Due to a hole in WordPress, this post’s author is misattributed. The follow was written by Maayan Kreitzman.

The world has gone mad. I don’t check comments for one day while working on a paper, and when I return there’s a frenzy! Anyway. There’s plenty of discussion in the below post about any and all aspects of this controversy. I want to zoom out and offer a few things we can take away from this episode.

1. Elections code needs to be tightened up: get rid of the ambiguity about 1 person 1 vote. Is the onus on the elections committee to ensure this, or is every person only allowed to cast one ballot, or both? Is there a functional difference between a cast ballot, and a counted vote? These are extremely easy to clarify.

2. Student Court should have its own appeals process, and its ruling should not have to be approved by council automatically, unless council specifically wants to call something in in order to overrule it (akin to a notwithstanding clause). AMS council should have a more defined role vis-a-vis the court – is it just an “advisory body” as some say, or is a real “independent judiciary“?

3. The AMS is vulnerable to cronyism, terrible PR, and political/personal motivations. Fact of life that ain’t going away

4. On the other hand, AMS council will, (maybe even when they technically should not) make decisions that best serve students – in this way, councilors are actually fairly enlightened. This decision is an example: a lot of councilors I talked to made their decisions on the basis of what would make the AMS most functional and best for students this year. Though you can make legalistic arguments for either side here, I defy anyone to claim that disqualifying Alex over this and then running a by-election in the middle of exams, or in September would best serve students. Or worse, that running a petition (as Nathan Crompton is currently doing) to get Alex impeached will ultimately serve students best.

5. Code is important. Procedure is important. Communication and honesty is important. When process falls down, the real issue is that much harder to tease apart and evaluate. An example here is that while the case was actually “Crompton vs. Elections Administrator,” Alex Lougheed was the one being essentially judged. All sorts of bad communication and confusing processes occurred as a result.

    Now, lets all move on, shall we?


    44 Comments so far

    1. Anonymous on March 31, 2008 6:30 am

      Dearest Maayan,

      On behalf of the students of UBC and the AMS, I reject your urgings to move on. To put things behind us in such a fashion would be far too intellectual, elitist, and civilized. We don’t roll that way at UBC.

      So, without further ado, let the faeces hurling re-commence with all the previous self-righteous vigour!

    2. Sunshine on March 31, 2008 6:47 am

      I agree. I think we should continue on bickering. Screw working on constructive projects when we can burn time arguing over rhetoric, code, and policy!

      – Sonja

    3. Anonymous on March 31, 2008 7:37 am

      The Wreath Underground does not like sarcasm.


    4. Sunshine on March 31, 2008 8:04 am


      Bahaha.. that’s all I have to say about the Wreath Underground.

    5. Matthew Naylor on March 31, 2008 8:04 am

      Fun fact: If you are visiting the UBC Library webpage then stop for letters in to check UBC-I obsessively at 2AM (where I am), you will end up at the Wikipedia article for Lithium Bromide.

    6. Tahara on March 31, 2008 3:06 pm


      I just want to say you’ve hit the nail on the head – also working on a paper this wknd, I’ve stayed out of this….this….(well there’s really no word to describe it now is there), but I can resist no longer.

      Council made a decision, which, as a councilor, I might add, was very difficult to make, and I think we honestly acted in the best interests of the society; say what you will about respecting a neutral 3rd party ruling (which actually overturned another neutral, 3rd party ruling…quite the conundrum) but the way our code is set up, we have that authority, and believe me, we did not exercise it lightly.

      This decision came as a result of the way our code is written regarding student court – if you have a problem with it, join the code and policy committee and make your views heard. But for now, please, enough. We need to get back to work on stuff like Transit, student financial aid, and housing. Stop for a second and think about really, what the mandate of the AMS is, cause right now, we’re not even close to fulfilling it, which makes me wonder why I’m even involved(for those of you who know me, that last statement should make people realize just how far this has really gone)

      -Tahara Bhate, Science Rep

    7. Anonymous on March 31, 2008 3:53 pm

      I think its fair that Councilors (or supporters of Council’s decision) want to move on…

      BUT, I also think its unfair to characterize those who don’t support the decision (on the merit of throwing out an impartial student court ruling) as somehow trying to undermine the AMS’ ability to get more important things done (or as many suggest in snarky, sarcastic remarks, as whiney, needless bickering and a whole host of other unfair characterizations of people).

