Month: January 2009

While I’ve been busy blogging about most of the ongoing races, I sort of let it slip from my memory that there aren’t any people running for Senate this year. It turns out that only 2 people submitted nomination forms, and as a result they automatically get seats. Currently, the available seats are being offered to this year’s Senators. I’m quite frankly astonished by this practice- rather than opening up nominations again, they have decided to simply offer the seats to people who did not apply, and who could take the seats without actually going through an election. I’m sure there’s some sort of term for this practice, but I can’t quite remember what it is right now.

[ hat tip to, and more analysis from The RBT]

I’ve got photos from Jello Wrestling here, and will have more from the last debates up later today as well as commentary on both events.

Before that, though, I should get some sleep.

Here’s a summary of the endorsements from all the different blogs!

UBC Insiders

Maria
President – 1) Blake Frederick, 2) Alex Monegro, 3) Paul Korczyk
VP Academic and University Affairs – 1) Johannes Rebane
VP Administration – 1) Kommander Keg (yes, even I’m surprised by this one) 2) Tristan Markle
VP External – 1) Tim Chu 2) Ignacio Rodriguez
VP Finance – 1) Tom Dvorak, 2) Ale Coates
Board of Governors – Michael Duncan and Andrew Carne

UBC Spectator

Kristian Arciaga

President – Alex Monegro
VP Academic and University Affairs – Johannes Rebane
VP Administration – Crystal Hon
VP External – Tim Chu
VP Finance – Tom Dvorak
Board of Governors – Bijan Ahmadian and Michael Duncan

Saša Pudar

President – 1) Blake Frederick, 2) Alex Monegro
VP Academic and University Affairs – Sonia Purewal
VP Administration – Kommander Keg, followed by Tristan Markle
VP External – Iggy Rodriguez
VP Finance – Tom Dvorak
Board of Governors – Bijan Ahmadian and Michael Duncan

Justin Yang

President – 1) Blake Frederick, 2) Alex Monegro, 3) Paul Korczyk
VP Academic and University Affairs – 1) Sonia Purewal, 2) Johannes Rebane, 3) Jeremy Wood, 4) David Nogas
VP Administration – 1) Crystal Hon, 2) Tristan Markle
VP External – TBA
VP Finance – 1) Tom Dvorak, 2) Ale Coates
Board of Governors – Michael Duncan and Andrew Carne

Stephen McCarthy (a.k.a. Serious Steve)
President – 1) Blake Frederick, 2) Alex Monegro, 3) Paul Korczyk
VP Academic and University Affairs – 1) Johannes, 2) Sonia, 3) Jeremy, 4)David

Gossip Guy (kind of endorsements in the form of photoshopped heads)

President – not yet up
VP Academic and University Affairs – Johannes Rebane
VP Administration – Crystal Hon
VP External – Tim Chu
VP Finance – Tom Dvorak
Board of Governors – Michael Duncan and Bijan

Radical Beer Tribune

President – 1) Alex Monegro, 2) Blake Frederick, 3) Paul Korczyk
VP Academic and University Affairs – 1) Johannes Rebane, 2) Sonia Purewal, 3) David Nogas, 4) Jeremy Wood
VP Administration – 1) Kommander Keg, 2) Tristan Markle, 3)Crystal Hon, 4) Water Fountain
VP External – 1) Iggy Rodriguez, 2) Tim Chu
VP Finance – 1) Tom Dvorak, 2) Ale Coates
Board of Governors – Michael Duncan and Andrew Carne

Fair Vote UBC

President – 1) Blake Frederick, 2) Paul Korczyk, 3) Alex Monegro
VP External – 1) Tim Chu, 2) Iggy Rodriguez, 3) Fire, 4) King’s Head

Will update with new endorsements as they come in.

“I hate democracy.”
– Sarina Rehal, AMS Elections Administrator 2008/09

Here are my endorsements for the election. I’m trying to have be brief in my explanations. I do have a qualm with this election- namely, there are no candidates that really stand out, or that are particularly wonderful. So overall I find these elections sort of disappointing, but I do feel like there could be a really good exec next year. If only we could combine candidates into a supercandidate…

President

My first choice is Blake Frederick, my second Alex Monegro, and my third Paul Korczyk. I feel like Blake has a stronger platform that covers more issues and lays out concrete ways in which to address them. He also has more experience in the AMS than do either of the other candidates, which means that he’ll know how to work within the constraints of the AMS and won’t have to spend as much time learning the ropes. Alex is my next choice. His platform isn’t quite as in-depth, but I think he has a fair understanding of some issues.

