Caption Contest – UBC Insiders

“Tristan Markle – Right to Flyerfuck”

Oh dear.

I am on Nate’s side after all.

Honestly, judging from Alex’s detail oriented attitude, he should know more than better not to vote multiple times. During the campaign, he is not even willing to join other candidates’ facebook group because he said it’s against anti-slate rule. and yet, Brendan the EA this year as well as Chris Anderson the EA from last year have explicitly stated in an email such act is by no means violating the rule.

If a man who so pride himself in following the rule and setting up a structural organized approach to conducting businesses, he would better follow the rule himself in the very first place. And yet, by acting this way, he’s already disproved himself. and to me, that gives me a really strange feeling.

People might not like Nate’s radical policies, but this time, I think he’s doing the right thing.

it’s better to work with an exec, who is not surrounded by the controvesy over his legitimacy in the election. Not that I am trying to talk down Alex, but I just would like the election to be fair and the result would not spark so much controvesy.

Don’t sidestep the issue here Alfie. What the person is doing in that photograph is downright dirty and unfair. There is NO onus on Alex Lougheed to anyone to join an endorsement Facebook group. I didn’t join a single one despite being invited to several.

I think it might have been more prudent to say that anyone who prides themselves on trying to dismember Alex Lougheed through a complaint really shouldn’t resort to these pathetic tactics. But then this smear campaign stuff is what we’ve come to expect from the Knolligarchy.

Jesse, You are missing my point. The Facebook example is just to illustrate how Alex has been so careful trying not to violate the rule at the beginning of the election and how his attitude shocked me at the end.

And yes, the whole smearing and negative campaigning are really bad too! so a plague on both sides!

God, the AMS is so fucked next year.

It was interesting to see that Lougheed did not step onto the ‘stage’ or the ‘altar’ when ex-prez Friedrich called the newly elected exec team to come up at the AGM.

The new AMS President said he’s looking forward to work with a very diverse and interesting exec, which sent a positive message (the ability to approach things positively is one of Mike’s strengths).

It was all (the AGM) quite brief (compared to the usual average of 4-5 hour meetings)… I have to admit it was an interesting moment when the election results were supposed to be officially accepted (or whatever is the technical term).

Nate protested the publication of the official results at the AGM because of the pending student court case, and as he spoke, Lougheed got up and walked away. Friedrich let Nate speak, but had said the night before that Lougheed was going to take over despite the judicial process, and yet, Lougheed just walked away (similar to what he did in the case of the student court hearing in which he did not even show up). Consciousness…

A few days back, I walked into the exec office because I wanted to see Brendan Piovesan’s letter directed to council (which is a public document that is treated as if it weren’t).

I first entered Naylor’s office, who aloofly (as usual) said he did not have it. Next, I walked into Goodmurphy’s office, and saw Lougheed sitting behind the desk (conducting transition business), and Goodmurphy, on a couch, said he had it, but was not able to find it in a computer screen overflown with the jumbled icons of countless files… and after some searching in the computer, nothing was found (and nothing was forwarded). And the matter was brushed off under the rug. Don’t we have a right to read a letter directed to us? It is like having someone walk into your house and take your mail away from you. There is a lot of fear of accountability and transparency all over, although these are key terms tossed around like pepper and salt on the students’ mashed potatoes.

I felt it was no good trying to insist to read Brendan Piovesan’s letter, since they seemed so busy and not in a cooperative mood… I wondered about all these hurdles and how they serve the student body!?

Goodmurphy even let it slip that the EA’s letter was not public, which I found a tad disturbing, being an AMS councilor and knowing the letter had been addressed to council. So much for transparency… maybe he did not really mean it.

But that is the PAST now! And this is the good news.

UBC is about to experience some REAL changes… and as I mentioned in the debates for the AMS campaign (never ever quoted by student media), the Graduate Student Society will indeed set some precedents when it comes to transparency in student government… In my case, it is finally time to walk the talk.

And, by the way, it was pointed out to me today by a more experienced councilor that ‘ex-prez’ promised on more than one occasion (Council meetings) to come up with “committee reform” suggestions he was supposedly intensely working on. These suggestions were not brought forward yet… maybe they were passed on to Mike? Anyone knows?