      There are some efforts out there right now that are attempting to tell Council that students don’t approve of Council’s actions. Are you actually going to just hastily pass that off and ignore it becuase its inconvenient to you? Because it challenges your decisions?

      Two pieces of advice for those Councilolrs who have been responding (mostly anonymously) throughout this debate: its a good thing people are involved and care in what’s going on at the AMS. Its a perfectly reasonable thing for your constituents to be upset about, and that students take their role in ensuring accountability in Council seriously. And as Maayan’s post says, this issue raised some really important and fundamental questions about the AMS.

      So, those hasty and snarky remarks to just “move on” so that the pressure will be off those who made a bad decision isn’t helping AMS address the important issues either (like the role of student court, accountability, checks and balances, and electoral integrity).

    8. Anonymous on March 31, 2008 7:24 pm

      I think the biggest problem with not moving on isn’t that some people want to keep harping on the issue.

      The problem is who some of these people are: Stef and Tristan. They are agents of the AMS and as such have a duty to AMS Council to accept its will. Regular students and regular Councillors have no such duty.

      A rank bitterness will linger in the air for quite some time, to be sure. But when you have two executives actively campaigning the destruction of a third executive in an open defiance of the will of AMS Council (their boss), you have a bad situation.

      Thus, I would strongly encourage some strong words to be said to that effect.

      Should Stef and Tristan be actively pursuing the “impeach” Lougheed campaign? Does their doing so constitute a violation of their duty as Executives?

      Should they be held to task for it?

    9. Omid Javadi on April 1, 2008 1:53 am

      I completely agree Maayan. The debate is over and the point is moot. I’m disgusted with the actions of Nate, Tristan, and Stefanie. These people should know better and understand what affect this is having on the student society and the students’ perception of council.

      Tristan and Stefanie have to work with Alex, yet they’re being so incredibly childish when it comes to this matter. They’re only further expanding the rift on the AMS executive. When they were elected, they took on a responsibility to serve the students as best they can. They are failing magnificently in their role right now. I can not believe the sheer inanity of their actions.

    10. Anonymous on April 1, 2008 2:26 am

      Why don’t we leave exec dynamics up to the exec to deal with? All five of them are perfectly able to work through their tensions and differences, and I don’t think its any of our business.

      Tristan and Stef aren’t the only ones who are working on the petition effort. In fact, they don’t have a whole lot to do with, except that they’re supporting it. And don’t assume that their efforts are directed at Alex – if you’re disgusted with their actions, go talk to them about it, and you can see what their issue is.

      And don’t blame protestors of Council’s decision for ruining the perception of Council/the AMS. Council can take 100% responsibility for that one.

    11. Anonymous on April 1, 2008 4:58 am

      The petition, honestly, has no chance of accomplishing anything.

      At best, it’s naive but honest attempt at ‘grassroots democracy’ or whichever buzzword we’re using this week. At worst, though, it’s a pretty transparent smear campaign, feeding a grossly distorted version of the events to as many students as possible while playing the Crompton/Knoll bloc as the earnest underdog. Frankly, I think it’s the latter – we’ve certainly seen it isn’t above them to pull this kind of underhanded tactic.

      Give it up, guys. Nobody likes a sore loser. It’s been said many times, but I’ll say it again – as soon as we stop arguing about this, we can get back to all the relevant issues the AMS should still be worrying about.

    12. Steven Klein on April 1, 2008 6:09 am

      People sign the petition of their own free will and if they feel like the account contained in it is one-sided can choose not to until they find more information. The description of the events is accurate, even if it does not present the justifications given by various AMS Councilors for overturning Student Court’s decision. Furthermore, it will in fact “accomplish something”, which is for AMS Council to abide by the spirit (and perhaps word) of their own code and bylaws in pushing back against a culture that trivializes tampering with an election. If over 1000 signatures are collected, which will surely happen in the next day or two, the AMS will be required to hold a referendum about AMS Council’s decision not to overrule student court, quite a serious outcome. And let’s be honest: the petition would not be having such success if the actions of AMS Council did not register as clearly wrong for the vast majority of students who hear about it.

