Month: January 2009

Response by Jason Ng to the statement made by AMS Candidates:

Several AMS elections candidates recently issued a statement claiming that we did not speak with them prior to issuing our endorsements for this election.

The International Business Club reviewed all the candidates’ platforms, including those of the 6 candidates who issued the statement. Their platforms, as well as detailed discussion of them, are available online through their websites, Facebook groups, and through the AMS elections blogs.

We did not claim that we spoke with all of them. If the original wording on this page was misleading for the candidates, we sincerely apologize.

Our post on this page has been updated to clarify our position.

Best regards,

The International Business Club Team

Jello wrestling is happening tomorrow (Wednesday), contrary to the day listed in the poll. I would encourage y’all to come out and support Science week, even if you aren’t science students. Perks include free entertainment, watching live wrestling, and potentially (and hopefully) seeing some of the AMS candidates duke it out in the ring. I mean, pool. Of Jello. It will be awesome.

[edited to add: I’ll be there! Say hello? -gerald]

I recently received an emailed statement made by some of the candidates running in this election. The statement is as follows:

The following represents a joint statement by Blake Frederick, Paul Korczyk, David Nogas, Sonia Purewal, Iggy Rodriguez, and Jeremy Wood:

Recently, the International Business Club elected to endorse a number of candidates for Executive positions in the AMS races, claiming that their “executive team has reviewed the platforms and spoken with the various AMS candidates.” This is blatantly false. None of the candidates who signed their names here were contacted by the International Business Club. It should be noted that our complaint is not specifically with the individuals the club chose to endorse, but rather, the misrepresentation of the process as one involving an inclusive review complete with candidate interviews. In theory, there is nothing wrong with endorsing, or not endorsing candidates simply on the basis of their public statements and platforms, but it should be made clear what the process applied entailed. Students deserve to know the true nature of the process that is used to choose candidates for endorsement. Endorsements are a powerful tool for expressing particular viewpoints, but when they are issued claiming due diligence when none was done, their legitimacy must be called into question. We do not wish to attack the club, the candidates they endorsed, or their ability to issue endorsements. We seek to provide transparency of the process used to students through this joint statement, so that they will be informed as to the dishonesty used by the executive of the International Business Club when describing the methods utilized to determine candidates to endorse.

Now, I’m not sure if the club ever said that they interviewed those specific people- simply that they had “spoken with the various AMS candidates”. I understand how this may be misleading, however. My question is, however- do endorsements make a difference? I would argue that they might in an important election (for instance, I felt that Powell’s endorsement of Obama was significant- not statistically, but you know what I mean). But on a campus of several tens of thousands of students, most of whom don’t even know who most of the candidates are, let alone the endorsers, it seems like it wouldn’t actually play that big of a role. If you look at who tends to vote, and how they make up their minds, I find that most people either rely on those more knowledgeable than them to give them advice, or they may go and read candidates’ platforms/read blogs/go to debates, or they may be told by candidates or candidates’ friends to vote for them. There are very few people who are actually interested in the elections, and those who are tend to get informed- and I find that the more informed one is, the less of a difference endorsements actually make. If anything, they speak only of an issue of trust- that someone in an office trusts you enough to say that you’d be good in the position- and even then, the endorsement is powerful because it’s assumed that people reading it know who the person endorsing the candidate is, how well they’ve done their job, and how much they trust them. So really, it sort of goes back to being friends with a friend of the candidate and to being informed. At least, that’s my take. Unless, of course, you’re endorsed by Obama. Or Putin. Both would be kind of awesome, especially if they both endorsed you…

Having a business club endorse commerce candidates hardly comes as a surprise. Neither does the fact that some of their “research” was conducted over facebook- limited privacy settings sure are great for journalism! However, it’s their right as a club to go about doing their endorsements in whatever way they’d like- doing them wrong (and by wrong, I mean- not actually reading platforms, or not looking at other candidates) simply makes them lose their objectivity, which I find is important, although not always possible, when someone makes an endorsement. You just hope that bias motivates one to do better research- particularly that which involves looking into the other candidates.

The one thing I find rather amusing, however, is that had they not said that they actually had talked to the candidates, or implied that they’d done so (maybe even in person), this controversy wouldn’t exist. After all, there’s no way of checking to see if someone has read the platforms of the candidates- particularly not when they simply post a list of people they endorse. Secondly, given that it’s a club in which execs probably personally know some of the people running for office, should it really be all that surprising that they chose to endorse 3/3 commerce candidates, or that they didn’t look into the other candidates? After all, even if they’d done all their research, it’s still likely that their initial biases still colour their perception of platforms, no matter how objective they try to be. I understand that the qualm is about representing information accurately, but this isn’t something that can usually be proven- it just so happens that in this case, it was a blatant transgression.