-rodrigo

Also, if Alex had done no wrong in this whole business, why does he keep on avoiding questions from the media and even fellow councillors? What’s the deal?

Now we have another attempt at redirecting the debate here. Nice going Rodrigo, you’re as good as any spin doctor I’ve ever seen. If you’re going to preach openness and accountability like you do here, don’t try to protect your cohorts or numb the gravity of their actions by steering away an issue at hand.

What we have in this photo (and I’m waiting on official confirmation of who it was) is a case of sabotage and a deliberate attempt to steer public opinion against Alex Lougheed in advance of any ruling on what happened during the election. And now we’ve had two posts that have deliberately avoided what’s happened here.

It’s great that there’s at least one blogger on this campus (ie. Maayan) who’s willing to comment on the hate-mongering actions of the Knolligarchy. It’s too bad there’s so many more who are trying to sidestep the issue.

I can’t blame Alex Lougheed for walking away on any of this. None of it’s about fairness. It’s about power-mongering. And it’s sickening.

You have it backwards as to who flyer****ed, it seems. On the day that the result of the hearing was to be released, there was a political/publicity campaign plastering campus with Radical Beer Faction and “I support Alex Lougheed” signs. After that, the student court decided to hold another hearing even though they had already held one and had all but decided to disqualify the candidate who voted for themselves more than ten times. The decision to hold another hearing, as will become public, was a very illogical one.
The issue is not whether one supports Alex Lougheed in general. The question is whether a candidate who narrowly wins should get away with voting for themselves more than ten times. That is precisely the question before the court. Everything else it, indeed, distraction.

Roddrigo-

The letter is public. Check with Joanne as mentioned at council. I’m sorry Brendon has icons on his desktop.

I haven’t finished my thoughts on committee reform, though some of it is in my last quarter report. I’m not done yet because we were busy with lots of other items in our last two weeks, and at the end of the day, my thoughts are just (hopefully informed) suggestions- code and policy has been working on this issue for the last year and the new exec can take them for what they are. Will produce something, but it won’t solve everything.

Thanks.

Jeff Friedrich

thinking back on Jesse’s comment, I now understand your point (sorry, i admit i’m a bit slow tonight). Yeah, sabotaging somebody’s poster is a serious offence and Nate can be disqualified if he was personally involved as well. In the real world, if this was to happen, i believe it’s a criminal offence,right?

that was me, Anon 310 was alfie

To Anon 1:50 – if you read carefully what’s in the post you’ll see that it’s correct.

the posters themselves were put up in such a way as to break multiple rules. they were not (allowed to be) campaign posters. this is not campaign period. much ado about nothing.

The posters were not campaign material, nor do I have any idea who put them up (though I did think they were amusing).

Someone defacing them was fine.

Tristan himself defacing them is extremely inappropriate.

One of the big issues against Alex is his alleged unprofessionalism, if this isnt unprofessional, I honestly dont know what is.

On top of that, there is a concept of ‘executive cohesion’, where an executive board, in the interest of working functionally together take certain steps.

The executive should not be publically attacking other exec’s character or person. Why? It kinda takes away from your ability to work with them in the close quarters required of the job.

Tristan is now going out and attacking his co-worker, his fellow executive.

Of course, its entirely possible that the VP academic position will change hands, yes, that is possible. However, as it stands, Tristan has to work with Alex.

How well can you work with someone when you are going around and publically attacking them at every possible opportunity?

This was unprofessional of the worst kind, and I hope that council takes appropriate acts of censure.

patrick, you are the elections administrator now. is it professional of you to recommend that council censure someone?

Hey, at least Maayan brought it up is a good thing. this is the perfect textbook example why Stephanie ryan’s so called semi-slate system is a detriment to the society, rather than a help. It completely defeats the original purpose of the motion to “foster a collaborative environment”.

I’m sure Tristan’s involvement has nothing to do with his friendship with Nate. Oh wait.

This is all despicable. The smear campaign that has gone one proves beyond question how stupid and petty the people at the Knoll(+) really are.