    13. Omid Javadi on April 1, 2008 6:40 am

      I’m curious as to how actively supporting a petition to recall a fellow executive is not an action directed against that executive.

      Absolutely the executive should deal with their differences. So why aren’t they? All Stef and Tristan are doing is forcing a situation in which there are opposing factions within the executive. A warring executive is not an effective one.

      I can not and will not blame people who are unfoundedly upset with and oppose the decision made by Councillors fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to the students by rejecting a nonsensical and harmful ruling from an ill informed body. I will however blame those who are calling this the greatest scandal the AMS has ever seen, who are supporting a petition that will do absolutely nothing, and who are spreading disinformation for bringing down the name of the AMS. Grow up and move on. Regain what little respect is available for you.

    14. Anonymous on April 1, 2008 6:42 am

      Just out of curiosity, since I have not seen the petition, when is it intended that this recall referendum be held?

    15. Steven Klein on April 1, 2008 7:41 am

      Fortunately, Omid, I am not searching for your respect, nor, I am guessing, are those organizing the petition. The goal of the petition is to make AMS Council realize how outrageous their decision was. The majority of students value fair independent elections, even if they happen late in the year, more than chimeras like executive unity.

      For anyone with an ounce of common sense, what AMS Council did was way out of line. From my understanding, there is no precedent of AMS Council overturning an Elections Administrator decision appeal, and it is not even clear in code that they had the power to. The momentum of the petition reflects how easy it is for students to recognize this.


      The petition calls for a referendum to be held if AMS Council does not vote to receive Student Court’s decision. The petition would have had to have been submitted yesterday for the referendum to have occurred in April. As it stands, a referendum, if necessary, would have to happen in September. I would think that if that were the prospects Lougheed would resign his position. And to be clear: the referendum would not be a recall, which has its own distinct rules. It would be asking if the AMS should accept Student Court’s ruling and disqualify Lougheed from the VP Academic race.

    16. Anonymous on April 1, 2008 8:43 am

      Lougheed hasn’t quit yet. I don’t quite see how a petition signed by a small fraction of the total students on the campus, calling for a referendum that would probably attract an even smaller percentage of the student body, would convince him to do so.

    17. Jesse Ferreras on April 1, 2008 9:02 am

      You do realize that if such a referendum were to happen, the campaign to get students to vote would just expose them to the flame war the AMS has turned into. It would likewise alienate students who want to get involved in the AMS in their first month at UBC.

      Some can see some the good that could come of this, while others see Nate Crompton and his cronies for exactly what they are: soldiers in an unfettered quest for power who aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty.

      Normally when someone is accused of being power-hungry they take a step back. Not Crompton – every action he has carried out up to now has validated every word I wrote in my tirade against the Knolligarchy. Its campaign of truthiness and misinformation clearly continues.

    18. Anonymous on April 1, 2008 4:19 pm

      “For anyone with an ounce of common sense, what AMS Council did was way out of line.” Then clearly, I am insane.

      Steven, you continue to be woefully confused on the reasons why Council decided not to hear the decision: it was a botched witch hunt that had no place in a legitimate governing body with any iota of self-respect.

      This was not an appeal against the EA. It was a hearing on the actions of Alex Lougheed. Yet, somehow, it was held not to be a disciplinary hearing. What a joke.

      Also, you continue to compare the student court to some sort of real court. I’m sorry, but outside the label of “court”, there is no similarity. To continue to harp on how it was well informed and made an intelligent decision is simply a refusal to look at facts. Maybe you don’t like facts that don’t suit your political/personal inclination though, but in that case, you’re just dishonest.

      Lastly, and lets not forget, most importantly: who won the AMS 2008 VP Academic and University Affairs Election?

      You keep talking about respecting democracy, the election process, the decisions of the voters, yet you’re blatantly trying to avoid doing just that.

      Alex Lougheed won. There is no question as to that. The EA had no doubt. The Elections Committee had no doubt. The student court was informed of this. Yet, here you are trying to sabotage the entire election because of your belief that Nate should be in office and not Alex.

      Truly, this is shameful. The petition is shameful. The people running it are shameful and dishonest. And the list goes on and on.

