The Insiders
-
Jan
18
Brendon's Endorsements
Posted by: Neal Yonson | January 18, 2008 | 14 Comments
Here are my endorsements, for what they’re worth. I tried to give justification behind my decisions – both why I am supporting certain candidates, and why I’m not supporting others.
Please note: These are not necessarily Maayan’s endorsements, or any one else’s from the UBC Insiders, those will come later in the week. I am publishing these now because I’m getting a lot of pressure from candidates to give endorsements, so I thought I would rather publish my thoughts, rather than just showing up on people’s websites without justifying why.
My experience over the past year as the VP Academic has given me a lot of insight and knowledge into the AMS and campus politics. I think I can lend some insight into the nuances of the job, but I still have biases and opinions, and you may not agree, so make sure you figure out what you’re priorities are, and who represents them the best.
Read my endorsements behind the jump…
President: Mike Duncan
Mike is going to bring something different to the position than Jeff did – and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The AMS could use someone who can get students excited, involved and proud of the AMS. Mike will have to ensure that that involvement in the AMS is meaningful – that students take ownership over the AMS, not just participate in it. Also, Mike has a lot to learn about how to manage a critical but respectful relationship with the administration. But he’ll be able to build a good executive team, get Council participation, run a successful referendum, and bring some new perspectives into the AMS’ mandate. I have trouble seeing Rodrigo’s vision, and I think that’s mostly because he has trouble articulating it. And Matt just can’t handle the leadership role, in my opinion – he has some learning to do about being a team player, and could handle growing into his leadership style more.
VP Academic: No One
Since this is my portfolio, I’m sure it seems pretty weak to not choose a candidate. I have hesitations about all three, and I’m not ready to endorse any of them at this point. I think Nate could bring a lot of much-needed critique of the AMS and the administration, and challenge Council’s assumptions and values. The problem is, there’s a lot more to an Executive position, and I don’t fully think he buys into the non-lobbying side of the AMS. He wants a lot to change about the AMS, and a lot needs to change, and he has a strong vision for it, but being able to create that change will require Nate to work within the structure of Council, and the bureaucratic structures of the AMS. Alex is detail-oriented, critical of the University, hard-working, and gets a lot of the issues. However, he tends to be uncompromising in his opinions. I also find his platform to be thin – I need to see how he will engage students in the governance issue, and how he plans to “organize” the student senate – it’s a relationship that requires careful treading, the AMS can’t overstep its boundaries. Also, it would be nice to see some continuity in my efforts to lobby for more student housing, not just internal issues that residents face (not that that isn’t important) – but I guess that’s kind of selfish. Rob’s platform is interesting, and he seems to understand some of the issues, but he hasn’t shown me what he’s capable of. He doesn’t give us much on HOW he’s going to meet his goals, and I really don’t think there’s room in the portfolio for student life issues, that has to stay in the VP Admin portfolio. None of the candidates have addressed the safety/ equity/diversity/social justice issues in their platforms – Nate gets the closest, but only in terms of “power for the students.” Although I don’t doubt Nate’s passion for social justice one bit, I would like to see some ideas for how he’s going to bring that into the structure of the organization effectively.
VP Finance: Chris Diplock
Chris did his homework, he knows the issues, the portfolio, and the AMS. He has a lot to learn, also, as he hasn’t had that much experience with the AMS until September – but you always have a lot to learn coming into an Executive position, and Chris has shown that he is smart and capable of learning the intricacies of the AMS and campus politics. He is dedicated to the AMS, as he has shown this in his dedication in AMS committees, and coming to AMS Council all the time (even though he isn’t on Council!), and he’s working the hardest that I’ve seen on campaigning. I know Andrew from Council, and he’s been a hardworking, dedicated Councilor, and his platform is pretty good, but he hasn’t shown me that he knows the portfolio well enough, and how he’s going to reach his goals.