They have missed the entire point of Alex’s actions. Further, they have jumped to ridiculous conclusions and, worst of all, have engaged in both libel and slander. They have gone out of their way and utilized AMS resources to attempt to destroy both the reputation and sanity of an individual.

It has been a one-sided organized campaign run on student dollars. It has been entirely disrespectful, bigoted and downright dirty. This entire fiasco has been truly sickening.

Shame on them. Shame on Nathan. Shame on Tristan. Shame on them all. Social Justice Centre? Resource Groups? The Knoll? You’re not kidding anyone anymore. You’re just pathetic, ignorant, and small. You are clearly willing to go to any lengths to promote your ideas and agenda and to hell with anyone who gets in your way.

Ugh. Student politics at UBC is a fucking joke and its people like Tristan and Nate and their friends that make it so.

You wanted something right out of Karl Rove’s play book, did you? Well here it is. I hope you’re all happy.

What does censuring have anything to do with electioning?

Im the EA for a set period of time, my job is to run a referendum.

What does this have to do with the U-Pass?

Im sorry, but I strongly considered making that statement before making it, and I concluded that it has nothing to do with my elections admin position.

Just because I am running a referendum does not mean I cease to have opinions, it means that my opinions on the referenda and elections related things (if I have any) are not to be voiced and I am to be non-partisan.

Calling this like it is in no way affects my role as EA.

The fact that this whole thing is an issue is incredibly dumb. Anyone who has read over AMS Code and Bylaws knows that it is not an offence to spoil one’s ballot. Alex, along with several other people, some of them AMS Councillors, went around to each polling station on voting day to spoil their ballots by voting multiple times, in order to protest the lack of a secret ballot. They knew full well that their spoiled ballots would be caught, given that their NAMES and STUDENT NUMBERS were written directly on the ballot, and that the ballots would not be counted. In fact, the AMS EA came down during ballot-counting to let us know in the Gallery that they had noticed all the erroneous spoiled ballots and discarded them.

Alex’s act of spoiling ballots did not materially affect the results (they weren’t counted), and was not against the rules in the first place. Doesn’t anyone think that if Alex actually wanted to cheat he wouldn’t have written his own name on twelve separate ballots, but would have written other people’s names and student ballots on the “cheat” ballots?

Let’s be rational, people. Let’s also stop attacking Alex. He doesn’t deserve a bit of it.

I think the picture speaks for itself. Tristan Markle should have the gall to apologize publicly for what he did or he should resign.

It’s pretty clear that neither he, nor Nate, nor Stefanie Ratjen, because they protested against installing the new AMS executive, are committed to seeing council work.

This isn’t working together, it isn’t even standing up for the right thing – it’s power-mongering and sabotage. That shouldn’t be tolerated in the AMS or anywhere else.

As much as I think Tristan’s action there (if true) is pretty irresponsible, its clear Alex’s decision to do what he did was a much larger misjudgment that needs to be dealt with pretty seriously. And, contrary to the excuses and minimizations given by certain AMS insiders, it seems like it is being taken seriously, both by student court and by the outgoing exec. What I find especially strange, though, is blaming all of this in the “Knolligarchy” and not on the real problem: the arrogant, cliquish mentality that pervades the AMS and AMS council. This is the mentality that made Alex Lougheed think that voter fraud (and not just spoiling his ballot) was an appropriate way to protest how the election was run and that there is no need for him to explain himself.

However, for the 39 900 students who are not intimate with AMS gossip, that just doesn’t fly, nor should it. And now to see all the justifications trotted out by other AMS insiders, it only goes to prove how insular and arrogant the AMS has become. Why has Alex not made a public statement explaining his behaviour? Why the complete silence? Why all the seeming surrogates trying to apologize for him? It can only be because the AMS has lost sight of the wider student body and its prominent members are only concerned with the approval of the other members of their elite clique. Alex should have the decency to explain himself to the students he purports to represent. Other AMS councilors should have the decency to treat this like the serious matter that it is. But, I don’t think either of these will happen, and the AMS will continue to be a body of exclusiveness, arrogance, and hubris.

What’s the story behind the taking of the picture?

Firstly, I’d like to point out that the razor thin vote margin is irrelevant to the issue. Firstly, Alex could not know how many votes separated him and Crompton, and second, those votes were not counted, regardless, making the results a moot point.