      Its not the AMS that makes me sick about student politics. Its people like you Steven. You and Nate Crompton, and your tight and small group of friends that are so deep in your little group-think mentality that nothing on Earth can snap you out of it.

      We get it Nate. You wanted to win REALLY badly. But you didn’t. Alex won. It has been explained to you a thousand times that no matter what he did, the RESULT was NOT affected.

      This entire episode is truly revulsion-inducing. To think that a small and dedicated group of propagandists , can cause this sort of damage to an organization such as the AMS, not to mention Alex, by spreading lies, half-truths, and ill-conceived rhetoric is truly disheartening.

    19. Anonymous on April 1, 2008 4:20 pm

      People aren’t signing the petition of their own free will if RAs are going around and bullying their wards into signing it. The whole petition is tainted, not that it was anything but a hatchetjob in the first place.

    20. Anonymous on April 1, 2008 5:06 pm

      Wait… RAs? As in, Advisiors? The people who run Vanier and Totem and Gage and etc?

      You’ve got to be joking. Tell me you’re joking. If not, list some names. Give some proof. I would like to know who these RAs are so that I could go talk to them. They are in a position of power and cannot abuse it like that.

    21. Anonymous on April 1, 2008 6:09 pm

      Yes, RAs as in Residence Advisors. One of them at least.

    22. Anonymous on April 1, 2008 7:20 pm

      Which residence? Which RA? (If they are going to do that, I can’t see a reason to respect their anonymity.)

    23. Anonymous on April 1, 2008 7:54 pm

      I’m not going to publish the name and residence on this blog page at this time

    24. Omid Javadi on April 1, 2008 7:57 pm

      Steven, you are mistaken if you think I was offering respect to you and those like you. You neither deserve nor would I give you my respect.

      How was Council’s decision outrageous? Have you ever been elected to a position on any student council? You have a complete and utter misunderstanding of the responsibilities associated with being an AMS Councillor. You sit on Council to serve students and their interests, I do not need to say this again. Furthermore, you have a complete misunderstanding of what students want; they barely care about these elections, they just want someone to look out for their interests. My four years of experience with the EUS and the AMS has taught me this. I question what you base your knowledge of student values off of.

      You assume that the appointed Student Court is neutral and essentially infallible, and the elected Student Council is filled with ill informed, biased cronies. The Student Court ruling was completely irrational and with basis, and the decision by Council was to reject a decision harmful to the student body.

      Do you really think Alex would step down? Why should he? So that the AMS would lose one of its most valuable and busiest executives for the busiest time of the year? No, he’s far smarter than that.

      I really can not continue this argument since there is no point. You’re not listening, and I honestly don’t care to listen to what you’re saying either. You haven’t presented a single proper counter argument, and this is a waste of my time.

    25. Bruce on April 1, 2008 8:48 pm

      If the ‘Student Court’ is to be merely an advisory body to Council, then it’s name should definitely be changed. Politicians overuling a court decision sounds REALLY BAD.

    26. Steven Klein on April 1, 2008 10:45 pm


      Well, I may be wrong, but I have a higher opinion than you of what students want from their representatives. While of course they want a functional, working exec, I think they also want that exec to be elected as free from scandal and suspicion as possible. I also think many students, when they hear what Alex Lougheed did, have a hard time sympathizing with the “protest voting” argument and see it as a form of tampering with an election in which he was a candidate. This casts a shadow over the entire AMS. Appealing the the EA’s decision to Student Court was perfectly reasonable, and probably a lot of people’s lives would be easier right now if they had ruled that the EA was right not to disqualify Alex. But that’s not what they decided, and there was nothing unreasonable (which was always going to be contentious) in their ruling or unfair in the procedure.

      This is where things start getting bizarre. AMS code is set up to keep running the elections at arms length from the elected council. Nothing surprising there. In fact, normally AMS Council would have no say over an elections appeal. Because of ambiguity in the code or maybe even a misinterpretation, they treated this one the same as a regular student court ruling and voted to overturn it.

      I think some councilors had perfectly legitimate reasons for doing this, and I sympathize with their arguments. Yes, it would be inconvenient to have a by-election so late in the year. Yes, this would only push voter turnout lower. Other councilors, in my opinion, did not act on such enlightened reasons, or at least mixed them with personal animosities and the like.