Bruce Krayenhoff outlines benefits to students of voting in favour of the STV.

Why is the BC-STV Referendum So Important for Students?

First of all, research strongly suggests that more representative voting systems do result in better government, so students like everyone else will benefit from better, more stable and more accountable government if BC-STV is implemented.

However, there are a few reasons why BC-STV stands to be particularly beneficial for students:

First of all, voter turnout is about 9% higher in countries with proportional representation, and higher voter turnout generally means more even voter turnout, which means that students and young adults, being a low-voting demographic, are likely to turnout in substantially greater numbers. This will be a good thing in itself and it will force politicians to pay more attention to student issues and give the student voice considerably more clout in the legislature.

Secondly, being young and in a place of learning and ideas, many students would like more than two real choices at the ballot box. Indeed, if young people were the only people voting, the Green Party would be one of the major parties, but right now students who support the Green Party either waste their votes or vote strategically.

Finally, research suggests the implementation of proportional representation results in better environmental performance and lower unemployment, to name just a couple areas which matter to many students.

I have heard a number of students say ‘I think this referendum is even more important than the provincial election itself,’ and I have to agree. With a different party in power, we will see some change for the next four to eight years (i.e. until we vote them out again), but with a better voting system we will see lasting change for generations. Plus, a beachhead in BC will make the adoption of fairer voting systems throughout the rest of North America much easier to realize!

After a bit of a delay, Alex Monegro’s platform is up and running, and actually looks quite good. The platform outlines some interesting and important points. Below is some analysis of his plans for next year.

The first thing I like about Alex’s platform is his approach to issues that are of importance to students- things like hiring/tenure practices, text book prices, and tuition. In some ways, he seems to have realistic expectations of what needs to be done- he doesn’t talk about lowering tuition, for instance, but rather about curbing the yearly increases, which I appreciate. He also lays out concrete points that he wishes to pursue in order to achieve his goals, and I feel that his goals are both realistic and achievable. For instance, here’s what he has to say about textbook costs:
1. Work with student groups such as IBook Union to create more student driven book exchanges that will decrease book prices to a significantly lower level.

2. Document for students sources of cheaper, used books and learning material in order to decrease the Bookstore’s monopoly on the book market on campus.

3. Demand that the university explain how the high book prices contribute to the student experience on campus.

I quite like the first point- I don’t know if it’s something that has been looked into previously, but I feel like it’s a new idea. The second point and third points I’m not so sure on, however. While I like the idea of providing students with alternatives on where to get their books, I feel like most students already know. Furthermore, there are some things that he seems to lack knowledge of when it comes to the Bookstore- that their general book costs are driven up by classes in which required textbooks are not mass produced, and are therefore expensive. I’m also not sure about the monopoly on the book market- the Village bookstore, while technically not on campus, still provides books and is an alternative. As for the third point, most professors and members of the administration that I’ve spoken to on the issue are concerned about book costs. I don’t want to analyze every point to death, but I think the gist of it is that there are some good ideas and plans that Alex raises in his platform, but I feel that he does lack some knowledge about how things (like the Bookstore) operate. His point on hiring and tenure, for instance, would be a salient one if the university were already not looking at ways to change hiring practices- and they are changing, albeit slowly.

There are some things that, while well-intentioned, I felt were funny (even if they were true). Well, only one thing actually, and it was “Currently many students have to wait ten minutes or more at a bus stop to get on a packed bus.” Transit is definitely an important issue, and I am glad that it is addressed in his platform, but I feel like the plan he outlines neglects the problems that Translink is having with its system. When I last talked to a Translink employee, I was told that the problem with people having to wait/not having buses come often enough was caused simply by a lack of buses- that due to the UPass in part, demand exceeded supply. Another idea I liked: mixed-market housing, an approach that I haven’t seen mentioned by either of the other candidates.

There are a couple of things I wished I’d see more of, however. I was hoping to see a greater breadth of issues covered- particularly about what happens next year with the Olympics, or what happens if the TAs go on strike when their contracts expire next year. I realize the latter issue hasn’t really been talked about at all, but I feel it’s one of significant importance. I also would like to see a better understanding of how the AMS works. While some points lay out concrete ideas, other are much more vague or idealistic.

So in overview, my take on platforms is that Blake>Alex>Paul. Blake’s platform covers a breadth of issues, and he knows how the AMS works and uses that to his advantage. Alex’s also addresses some important issues, but the sense I get from that one is that he lacks the knowledge base, and while he can point out issues concerning students and offer some interesting ideas about ways to address them, he doesn’t have the depth of knowledge of the AMS and how it works in order to be able to work to get them achieved. And Paul’s is too idealistic for me, and doesn’t really lay out concrete plans for how to achieve his goals.