And second, if we are going to crucify someone for protest “cheating” that could never have worked in the first place, then I believe the issue of the VP Academic elect’s disgusting actions should be taken before student court. Damn straight this is conduct unbecoming of a student, let alone an elected member. Thanks for proving once again that the people behind the Knoll are little more than overopinionated, arrogant, egotistical breeders of douchebaggery.

Anon 11:31 – Maayan was approached by a student who happened to be in the Pit line-up and saw the photo being taken. That student then forwarded the photos to Maayan. Yes, it’s Tristan in the photos, and yes, he’s writing “Right to cheat” on posters supporting the current VP Academic. The photo was passed on to us, we were convinced that the story and the accompanying story were legitimate, and that it was relevant, so Maayan posted it.

This wasn’t a sting, this was Tristan engaging in a public protest, and a student happened to see it. That’s a risk you take when you’re an elected official in the very building you’re supposed to steward.

Pat – you’re the EA. If you’re ever called on to deal with any election involving Alex and/or Nate/Tristan, your impartiality can quite rightly be called into question. And you’ve recommended censure of a current executive. If you don’t think that damages your impartiality and perception thereof, you’re dreaming.

Everyone – below are a few thoughts I have, as someone off-campus who doesn’t really know what happened.

1) What does A-Lo have to say about this? Was voting multiple times a public protest on his part? If so, he’d be well-advised to tell us rather than leaving.

2) I respect civil disobedience. It’s an important element of democracy. But an equally important element of civil disobedience is accepting the consequence of your actions. Do they still teach Rawls? That’s kinda an important part of making your point that a particular rule is unjust.

3) Putting up “we support Alex” posters is free speech. Political expression. So is writing on them. Sure, feel free to condemn Tristan for writing on them, but if you think that the people who put the posters up in the first place are more than one degree of separation removed from an exec themselves you’re dreaming.

4) You can’t say “Alex’s multiple votes didn’t influence the outcome so it’s okay.” That’s baloney. If you accept that as true, it allows anybody to cheat as much as they want, and if they’re caught they can use the “I knew I was going to get caught” or “I only won by x votes and my cheating accounted for x-1” defenses. While they may be true, we can’t allow them to be used by people out to actually abuse the democratic system.

5) Anybody who thinks student politics at UBC is a joke isn’t wrong. But they’re wrong if they think it’s any different from the “real world.” It’s just as bad outside UBC, so let’s give student politicians a break. Real-life politicians are pretty much just as petty and immature (see Ladner v. Sullivan, Bush v. McCain).

From my place way out of the loop, it doesn’t seem to me that either side comes out with much credit.

What Alex did was naive and unprofessional, and displayed just as much contempt for the cohesion of the AMS as Tristan’s behaviour. However he felt about the EA, Brendon was still the appointed official of the organisation Alex wanted to run and it was not the place of a candidate to do something like that. I think it was a fairly minor thing (mostly just thoughtless) and he shouldn’t lose the position over it, but he certainly has only himself to blame for walking into this.

However, Alex’s story is the only one that makes an ounce of sense. Nobody seriously trying to cheat would write their own name on each of the multiple ballots. The Knoll tendency’s drive to keep the “he deliberately cheated” narrative alive is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually absent It makes them look like the kind of disgusting, opportunistic hacks that they accuse everyone else of being, and if this is going to set the tone for what they’ll do with exec power, you might as well write this year off.

I’m not sure what I think about defacing other people’s posters as a protest, but Tristan certainly has a right to speak his mind regarding the conduct of his fellow (or potentially fellow) executives. There should be no compact of silence in the AMS.

What I am curious about is why ubcinsiders reported on this incident, but not on what seems a much more significant one—the challenge to Alex’s election, and what appears to be the current executive’s preemptive decision to ignore any student court ruling (?!). Isn’t there a little “bias” here? Or perhaps I missed a posting?

Is defacing posters a bigger deal than (perhaps) rigging an election?

stephanie: defacing your ballot is doing something that makes THAT BALLOT, on its own, uncountable. Alex did not deface any ballots.