VP Academic and University Affairs Candidates
My endorsement for this one is Johannes. While none of the candidates really stand out for me in this election, I feel like he has the best grasp of the issues and seems to be the best for the job. His platform addresses things like first year education, and lays out ways in which tutorials and labs can be improved, partially by addressing TA teaching reforms. Other candidates do have decent platforms as well, but has particular weaknesses. Jeremy withdrew and re-entered the competition, which makes me doubt his motivation to really do a good job, although I do like his platform and dedication to his cause. Sonia has a good platform, but doesn’t work well on a team as was evidenced last year in SUS, and I’m not convinced that she’d really push the points of her platform through (plus, there are very good reasons for why we shouldn’t allow people to retake courses they do poorly in, among them things like space limitations- the university shouldn’t pander to people who are trying to get into med school, and chances are that students will do better the second time around simply based on regression towards the mean). She’s enthusiastic, but doesn’t know how things work, and I feel her platform points are generally unattainable. It sounds nice on paper, though. David Nogas also has good ideas, but I’m not sure how effective he would be in implementing them. So I feel that Johannes has the greatest number of strengths, despite his lack of experience.

VP External

I don’t particularly like either of these candidates- I’m sure they’re great people, but I don’t think either of them would be particularly great. That said, I’m voting for Tim Chu. I feel that equity is important, I feel he has more experience, and I feel that he would be better at negotating, partly because he has more tact and is less abrasive, unlike Iggy, who insulted people he would work with, and who I don’t feel would be a good team player as a result. He also doesn’t seem to care much for equity, which is problematic if he has the one to work on it. Kudos to Tim’s team for running a good campaign, as well. I do wish he’d focus on more things than equity and lowering tuition (which I’m pretty sure won’t happen). But I feel that he has the ability to learn quickly and do a good job.

VP Administration

My pick is, surprisingly, Kommander Keg. He’s said some smart things in this election. Tristan comes in second- he has the most experience, but I feel that he doesn’t connect with students. As a SUS AMS rep, he never showed up to a single meeting, for instance, and I feel that that sort of thing reflects poorly. And I’m not sure how much I trust Knollies. Crystal lacks experience, and I feel doesn’t have as good of an understanding of issues as Tristan.

VP Finance
I don’t feel like either candidate is particularly stronger than the other. Ale has more experience, Tom seems to have a better understanding of issues. Ale has little business experience and wants to focus on things like building a new used bookstore, while Tom wants to focus more on supporting businesses and earning revenue that way. I feel he has a better grasp of what the position entails. I don’t feel particularly strongly, but I feel he has just a slight edge.

Board of Governors

My picks are Andrew Carne and Michael Duncan. Andrew really knows the issues, and Mike would be a good advocate for students. Both have experience with the AMS and know how the system works, which is good. I’m impressed by Andrew’s attending BoG meetings just for interest- it shows that it’s something he’s explored, taken interest in, and that he’s willing to take initiative to find out what things are about before doing them. Bijan I feel shot himself in the foot with the Farm statement, and I don’t really trust him to represent student interests as a result. In fact, I don’t trust him at all to represent students, given his most recent shenanigans. Blake would be fine, but I don’t feel he’s as good as the other candidates. The same goes for Tristan.

I’m going to look into the student legal fund society candidates, but that’s it for now!

You can now vote at www.amsubc.ca/elections! It’s quick and easy- remember to rank you choices for candidates. Please note that you only have 2 minutes to make your selections before it times out (yes, it’s really silly). I’m a little disappointed by how little advertisement there has been of this election, and how little effort has been put in to let students know that voting is going on, and to let them know where they should go to vote (so much Webvote confusion!). Also, the last debate will be taking place today at noon in Ike Barber- please come and see the candidates one last time. I will be posting my endorsements later today. Thanks!

There was a somewhat peculiar piece of business at tonight’s AMS council meeting. Should AMS councilors be allowed to sneak into Pit Night via a back entrance after council meetings?

After receiving a number of complaints (from myself included; the Ubyssey also wrote an editorial), the AMS’s Business Operations Committee recently decided to disallow entrance to the Pit via the back door. By eliminating the greasing of palms at the back door, I hope that there will be no more motivation to keep the line at the front door unnecessarily long when the Pit is nowhere near capacity. It will also mean that money that used to go to bouncers for bribes can now be used for more beer! Good on the AMS for being responsive on this issue.