I get to campus today, and what’s the first thing I notice? Ubiquitous chalk graffiti covering the sidewalks, walls of buildings. I can’t seem to escape the bright colours telling me to vote for iRod. It’s like being stuck in some sort of psychedelic dream, only one that’s not going quite as planned because instead of seeing pretty splashes of colour that one is supposedly prone to experiencing in such times, I am instead bombarded by messages telling me to vote for a candidate who, had I not paid closer attention to the the message (and had I not been trying extra hard to concentrate in order to compensate for running on 4 hours of sleep), I would have confused for iPod . That extra stroke is tricky when you’re tired.

As the morning slowly matured into the afternoon, I relocated several times around campus, only to find that, like rapidly replicating E. coli, the chalk graffiti had multiplied exponentially within a matter of hours. Had I more energy, I would have been tempted to try to model the rate of change in surface area covered by chalk, hoping to see a sinusoidal curve approaching some sort of steady state at which candidates had used up the chalk stores of Vancouver. The cloudiness in my mind cleared for a brief moment in which I contemplated the meaning of the messages elegantly written onto the sidewalks and walls of buildings. My first thought was that UBC would be greatly prettified if only it had more colour. I must admit, nothing makes me happier than a tasteful colour palette complete with pinks and blues, and several building at UBC, including, but not limited to, the likes of the Buchanan tower, are quite devoid of this quality. Campus developers, take note. Colours on campus > no colours on campus. There are psychological studies that have shown that specific colours make people happier- I think this is particularly important during election time. In any case, I think this thought summed up to “the campus has been Chalkified”. Also, the explosion of colour reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGL0gdEPCtU
Just imagine Buchanan Tower instead of the building in the ad. Seriously.

Momentarily distracted by this thought, my next one fell to the actual messages written on said surfaces. Mostly, I was thinking about how much messages actually said about candidates, and whether they actually convinced me to vote for people. I don’t normally succumb to orders that easily, but when they’re written in pretty colours? I don’t know… it’s sort of tempting. However, the quality of the artwork also matters- the more artistic, the better. Which means that creative fonts get bonus points, and scribbles or boring fonts like Times New Roman or Arial take you into the negative domain. Furthermore, you definitely lose points for assuming that I’m going to vote for someone based on the number of times I see their name. In fact, the more I see a name, the more annoyed I get with seeing it. There’s a delicate balance to be struck- I need to see your name in order to know you exist, and to be interested enough to look into your platform. But seeing your name too many times makes it seem like you went crazy with the chalk. Which is great if you’re playing hopscotch or drawing amazing works of art on the sidewalks. But not so much if you’re just writing “Vote _____!”. Where are the catchy slogans? Things like “Vote for Iggy, it’s no biggie” or “Vote for Tim on your whim”. Or something catchier, because I’ve never been good at poetry or catchy rhymes. In any case, I was impressed by Iggy’s ability to coordinate a chalk onslaught. I was similarly impressed by Tim’s rapid response team quickly getting on the ball to also launch a campaign chalk ad. Most interesting, however, was the person who wrote something along the lines of “The university is making money off of student loans! This must be stopped!”. I also enjoyed the chalk ads referencing one another, in perhaps the best display of debate (instead of Q&A sessions) we’ve seen so far, where candidates actually make attempts at refutation. They have a ways to go, of course, but addressing each other in something other than question format is, I feel, a step in the right direction. I feel this second thought could be summarized by “Chalk wars? I think they have potential.”

In general, I’m rather dubious of the effect of campaign posters on persuading voters of anything. I feel like their only purpose is to educate people of the existence of the candidates. I can’t say I’m particularly impressed with this year’s campaign posters (come on, guys- weren’t you inspired by Obama’s Hope poster?), and I feel that for the purposes they accomplish, chalk ads do the same thing, but in a more aesthetically pleasing manner.

This is Serious Steve from the Devil’s Advocate with the first part of a guest post. By posting here I am freed from my obligation to be hilarious, so I hope I make up for that in analysis.

I’m going to talk about races in which my opinion is fairly settled, which means this post will be about the VP Academic and University Affairs and President races.

VP Academic and University Affairs

Who should win?

David Nogas has a sprawling, unfocused platform that seems to touch on everything (transit, CASA, a long ramble about an “everything class”) except the main focus of the VP Academic and University Affairs position. He has been unclear in the debates, and is unconvincing that he would be able to use the position to make even the change he wants. Next.