Mike – you didn’t miss a post, but the matter was covered in two articles in the Ubyssey in a fair amount of detail. there was alot of discussion on their feedback page and on facebook, so we didn’t feel it was necessary to add fuel to the fire. Personallly, I had no more information, and nothing especially insigtful to add to those discussions.

Pat is the elections administrator for the referenda. Unless Yes and No start getting involved in this, Pat should be free to say whatever he wants about anything.

The actions of the Knoll are despicable, and something needs to be done.

“We support democracy” cry the Knoll with regularity. Bullshit.

There was no cheating here, there was not any improper action by the candidate in question. I can think of no valid reason why Student Court or Council would remove the winner of an election upon which the alleged cheating had no effect whatsoever on the outcome. More people voted for Alex than anyone else. We cannot deny the people their choice, even if some people *really* *REALLY* wanted to be executives. These people need to do one of two things – support the democracy they claim to champion and halt any process that would lead to the removal of the democratically elected VP Academic, or admit that democracy is simply a convenient mask, but no strong statement of principles on their part.

Power to the people indeed – let’s let them have their choice.

Alfie and Rodrigo, you have yet to articulate any reason why you do not want the democratic will of the people to be represented in the candidate who actually holds the position. This is political power-mongering of the worst kind, and people should be ashamed to be accessories to it.

Rodrigo, perhaps you should pay better attention at council meetings. Brendon said the letter was not public, but for Council eyes only. And that it would be in Jeff’s office. And that it would not be anywhere else. So, when you walk into my office and expect it to be there, I think you may need to go back and check your notes.

Tristan in particular I single out for clearly not caring about the AMS, but rather exclusively about his own radical agenda. At lobby days, by dressing with no regard to how he will be perceived, by blatantly disrespecting MLAs who he disagreed with by reading during meetings, he shows his true colours. His respect for democracy extends only as far as the people who agree with him. BC Liberals may not be his cup of tea, but he owes them respect because they were the drink of choice for the majority of people in their district, and have things that we as a society want. By doing things like snapping at Minister Barry Penner in 2007, he compromises the relationship that we have with the ministry and the entire government. Where does Tristan think any governmental funding for sustainability intitaves in the new SUB is going to come, MARS? No, it’s the BC Liberal run Ministry of the Environment. This is merely a sampling of Tristan’s inappropriate behavior, but this poster is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Tristan should either apologize or resign.

Finally, Alex should not have to account for anyhting. He did nothing wrong. He did not vote multiple times, he was open about casting multiple ballots, and by writing his name on it, as he was required, he basically invalidated any argument that he was cheating. This partisan hate speech by the Knoll needs to end, especially since they are using student money to overthrow the democratically elected Vice President.

Hi all,

I find these sort of discussions quite informative, although I do regret that some resort to name-calling without further detailed elaboration.

Naylor, I was not referring to what anyone said in a Council meeting, but to the answer I was given when I came over to the exec offices to get a copy of the letter. Right after I talked to you in your office, I walked to the next office and got that remark. I apologize for believing our VP external would have a copy of an important piece of communication to share… and I have to say that after talking to you last night for a little bit (our longest ever conversation), I would take back my comment on your aloofness, although I must assume you do not have much to like me for. My opinion on what should be done in relation to the VP Academic race is simple: first of all, you are wrong to suggest that I do “not want the democratic will of the people to be represented in the candidate who actually holds the position”… You are exaggerating quite a bit: we had one of the lowest voter turnouts in our history, and these election results are far from representing the “will of the people” (by over 90%). The results represent the wills of those who voted, and not “the people” in general. Would they still cast the same vote after what happened? It is now up to the student court to decide. In my opinion, we should have a by-election ASAP. I think that you should take it easy, and I will try to “check my notes” more often.

I do not think you are right about Tristan not caring, but I do not speak for him nor am I responsible for his actions, although I do believe he deserves the position for which he was legitimately elected for. I would also like to point out that, even though I did participate in the Mountain of Debt protest, and have friends in the Resource Groups, I have been openly and directly critical of any ideas I find problematic, most importantly the notion that some have shown to believe, that their way is the only way that can be labeled ‘radical’, and the notion that any other movement, group, or event has to abide to someone’s single notion of what ‘radical’ means and should be implemented in student politics. Hierarchy is still everywhere, sometimes subsumed or masked.