VP External: Stef Ratjen
Stef has some great new ideas to bring to the portfolio. She has strong goals and a clear vision for how she’s going to reach them. I know that Stef is really hardworking, she’s passionate, and she’s shown a willingness to learn and be challenged. She will have to learn a lot more about CASA/CFS politics, and learn how to navigate them effectively, but as long as she hones her passion and frustration effectively, she could bring some new perspectives to federal lobbying. I also think Stef could get students involved in the lobbying effort. Freeman’s platform doesn’t give concrete ideas for how to do what he wants to do, and I don’t think he has the experience for the position.
VP Admin: Sarah Naiman
Is there anything to say? She has more than proven herself this year as VP Admin, and she is obviously more than qualified. We are at a pivotal stage in the SUB Renew process, and she will be integral for ensuring continuity of this year’s exec. And besides, who is that other guy?
Senate:
Blake Frederick – has been my Associate VP, University Affairs for the past year, and has done an incredible job. He gets the issues, he’s a passionate advocate for students, and he has a clear vision and a lot of experience for how to get stuff done.
Alfie Lee – has been a dedicated and hardworking senator over the past year. He is eager to learn, puts a lot of effort working with AMS Council and Exec, and another year in the position will only make him more effective.
Azim Wazeer – Azim has a lot of experience working with AMS Exec, so he will be able to keep up a strong relationship with the AMS. He is detail-oriented, passionate and competent. He has strong values, and good ideas, and I’m sure he’ll be an engaged student senator.
Philip Edgcumbe – I don’t know Philip that well, but that doesn’t mean I doubt his ability to do the job well. The first time he came into my office to talk, I was impressed by how well he got the issues. His experiences on campus, particularly with Carl Wieman will be greatly beneficial for bringing good ideas to Senate. He is smart and will take the role seriously.
Alex Lougheed – I think Alex would be a great senator. He is hardworking and detail-oriented, he won’t be afraid to ask tough questions, and he won’t be afraid to meet with an administrator or sit down with another senator to hash through something further.
BOG:
Timothy Blair – Tim knows wh
at’s going on with campus development. He has a very mature, intelligent approach, and I think he would be effective at getting the Board to listen, while still standing strong on students’ concerns.
AND EITHER
Andrew Carne – Andrew surprised me in this race. I don’t know him very well or his work in the EUS, but he has the right priorities, and he is very detail-oriented. He understands how important it is to know everything that is coming to Board, and I think he would be capable of doing the leg work to learn about issues he doesn’t fully understand. I have concerns about not being experienced enough, and not being able to ask tough questions and put some pressure on the Board.
OR
Bijan Ahmadian – Bijan will be able to get the respect of the Board. I believe that he could do a good job, and would be able to communicate the activities of Board to students. He would take the role seriously, and would work hard. I haven’t seen concrete examples of HOW he will be an effective BoG rep, or his stance/opinion on student issues (I want a BoG rep who has strong opinions), and I’d also need some reassurance that he can put on the pressure when the situation calls for it.
Comments
14 Comments so far
Thanks for the endorsement Brendon. I wish I could comment on the other ones, but alas, election regulations bar me from doing so.
Interesting that you chose to endorse all the positions that you have little or no experience with…and the one place your endorsement might matter you shy away from…
I should add that the problems with articulation noted by the audience are not mine. I do agree, however, that I do use ‘big’words. Oh well, that’s what an education brings; check out my platform unbiasedly, and make a full and detailed assessment.
These reasons for endoresements are quite lazily drafted, and come as a surprise for someone I believe to be hard working, albeit sometimes hard to approach and dismissive.
My vision is all detailed in my blog – please take the time to read it before passing lazy judgments to students – provide a better and more detailed service, and not just a few unsympathetic words.