Thankfully, council found a way to fuck with it. A frivolously-worded motion was passed in 2005 outlining that at every third AMS council meeting, councilors could sign up to get preferential entrance to the Pit after the meeting. (They pass a Pit List around the room for people to sign up, then sneak them in a back entrance after the meeting is over.) At some point in time, this started occurring at every second meeting, and then at practically every meeting. Chris Diplock presented a motion tonight to rescind the not-entirely-followed 2005 motion. His motivation was quite clear: everyone should have to wait in line at the front door to get in, councilors included and that it sends the wrong message to reserve this privilege for themselves.

Surprisingly, Alex Monegro defended the practice. He argued that councilors, unlike paid staff, don’t get any renumeration for their many hours given to council. Perks, even very small ones like this, are deserved and should be kept intact. Yikes, I sure hope this is not indicative of his leadership potential.

An engineering rep also argued that being at council meetings meant missing social activities and that preferential entrance to the Pit eased that problem. The rest of the debate was either about indifference to having the Pit List/in support of equitable access.

Side note: If you are not an AMS hack (yet you read this blog, a peculiar combination), you might be amazed that something idiotic like this gets so much debate. Alas, the whole meeting went for more than 6 hours.

Unfortunately, I didn’t get a chance to speak before the question was called. The whole thing seemed like a pretty clear case of whether council wanted to put their own interests in front of those of ordinary students who just want a night out at the bar.

Major fail. In the end, council inexplicably decided to keep the Pit List intact, for them alone. I know this isn’t the first, nor the last, nor the most blatant display of self-interest, but I’m pointing it out anyways. Despite the result, I hope to never see the Pit List passed around again. I’ll be watching.

As a member of Jeremy Wood’s facebook support group (and please note: I support everyone in the elections if they have a facebook group and invite me to join it), I have received a message with the following excerpt in my facebook inbox:

Just a note: I’ve heard a lot of you saying that after me you would put Johannes Rebane as a second choice. Given the new condorcet system of ranked voting this is a dangerous choice! Johannes has a lot of his own support and unless you guys put him as your 4th preference, you’ll only be helping him out.

Now, I understand that this is an election, and that it’s being run somewhat differently. However, I fully do not support these sorts of statements. Dubbing someone a ‘dangerous choice’ simply because you don’t believe in his ideas is a bit extreme. It also makes his seem afraid of a the candidate, which I feel is a weakness- I want someone who won’t resort to these kinds of tactics in an election. For shame. Yes, there may be strategic voting involved, but what happens if you put someone competent fourth just because you’re afraid they’re your biggest competition? Biggest competition often (although not always) means that they’re a competent, capable candidate- and putting them fourth only messes up the system. Not that I think it will matter in this race.

Also, this is coming from a candidate who pulled out of the race to then come back in. I know that Kerry was a flip-flopper, but even he didn’t go to these lengths. It doesn’t say too many good things about a candidate’s motivation if they only re-enter a race because their friends/supporters told him to- it means, despite what he may say, that he lost the will to do the job and had to be encourage by people who were ideologically aligned with him to convince him to go back. I think it means that he wasn’t that firm in his stance, and that he wasn’t doing it to improve the system or represent students. If a candidate is dedicated to his/her cause, it means that they want to change the system, and their ideas are important to them, even if they’re not important to others. Someone who can’t hold his own and relies on others to persuade him to continue to run makes me worried about how he’ll react if everyone else is opposed to his ideas if he is elected- in this case, I’d be worried that he’d give up on his plans. And by “he”, I don’t necessarily mean Jeremy- I mean any candidate who is elected into a position. But it applies in this case as well.

Today’s debates were definitely the most sparsely attended, as seen here:

It’s too bad this debate was empty; I thought this was the best chance to get a feel for the candidates, since they’d had a chance to thoroughly adjust their platforms and approaches.


VFM Coordinator Mitch Wright moderated the debates, as AJ was apparently nowhere to be found. He did a capable job, once again requiring candidates to stay within their timeframe, but unfortunately continuing the tendency to disallow actual debate.