Jesse – always fun to read your responses. Please elaborate on your ‘spin-doctor’ thesis, it sounds fascinating.

Friedrich, thank you for clearing that out. You don’t have to apologize for Brendon’s disorganized icons (although your remark was almost funny). I am looking forward to learn from your suggestions and compare them with the reforms underway at the GSS (we passed some policies recently on that regard – all our committees will now be online).

The bottom line for me is simple:
AMS politics are too polarized right now (and in the wrong terms), and I hope that the new executive will try to sort things out. If Alex remains as the new VP Academic (with or without by-elections), I hope that the new exec is able to settle personal grudges and actually work together, because there is just a lot that can and should be done, and concerted action and cooperation are more than essential. Also, as the new Vice President Services for the GSS, I will be in constant communication with the AMS executive, and the independence of my thoughts and actions from political pettiness is important (I am actually hoping to serve students’ needs if I can, and I do not believe in discounting anyone).

I am also convinced that, after speaking directly with and observing most of the people involved in these discussions, despite all grudges and rants, all politically involved students have a lot of potential to make UBC a better place, and they have been trying in their own way. I tend to resist the notion that there are ill intentioned people participating in student politics at UBC, although I hold the personal right to be openly critical of things I do not agree with. It is time to work out differences so that together we can envision a solution to student apathy, disengagement, disconnection and frustration.

If this disasterpiece taught us anything is that logic in the hands of those who don’t know what logic is, is a dangerous tool

I find myself in the curious position of agreeing totally with Matt Naylor. But a few other things:

Rodrigo – you’re a spin doctor because you tried to direct this debate away from the issue at hand, which is the obvious sabotaging of a fellow executive’s reputation. You tried to do that by bringing the debate back to Alex Lougheed’s actions without a mention of Tristan’s transgressions. That’s spin – and if you don’t call that spin, it’s a clear case of dodging the issue.

Tim – leave free speech out of this. It’s bad enough that free speech has to be invoked by people who print offensive pictures of the Muslim prophet. There are LOTS of ways to express yourself politically other than to deface posters showing support for student politicians. And even more ways to do it without driving a stake into the concept of executive cohesion.

As for your comments to Patrick, if you think he’s a robot who can’t have opinions you’re dreaming. John Gomery had no problem saying the sponsorship program had been run badly before he started his inquiry, but he had clear evidence in the form of an auditor-general’s report to back that up.

Here, we have a picture of an elected executive showing blatant disregard for his co-workers and undermining the maturity required of a position like VP Admin. If you don’t think there’s something seriously wrong with that, then YOU’RE dreaming.

Sigh… My assorted thoughts (long):

First, on Patrick commenting. If there’s a potential for a by-election, commenting on executive politics is a bit borderline. He kept his comments to someone who has been elected and is not being challenged, but in the interests of impartiality… By commenting on the conduct of our independent elections official, this paragraph may be more of a transgression than his posts. Since I’m also on the body that oversees the exec, the rest may also be a transgression, but I’ll try to be fair and respectful.

On Alex and “voting” multiple times. I’m going to assume that he put roughly four ballots in ballot boxes, as that was what I heard at the end of voting. I do not consider it cheating if you’re quite certain that it will be caught. I don’t know how many ballots Alex put in boxes, nor what names he checked off (if any) on those ballots (I’d personally check off joke candidates only, or spoil the ballot, as an extra precaution). Another thing I heard that day was that Brendan came down to complain at Alex for doing this, which suggests that he did it, but also suggests that it was caught. The complaining would only be possible because the name was included alongside the student number on the ballot. A further part of the story is that Alex found a poll that was not checking ID cards, and reported it to the elections committee.

It’s not unusual to see joke candidates openly doing this. They’re generally upfront about it, but don’t make it well known, and it seldom gets covered in the media, and it’s usually done to test or mock the system. The first time I asked for a paper ballot this year, I discovered several issues, notably around ballot secrecy. I’ve voted multiple times in several elections, and have voted in elections in which I was not eligible. In the case of one election, I concluded that my vote would actually count (I was ineligible), so instead of voting I contacted the elections administrator and he fixed the problem. I didn’t tell anyone else until the problem had been fixed. In no case have I ever cast an extra vote that I thought might be counted.