-rodrigo
http://www.participatoryengagement.wordpress.com
btw – just for the record, Jeff Friedrich and Brendon Goodmurphy only showed up in the middle of the debate, and were talking for most of the time. But somehow, that’s enough to be sure about an endorsement -it denotes what some call ‘laziness’…one of the expertises of some of our ‘experienced’ hacks. At least Alpha-males Naylor or Duncan won’t be able to grow a beard like Friedrich’s anytime soon.
cheers
Rodrigo, if you link your blog anymore, i’m going to start deleting your comments. Again – these boards are for discussion, not advertising space.
Another thing about Alex is that in a lot of situation, he fought for a position. Once chosen, he could have completely excused himself from the meeting frequently. I doubts his commitment and brendon’s very comment on “hardworking”…
Rodrigo – I don’t think that these endorsements were done lazily. It took me hours to write, and I based my thoughts on what I saw from debates (when I wasn’t in meetings), and websites.
My opinions of your campaign are simple: I don’t really understand your vision for the AMS. It may not be lazy, it just may not be that there is more to it than that. I haven’t worked with you that closely over the year, so I didn’t want to comment on your leadership style, because I don’t know enough about it.
And my reasons for not making a committment on VP Academic are only becuase I haven’t decided, not because I’m not committing… it will come.
Just to let you know, *I* am the “other guy” in the race for VP-Admin. If 12 years of Rabbinical school hasn’t prepared me for the challenges of the AMS, I don’t know WHAT will!
On VP Academic:
“I have hesitations about all three”
Ahem… There are four of us…
sorry fire hydrant… but you just won’t be able to communicate students’ opinions to the University – you can’t even talk. Not that that is a problem in itself, but I mean, all you could do to express frustration is spray water all over them. Besides, I can’t take you seriously, you just always sit there making the same aloof face all the time…
did i read it right? goodmurphy won’t support nate’s campaign because it doesn’t deal enough with social justice issues? the criticism against nate is usually the opposite, that he focuses too much on social issues, and that he won’t be able to focus on the concrete issues of the AMS, or something. maybe goodmurphy is worried that somebody will do the VP Acadmic job well AND in a radical way, possibly discrediting the past year of the VP Acadmic???
Hi Brendon,
Thank you for your response. My vision and projects, and I should qualify that further, the projects that students have proposed to me after long and engaged conversations are all available i my blog.
I will also be posting articles throughout the weekend there (my blog), meditating upon Jeff Friedrich’s strategic decision not to even mention my name or make any comments on my platform.
He is openly endorsing the status quo, and returning a favour to Duncan, whose endorsement of Friedrich’s campaign last year could still be found in Friedrich’s website last week.
Why not engage with all candidates’ platforms scientifically and responsibly, serving his function as student representative, and why doesn’t he refer to any of my proposed changes?
I have to say, openly that I thought that Tyson’s performance as VC Finance was impressive, and I would say the same to Brendon, especially concerning the housing document that council decided to put down (beating out opposition), despite all warning, and for detriment of UBC students with housing concerns.
-please refer to the comment I made on Friedrich’s endorsements’ post, here in the UBC Insider Blog.
* corrections (dang)
1. “in my blog”
2. “OUR opposition”
cheers
I based my criticism on Nate’s social justice platform on effectiveness and concrete ideas… BUT, I deleted my last comment because I’ve changed my mind. I was reading Nate’s poster in the SUB today (I hadn’t seen that one before…), and he has some good, concrete ideas on there for how he plans to bring his social justice priorities into the AMS in effective and clear ways. So for what its worth, and for anyone reading…
And why does it have to be that I have a giant ego and don’t want to be overshadowed by something better this year? that’s probably the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. People who deserve the job are those who care more about making the AMS work better for students, and improve the student experience. If Nate, Alex, or Rob are highly successful next year, I will call them up and try to learn what made their year so successful.
I know elections bring out a lot of sensitivities and it takes a lot to put yourself out there during elections, but I tried to judge the candidates in my endorsement based on their performance in the job, from what I know and have seen of them… Its not about personal attacks! Let’s keep dirty politics and rude personal attacks out of the AMS Elections…