      But even given all that, I think it would be in the best interest of the AMS to hold a new election. This is first and foremost because it is the right thing to do. We shouldn’t leave behind the importance of having elections without a cloud of suspicion and cheating hanging over them. Having a new election would demonstrate several things: that the AMS takes Student Court, which is meant to be the “final interpreter” of AMS Code and Bylaws, seriously, and that the AMS takes the elections process itself seriously.

      Its unfortunate that this issue has become so polarizing. Some of the polarization was there already and reflects a divide between students who think the AMS should be a broader political body and those who think it should stick closely to “issues that effect students” narrowly interpreted. But some of it is new, and that is not good. However, I still see my position as a principled one, touching on the basic democratic legitimacy of the AMS, and yours as an expedient one, letting these problems slip away so the AMS can get “back to business”. My feeling of holding the principled position is only added to with the knowledge that Nathan Crompton wouldn’t be running in any by-election. And I take the principles at stake seriously enough (maybe too seriously) to feel a petition is warranted.

    27. Lucas Guimaraes Pinheiro on April 2, 2008 6:25 am

      Dear Anonymous,

      I am a Residence Advisor in Place Vanier and these allegations against one of my co-workers, if veracious, shock me and appall me for three reasons:

      Firstly because I believed, perhaps wrongfully if these allegations are correct, that I was the only Advisor standing up for democracy and integrity in the AMS by circulating a petition for a VP Academic by-election. It is a shame that this other person “abused” of their “power” in the process, however, I would like to know his or her name so I can 1) take appropriate action against his or her “abuse” and 2) ask him or her where this “power” comes from, because, as an RA, I have yet to see it.

      This leads me to the second reason for my surprise: the so-called “position of power”. If these allegations are correct, the full benefits of this position have been omitted from me for the term of my contract as an Advisor. Since I treat my residents as my equals, I convey nothing less than the respect and dignity they deserve as students of this university. Unlike my co-worker under these serious accusations, I have never “abused” of my “power” simply because I have never regarded this position as one of “power”. If there is “power” involved in being an RA I believe that, if anything, we should protest for better wages, especially if these powers entail the ability to persuade residents to sign a petition they disagree with. If as Advisors we have the power to manipulate and overrule the freewill of others, then I wouldn’t be surprised to see Stephen Harper as an Advisor next year.

      Finally, the third reason for my surprise is disappointment. It is shameful that a member of the Residence Life staff is going around using his or her ability to manipulate freewill. Now that I found out about this power, I believe that it should not be used in anyway whatsoever. This actually frightens me since I am in constant interaction with Advisors. I wonder how many times I have been subjected to this manipulation. Did I actually want milk in my coffee this morning or did an Advisor manipulate my decision? I hope I haven’t chosen to endorse democracy and integrity under the manipulation of a malicious Resident Advisor.

      Therefore Mr./Mrs./Miss/Dr. Anonymous, I urge you to please share with me the identity of this abusive Advisor, I would like to confront him or her in person and immediately, as this “bullying” is completely unethical and unacceptable, I just hope that he or she does not manipulate my freewill and make me think otherwise. Actually, I am curious now, in the event of an Advisors vs. Advisor freewill-manipulation battle what will happen? Will we need a Residence Coordinator to settle the dispute? I guess we will find out if you tell me who this Advisor is.

      I honestly believe you will tell me who this Advisor is based on my assumption that you will be less reluctant to reveal someone else’s identity than you are to reveal your own. Therefore, if you would like to reveal his or her identity privately we could, perhaps meet for a drink somewhere and you could tell me then. This would also be a great opportunity for me to tell you about this petition that is circulating for an AMS VP Academic by-election; you can sign it if you agree with it, despite my role of power and so-called ability to manipulate freewill. This brings me to my next point, do you like chai? I know a great place on Broadway (please note that this is just a suggestion, I’m not trying to deprive you from your freewill).

      See you soon, until then I’ll work to find my manipulating powers.

      Lucas, an Advisor who has yet to find his “power”.

    28. Anonymous on April 2, 2008 6:29 am

      Well that was weird.