All that said, last year, running as a human, I made a point of doing absolutely nothing that could be framed as out of line or improper, to avoid having any shadow over my term of office. Alex may have been in the habit of getting up to no good as a joke candidate, but doing this as a serious candidate is something I consider a lapse in judgement. I suspect Alex has reached a similar conclusion by this point.

The fact that he’s not commenting publicly suggests to me that he takes the student court process rather more seriously than he probably should. When something is before the real courts, this sort of silence is standard. It can be infuriating, but it’s a good idea both for your own interests in the case, and to ensure the integrity (and perceived integrity) of the results. Alex has a constitutional right not to speak and for that not be considered an admission of guilt, and he probably shouldn’t be faulted for it.

I haven’t asked Alex, but my guess is that he didn’t sit at the table with the other incoming execs at the AGM out of respect for the student court process and in the interests of the executive’s ability to work together. On most such issues, Alex goes overboard on ensuring that what he’s doing does not suggest impropriety.

One further thing to point out is that the pro-Alex posters were put up, so far as I can tell, while he was in Victoria speaking with MLAs on students’ behalf. I saw him take some down. I very much doubt that he had anything to do with putting them up. I don’t think that’s been suggested, but in the fullness of time it likely would have been.

On Tristan. It’s no secret how Tristan felt. Acting on these feelings in the manner shown in the photo (possibly he too was trying to be funny?) is not exactly in the interests of executive cohesion, and raises questions around his willingness to work as a member of the executive team, rather than on his own. I’d consider it a similar lapse in judgement, which hopefully he will also regret. I’m not going to rank the lapses in judgement by seriousness.

On student court. Alex did not attend the first hearing because it was Nate vs. the elections committee, Alex was not a party, was not called on by either party, and was assured by the clerk of student court that he didn’t need to be there. Talking up student priorities with cabinet ministers is arguably more important than watching student court. In that the AMS Bylaws and Code put the onus squarely on the elections committee to prevent electoral irregularities and do not talk about punishing candidates for any such irregularities, in that the elections committee caught the multiple ballots and discarded them, and in that the result of the election would not have been materially affected, I cannot imagine that the election would be overturned.

Student court also has some power to enforce AMS Code and Bylaws, deal with complaints against students, and to strip students of Active Member status or fine them up to $10. So far as I can tell, nothing Alex is accused of doing is a violation of Code or Bylaws, although it is questionable, and the court could consider it, if such a complaint were lodged. If I were the court, I would consider fining him $10, but I don’t see this as a serious enough issue to do more than that.

Similarly, Tristan’s actions could be taken to student court, and perhaps he could also be fined. I would strongly advocate against that, as I can’t see any possible benefit. It would draw things out and add to divisions and grudges that we already risk having too many of.

I just hope this is over with quickly, so we can all move on.

–Darren

This squabbling back and forth is really unfortunate and needs to end. I think this issue has been covered quite extensively on other UBC Insiders posts and other media sources. Allowing every post to degrade into an argument over Alex’s voting integrity is hurting the credibility of this blog, in my opinion. I’m certainly sick of reading about it, that’s for sure. The student court ruling should be coming soon and hopefully that will put an end to all of this nonsense so that we can once again focus on representing students.

Rodrigo, I thank you and accept your apology. Executive division is important and not always well understood, but should be respected in all cases.

I should note that it is inappropriate to question the results of an election based on turnout. What, pray tell, what your turnout in your election as VP for the GSS? Turnout is what turnout is, and while we can look to increase it in the future, it is in no way an indication of legitimacy. The people chose Alex, and it is Alex that they should have. To imply otherwise is to question the very foundation of democracy.

Rodrigo

Sorry that I didn’t have the letter available for you. When you came to my office, I was not only in the middle of something, but Alex was also using the computer. I genuinely couldn’t find the letter at that time.

I encouraged you to email myself or Jeff so we could forward it to you. You never did. It was made clear that Jeff had a copy of the letter in his office, Jeff wasn’t there, and so you couldn’t get it right then and there.