First up were the presidential candidates:

After a week of speaking, I felt that they were (finally) on top of their game. Blake’s core message was, as Naylor put it, “I am experienced and not crazy”, a far cry from his fiery showing at the first debate (which he tempered with an interesting personal anecdote about familial and socioeconomic barriers to university). Alex moved away from his earlier focus on facilitation and team leadership (which are, admittedly, an important part of the role) and opened with commentary on education and engagement. Paul retained and reiterated his desire to communicate and lead via consultation.

Paul clings to his outsider status, and resultantly I still don’t understand how proclaiming your lack of operational and institutional knowledge of the society you aim to lead can be spun as a positive. The AMS is a complex and occasionally infuriating organization to work with and/or for, and every day on the job spent learning the ropes is a day that could’ve been spent getting the job done. Michael Duncan’s immense knowledge of both people and procedure within the Society allowed him to very effectively use his time in office and I don’t see Paul being able to carry that forward.

As I’ve watched more debates and read through more material, I’ve come around to liking Alex more. I spent a year as the President’s Assistant, allowing me to see a lot more of the daily happenings in the Executive Offices than most people, and with that in mind Alex’s focus on teambuilding and stress on inter-Executive relations while maintaining personal goals and focus items seems both achievable and sensible. While nothing he’s said struck me as particularly soundbite-worthy, Alex has a good grasp on the challenges ahead of him. His platform as presented doesn’t really say anything, which is sort of strange.

I like a lot of what I hear from Blake, but I don’t know how much of it is possible. It’s clear that he isn’t afraid to play politics, although his occasional tendency to trip over himself could cost him in heated discussions. Blake has a lot of institutional knowledge from his years as AVP Academic and AVP External, but I’m unsure of his abilities to shape a team from a group of people who had just emerged from the concentrated antagonism of elections. Combine with his desire to run for Board and his singular approach to peculiar difficulties of doing either job, let alone both, and I’m left standing in the “damnit Blake you’d be a shoo-in for VPX” camp.

The other debate today was for the two Board of Governors seats:

from left to right we have: Bijan Ahmadian, Tristan Markle, Michael Duncan, Andrew Carne, and Blake Frederick.

Bijan remains mired in his farm endorsement trading scandal. When pressed, he gave basically the same statement as was sent to the VFMs yesterday, and when Serious Steve asked him if he was, right now, committed to the Farm in its current size and location, he demurred and said that he would need to learn more about the farm before making a decision. I’m also curious about his workload; as a combined JD/MBA student, Bijan is taking 131 credits of graduate study over four years (per the Sauder MBA/JD website) to complete two professional programs simultaneously that are far from easy on their own. Frankly, I find it hard enough to make time for everything I do as an undergrad and have serious doubts as to whether Bijan would be able to work out all his commitments, or if something will give (and what that will be.)

Tristan continues to underline the importance of the SUB Renew project, and also uses it as a pivot to increase student engagement and empowerment on campus. His BoG projects intersect with his reelection plans in the VP Admin spot, and while he did suffer a bit of platform overlap (collision?) with Michael Duncan, he was able to stand out from the pack of other candidates. Bijan attempted to lay blame for the freeze in negotiations on SUB Renew since November at Tristan’s feet, but Tristan was able to explain how it was a necessary tactic and one approved by council (as per Naylor) but Tristan let slip some items that were discussed in camera which is unwise in the best case and litigatable in the worst.

Mike presented a lot of successes from his Presidency and some goals for his BoG term. As mentioned above, he’s had a strong year in office and wants to carry that momentum forward, along with his experience with multiple levels of administration and unique ability to engage. I hope he doesn’t show up at BoG painted blue.

Actually, no. I hope he does; I just want to see what would happen.

Andrew was unable to make it to the first debate due to his involvement at the Western Engineering Championships in Regina. He provided a strong showing at this debate, informing students of his attendance of Board meetings out of personal interest for the past 1.5 years, his plans to more effectively communicate about the Board to students, and demonstrating the strong, informed voice he wants to bring to the Board to represent students.

Blake’s BoG plans dovetail neatly with his Presidential ones, which led to a question about how he plans to balance the workload and focus of both roles. The question didn’
t really get an answer, which was disappointing; while Blake did point to Jeff Friedrich (President+BoG 2007-08) as an example, there were no ways or means given. Blake did, again, temper his speech from previous debates, choosing to focus on development and Farm issues rather than his prior goals of reforming governance and changing the way students are seen by administrators. I can’t tell if he’s worried about claims of idealism or if it’s a simple rethinking; either way it’s a lot less interesting.