    29. Anonymous on April 2, 2008 7:16 am

      If you’re talking about the T place, well it’s too pricey.

      Does anyone else find it incredibly ironic that on one side you have people arguing that incoming AMS Councillors were bullied, cajoled, and ‘deprived of their free will’ in voting at Student Council, while on the other you have an argument that being an RA makes you just like all the other residents and in no way grants you undue position to exercise any influence over them?

      It’s just a thought.

    30. Steven Klein on April 2, 2008 7:51 am

      “Does anyone else find it incredibly ironic that on one side you have people arguing that incoming AMS Councillors were bullied, cajoled, and ‘deprived of their free will’ in voting at Student Council, while on the other you have an argument that being an RA makes you just like all the other residents and in no way grants you undue position to exercise any influence over them?”

      Yes, to a certain extent. I’m inclined to say that in both cases individuals acted freely, and this means that the every AMS Councilors are clearly responsible for their terrible decision. However, it does seem to me that the caucus system increases groupthink and conformity among the councilors from each caucus.

    31. Anonymous on April 2, 2008 8:12 am

      Its only terrible in your eyes because you didn’t win. You are a crew of very bitter jerks who claim to want democracy but seem to lust only after power, masked all the while under the guise of being “pro-student”.

    32. Steven Klein on April 2, 2008 8:18 am

      My God, how many times have I been called a jerk by some random anonymous poster? Give me a break. Calling for an election to be held where none of the candidates break the rules is not “power mongering”. Saying that when those rules are broken, the ruling of the body that is meant to make the final decision should be respected is not “power mongering”. And if you want to argue with that, how about you take some responsibility for what you say.

    33. Anonymous on April 2, 2008 8:47 am

      It is quite a shame that people will keep launching personal attacks against students who are informed about the corruption and collusion, apart from the kindergarden mentality that characterizes the AMS council, and some of its exec.

      The entire AUS caucus should be impeached, as well as Mr. Lougheed, who cheated in a democratic election.

      People are still believing that because the results did not change that we should approve the act of casting multiple ballots for oneself:(remember that in the lowest turnout of AMS history, Lougheed got a fraction of those votes). To approve of a dishonest act is moral suicide for an organization like the AMS.

      As far as the referendum goes, please take a closer look at the bylaws, and realize that students who care about democracy and who want to take action should do.

      It is sad to see how some people have incorporated such a strong sense of hierarchy that they believe that kicking a cheater out would hurt the AMS whereas, in fact, keeping a cheater and a colluding council will damage the reputation of the organization beyond repair, especially with the University administration.

      To believe that kicking Mr. Lougheed out of his position for his backdoor cheating will bring AMS to a stall is beyond ridiculous. Let it be known that most of the job is performed by hired staff, including actually competent managers. The AMS won’t collapse if Mr. Lougheed had the dignity to step down and take responsibility for his dishonesty; the AMS has a lot of money coming in every year, and no matter how problematic and incompetent its exec, the money will keep on coming and the managers will keepon doing their jobs as the execs will change.
      Didn’t Naylor let down the VFM elections last year and screwed it all up? What happened? He got elected to become again an AMS councilor for Arts and told their disciples how to vote to ensure a future in AMS politics.

      As to attacking RAs for standing up for what students feel is right, all I can say is that some people are scared shitless of being held accountable for their dishonesty and sabotage of the electoral system and principles of democracy; and when they realized that people would readily sign a petition that calls for honesty and accountability, and that students felt passionate about it, they freak out and launch the most ridiculously laugh-worthy accusations.

      and Mr. Academic,
      do what is right, and step down!

      -Johnathan Strong

    34. Anonymous on April 2, 2008 7:41 pm

      yay for hypocrisy. When your side does it, its valiantly standing up for whats right, and when the side your against does it, its groupthink and intimidation tactics.

    35. Anonymous on April 2, 2008 8:54 pm

      Yay for hypocrisy indeed:

      So it is not considered wrong for Naylor to go around telling people how to vote, and it is wrong for an RA to circulate a petition.

      Some of these anonymous comments are pathetic at best. Keep up the lousy argumentation, you just keep on proving how blinded by partisanship are those who believe a cheater should be a VP representing students!

      -Matthew S.