Why is a matter of circumstance all the sudden a matter of being undemocratic and not transparent. Is that really what you think? If so, it kind of offends me, because I really don’t think I’ve done a lot this year that was untransparent.

I do believe that there were many people around the Council table who were being unprofessional in the way they were handling the EA situation, and I was encouraging people to reconsider their actions…

Brendon,
I know how busy you have been and I do appreciate you hard work. I apologize for coming across as a bit edgy.

The point of the personal anecdote is to suggest there is a systemic problem if not necessarily with ‘personal’ transparency, then with ‘institutional transparency’ when it comes to providing information to councilors and students. Public documents should be directly posted in public forums, not requested through bureaucracy. There is a way to fix it with a revision of communication protocols.

Naylor, point taken: GSS election turnout was 6%. We are thinking of ideas to implement and improve student engagement and the electoral process.

Eden, heaven can wait.
Jesse, thanks for clarifying… I have moved on to paperlessness, poster wars sounded so lame I moved on to an anecdote.

Matt, I found it ironic that you say you respect the wil of the people, when you are supporting a person who clearly defies the so-called “foudation of democracy”, which is the entire electoral process itself.

everybody has been arguing for the innocence of Alex on the ground that his vote was not counted and so did not matter. But think about it, in a way that is related to Alex’s portfolio as a VP Academic and Senator. If you don’t like a prof and think he’s unfair and incompetent. You can make a complaint to the Faculty and possibly to the Senate, but you can’t outright cheat in a blatant manner, even if you are a student who know the materials perfectly well and the cheating will not help you anyway.

In that situation, a cheating is a cheating and you will be penalized for cheating. the result is still the same. one has to be kicked out of UBC.

It seems to me that a better analogy would be handing in a report directly to the prof, then later slipping a variety of “reports” consisting entirely of stick figures under the prof’s door (with your name and student number attached). The odds are low that the stick figures would get marked, and the marks wouldn’t be added together in any case, but it might be amusing to do. The prof might get a laugh out of it, or might get annoyed with you for wasting their time. But it wouldn’t be called “cheating”, and wouldn’t result in expulsion from UBC.

Tristan Markle = What a tool:) He sure made a fool out of himself in this photo op.

Rodrigo, remember when you changed your mind after reading the Liquor Control and Licensing Act?

Perhaps now it’s time to read the
Privacy Legislation
The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_01_e.asp

Darren, that’s definitely a better analogy. The important thing to note is not that the votes didn’t get counted but that it’s unlikely that Alex wanted them to be counted in the first place.

Mike I have two and a half unrelated comments for you:

1. We should have linked the debates on the Ubyssey website, that’s true. It was complacency on my part – I made a mental note about it and then forgot. Something about being on the other side of the world…

2. Why is the Knoll.ca website not working?

3. Did the socialist forum happen?

This whole situation is quite disturbing for me and I’ve been faced with a certain unpleasant physical consequence ever since this whole ridiculous situation hit us like a train wreck.
Now, every time the thought of Tristan crosses my mind, I throw up in my mouth a little bit. Unfortunately, with the constant use of his name in this post alone, life, induced by the flavor contents of my mouth, pretty much sucks.

These actions are absolutely despicable. He’s offending not only a fellow executive, but the student body that supports Alex. Making people angry is not a good idea.

Alex had no intent of malice. Anyone who thinks he did- give me a break.

I’m starting to get sick of this non-representative student government. AMS swarmed by Knollies is NOT a true representative AMS. Their mission is not that of the general student populace, and they win because they have the media capabilities of getting the few, but the voting like minded students out on voting day.

The problem is much deeper than foolish vandalism, and accusations of cheating.
I know it’s speculation but if a better job was done of getting students interested and out to vote, Alex would have won by hundreds of votes, and none of this garbage would be wasting our time.

A lot of people who are involved in student government tend to take themselves too seriously, while a majority of students do not take student governance seriously enough. If any work is done towards turning this around, I’ll be happy.

We’re at University to have a good time, to network, to get some good experience, and to learn. Our student issues are extremely important, but honestly, actions leading me to throw up in my mouth a little bit really suck.