (and others with an interest in improving the quality of education at UBC) can actually get motions on the agenda and pass them.
2. Reduce tuition to Quebec levels.
3. Increase the number of cheap student housing units guaranteed in the U-town plan, so there is no waiting list.
4. Increase the number of day care spaces for students with children, so there is no waiting list.
5. Pass an ethical investment policy.

4) Describe your vision for tuition and financial aid.
Tuition for University should be the same as tuition for high school; that is: zero. Almost all (good) research is subsidized by the state through research grants, so why shouldn’t education? In Ireland, everyone gets a tuition-free chance at University; most Scandinavian countries ditto. Tuition is very low throughout continental Europe. And you may say: “Aw, but educating the young without forcing enormous debts upon them is impossible in Canada because the Chinook makes us misers”. But tuition in Quebec is half of what it is here, plus they have more grants (because their student unions took to the streets last year to keep it that way.) No one in our society should feel that they cannot afford a University education; unfortunately, most of my high school friends felt that way. It is a disgrace. I will make that clear to the Board of Governors by advocating that the tuition burden on students fall well BELOW 20%), and by emphasizing a change in de facto recruitment strategies (as of now, wealthier schools are targeted).

5) What is your approach to campus development?
Vancouver is wedged in between the mountains and the sea, so property values will only continue to rise. The undeveloped regions of the University Endowment Lands are a goldmine, and fat cat developers have their thumbs up the butts of the Board of Directors (and have for decades). They are building multi-million dollar condos when they should be building – and this is most important issue on campus – CHEAP AFFORDABLE STUDENT HOUSING. This must be planned for now, because if you think it is expensive to live in Kitsilano today, just wait for 20 years. It will be worse than New York or Amsterdam.

6) The BoG is composed of CEOs, Presidents, and people with a great deal of experience. How will you tell them they’re wrong?
The Board is composed in part of representatives of faculty, permanent staff, and students, all of whom share the goal of improving the quality of education at UBC. It is a good idea to form a voting block along these lines.

The Board is also composed in part of the elite, people of privilege, political appointees of the “Liberal” (read CONSERVATIVE) government, and other proponents of the neo-liberal agenda which involves making tuition fees rise to levels of the United States, increasing the debt burden of students, shifting emphasis from education to grant-based research (look at the Chemistry Dept. homepage and compare the number teaching staff to that of research staff), corporatizing the University so that pure research becomes more difficult, and so on to infinity. It is possible that some of these elites believe that low tuition is “ideal” (though not “practical”), but they do not understand the urgent NECESSITY of acting now to make education more accessible. Our “pro-education” voting block ought to emphasize that urgency and present alternative models to those adopted in the recent past.

7) What’s the ideal relationship between you and the UBC-O student rep?
I am not pleased with the elitist attitude of UBC-V towards its sisters and brothers at UBC-O. The UBC-O representative on BOG should be our closest ally. I am also not pleased with the CASA/CFS infighting (like chickens in a cage poking each others’ eyes out). To be blunt (which no one ever is about this), CASA is a lame, status quo loving, power-schmoozing, Liberal party ass-licking embarrassment, while the CFS is a loud but incoherent, power-seeking, NDP sucking, undemocratic, centralized party run by a handful of thugs. Fuck’em both. Should we really let the Liberal party or some thugs downtown get in the way of a broad-based student movement pushing for accessible post-secondary education?

Fun fact: The AMS isn’t UBC’s only student society. Similarly, not all UBC students go to school in Vancouver.

Did you know that? You probably did, but it probably took some reminding, some prompting. UBC-O isn’t front of mind these days, but it probably should be. Why?

• The “degree equity” matters. A UBC degree is only worth as much as UBC’s reputation. So UBC-V students have a vested interest in making UBC-O is as good as its older sibling.
• Money, and subsidies. Did you know that UBC-V residents subsidize UBC-O residence construction? Your rent is helping to build housing in Kelowna. That’s because housing is “system-wide,” with revenues from Vancouver offsetting the costs in the Okanagan.
• Rankings. While the importance of rankings is questionable, there’s no doubt that UBC’s ranking (in any number of surveys) will include outcomes from both campuses.
• Institutional priorities. UBC-O is new, and the government and UBC have a lot riding on its success. It gets a lot of attention.

So what are the implications for the student movement? Read more behind the cut.

There is little to no history of co-operation between the student movements at the respective campuses. In fact, OUC-SAC (the OUC student union) changed its name to UBC Students’ Union in what appears to be something of a swipe at the AMS, and what was perceived as a monopoly on student representation. Moreover, the national CFS/CASA tension is clearly evident in the relationship between the two campuses. UBC-O has a rich CFS heritage, which tends to manifest itself in more adversarial, less collaborative lobbying efforts. By contrast, the AMS has a tradition of working with the University, with less central control. Heck, UBC-SUO refused to sign a letter (drafted by the AMS) asking the government to amend the University Act to allow international students to sit on University boards.

This causes problems. The central tension was illustrated at the Board meeting in 2006 during the discussion surrounding tuition. The AMS “supported” the tuition increase, while UBC-SUO opposed it. The absence of any coherent vision or agreement on principles really undermined the arguments we made, in opposition to the hikes.

We don’t mean to suggest that V and O must agree on recommendations each time, or that they all have to say the same thing… but purely contradictory approaches help nobody, and seriously cripple the ability to get things done. So we hope that relations with UBC-O become a priority, and, more importantly, managed effectively. There’s too much potential to work together for it not to happen.

1) Why BoG?

I never considered other positions. Board matches my interests, the pay’s not an issue, the problems I want to fix are generally higher than the AMS (most are UBC-level) and not normally academic, and I don’t have the time to take on an AMS (or GSS) exec position. The question is “why run (as Darren, not the Hydrant)?” But you didn’t ask that…

<!– D(["mb","

“,1] ); //–>2) What two experiences (jobs, positions, volunteer, etc.) have you had that gave you the skills you feel necessary for representing students on BoG?

<!– D(["mb","

<!– D(["mb","

“,0] ); //–>I’m not going to tell them they’re wrong. I’m going to pr
ovide them with more information than they had, perspectives and insight that may not have occurred to them, and the student point(s) of view. These people generally didn’t get where they are by making their minds up early and being stubborn in the face of new evidence. If there’s a side to the story that they’ve been missing, they’ll generally adapt to it. If they see one flaw they hadn’t expected, they may pay more attention and find more of them. They value the student viewpoint far more than students think, provided it can be enunciated in such a way that they don’t get a knee-jerk reaction against it.

7) Describe your ideal relationship with the UBC-O student rep

Ideally, we’d be in constant communication, would support each other, would always be on the same page, and would provide a united front (we’d have different ways of saying the same thing, and pushing for the same results). Ideally. I’ll try, but there may be irreconcilable CFS/CASA differences on some issues. E.g. the current CFS tuition demand is for an immediate 10%
reduction, which is purely arbitrary and would require provincial support or gutting of programs.