    36. Anonymous on April 2, 2008 9:14 pm

      Lucas, did you not go door to door with the SDS petition?

    37. Matthew Naylor on April 2, 2008 10:42 pm

      I’m just going to point out that the Elections Committee is responsible for running VFM, not the Turbo Democracy (Rules) Committee. I was a CANDIDATE in that election, so I couldn’t have helped run the contest. The rules were all I was involved with.

    38. Anonymous on April 3, 2008 4:22 am

      The president should ask Lougheed to resign. It will be a long year for the exec with this scandal hanging over their heads.

    39. Anonymous on April 3, 2008 7:23 am

      I think the point was this:
      It can’t be unethical for Naylor to convince people and for it to be ethical for an RA to do so.

      If you’re going to call Naylor a sleezbag, scumbag, etc, you need to apply those terms to Pinheiro as well. If you’re not going to do that (unlike some people), you’ll still have to look at the power relationship that exists between an Ra and his residents.

      This relationship does not exist between fellow Councillors. One can clearly see how an RA isn’t quite on the same level as a ordinary resident and may thus be seen as having undue influence over them.

      Again, ultimately, its a free choice thing, but I would think that a superior* soliciting people would be far worse, morally speaking, than an equal doing so.

      * – I know its not quite the right word, but its adequate. RAs have direct power over their residents in the form of being able to report them for assessment, issue warnings, and generally be a pain (esp. near quiet hours and exam hours).

      Its not too much, but its still inappropriate for a RA to be soliciting votes for the petition amongst his residents (especially if he were on-duty). Outside of residence though, I’d think would be fine.

    40. Anonymous on April 3, 2008 9:39 am

      An RA is, first of all a student.
      The same standard should apply for Naylor and Pinheiro. Naylor was a previous VP, is linked to Canadian political parties, and has a lot of influence. Some of the Arts councils who were accused of just following Naylor came back to protest that they can form their own opinions; the same goes to residents: they are equally as intelligent and can very well also form their own opinions. The problem with this case is: it is very hard to convince anyone that a cheater who was caught cheating and found guilty should keep a position that should be unblemished ethically after such a scandal. Most of the people agree that if he had the courage and if he could foresee how much criticism the AMS will suffer for keeping a dishonest person in office, he would have immediately stepped down and ran again. The fact of the matter is that the VP Academic likes hiding behind his friends, including the dissenting judge he had helped appoint to be a judge of the student court in the first place.


    41. Anonymous on April 3, 2008 4:04 pm

      Did you just accuse Alex of appointing Colin to student court? Where in the 7 seven seas did you fish that one out of?

      At this point, it seems that you’re basically accusing anyone of anything you think will be able to make them look bad.

      It was Brendon (previous VP Academic) who chose and appointed student court along with his committee (though they probably didn’t make quorum). Also, he’s one of the people who’s most against student court’s decision. So any allegation of pro-Lougheed bias on student court selection is a bad joke.

      Yes, an RA is a student. But he is ALSO an RA. You can be both and its not an exclusive thing.

      Lastly, if you are honestly going around with a petition telling people that “it is very hard to convince anyone that a cheater who was caught cheating and found guilty should keep a position that should be unblemished ethically”, then you are simply dishonest. That is not the truth and that’s a fact. Even if it were, for you to be going around telling people JUST that and ignoring all the complexities and nuances of the situation is still dishonest.

      Many people continue to maintain (and not just close personal friends of Alex) that he did nothing wrong and did not cheat.

      But, way to go! Keep up the half-truths and mis-information! It’s really landing credibility to your cause(s)!

    42. Anonymous on April 3, 2008 6:24 pm

      Err… Brendon is against Student Council’s decision to overturn Student Court.

      That’s my mistake in phrasing.

    43. Anonymous on April 4, 2008 1:10 am

      AMS, yuck.

    44. Anonymous on April 4, 2008 3:06 am

      I support the AMS rulling of the Student Court. I want lougheed to stay as VP so we can move on! So please show you want the same and let’s move on, this is not a personal vendetta. For God’s sake stop attacking the RA and Naylor! These are only allegations. Let’s grow up and move on

    Name (required)

    Email (required)


    Speak your mind

    Spam prevention powered by Akismet