Sonia Purewal has Council experience, and her platform talks about the right things, though her debate performances and “about me” section leave it clear that her forte is complaining about UBC. Don’t get me wrong – she has some good ideas about how to fix it, and she may do a half-decent job on the academic front. She wants to review retaking finals, reform tutorials — though I’m not exactly sure how — and do something about class scheduling. Not awe-inspiring stuff of legend, for sure. Her council experience is an asset, but I’m not convinced that it is a huge asset. She doesn’t point to anything specific she achieved as a Council member, which would be nice in convincing me that she is able to achieve change within the system she describes as a “quagmire”.

Jeremy Wood. Oh Jeremy. He is by far the most interesting candidate in this race, if only due to his magnificent and brief non-candidacy. He’s also the only candidate who is convincing on campus community issues such as the UBC Farm, RCMP relations, and Market Housing (which he capitalizes to emphasize its relationship with Evil). Speaking about equity and a student-centred campus in the debates, he comes across as knollie — or “radical wing nut” if you read the D.A. — but interestingly he is not endorsed by the Knoll.

If Jeremy had run a clean campaign and stuck to the issues he promotes, I might even pick him, as he seems to be the only one with a clear vision of the “University Affairs” side of the portfolio; however, his big mistakes during the campaign make me wonder whether a VP Jeremy would bring the right professionalism and direction to the job that is required to make an impact within the University. Would he focus on doing the right things in a pragmatic way, or make himself irrelevant by railing against Housing and Conferences, over-focusing on Equity, and wrecking any chances of a working relationship with the police? I wouldn’t gamble my vote on finding out.

And finally, Johannes Rebane. Johannes has made it clear that he has detailed though somewhat minor academic goals: increase value in labs and tutorials (which seems to be code for “make TAs speak English”), extend academic choices through a Pass/Fail option for electives, and connect career resources to better serve students. He’s also against commercial development on campus, though like Jeremy implied in the first debate, I doubt he has the necessary drive and experience to make an impact in that area. He has, however, run the best campaign. He has stayed out of trouble, he has plenty of poorly photoshopped posters and a flashy website, and he has a Facebook group second in size only to Bijan Ahmadian.

A year with VP Johannes will likely not mean much change to campus planning, RCMP relations, the UBC Farm or childcare: I doubt he’ll set us back anything, but also doubt he’ll make major changes. I feel more optimistic about his academic plans, and if his self-promotional blurb about accomplishments as CUS VP Academic is faithful, he will have the drive and know-how to get his goals achieved.

I wish there were a funny and insightful joke candidate running for VP Academic and University Affairs – I’d have no trouble making an endorsement for them. As it is, it’s a tough call, but I’ll probably vote Johannes > Sonia > Jeremy > David.

Who will win?

In the old electoral system, Johannes Rebane would win this election handily. He has the largest audience to market to (300+ in his Facebook group compared to under 100), has some high profile endorsements, will get the Commerce vote, and faces a rabble of contenders who are mistake-prone, unaligned with any electoral blocs, and not doing a very good job of campaigning.

The new Condorcet system makes it a bit harder to predict. Johannes will probably still win; however, if voters for Johannes prefer Sonia over Jeremy, and those for Jeremy prefer Sonia over Johannes — which isn’t an all to unlikely scenario — then Sonia could end up being the “best compromise” candidate. However, I find it unlikely that many voters will know more than the one candidate that convinced them to vote, so such a pronounced effect may not happen. In any case, this race will be a very interesting test of the new system.

President

Who should win?

We can start by ruling out Paul Korczyk. Paul is the outsider candidate, and he makes it very clear in the debates that he is also a one-issue candidate. That issue – student engagement and communication – is huge, but his attention to it to the exclusion of other issues tells us he isn’t the right person for the job. Mike Duncan talked about student engagement as part of his platform, and look what he’s done: not much. (Engaged some students on the NCAA issue, maybe.) If Mike Duncan can’t do it, I don’t have much faith in Paul. Sorry, Paul. (Disclosure: in case you didn’t hear from his numerous debate references and my reaming of Jeremy Wood over his statements about advising, I work with Paul in Residence Life. I find it tough to disendorse him like this, but it has to be done.)

Blake Frederick is the ideological candidate in this election. We know where his priorities stand: free education! affordable housing! save the farm! lobby! protest! activism! Asked in a debate why he wasn’t running for VP External, he replied roughly that he wanted not just a lobbying job, but a wholesale change in the focus of the AMS. An interesting point; however, Blake has been working as an AVP for two years. He’s been at the forefront of implementing the two executive portfolios which relate most directly to his stated goals, under two left-wing VPs (Brendon Goodmurphy, former VP Academic, and Stefanie Ratjen, VP Externyl) who were focused on all the same things he is. How much more of the AMS needs to change to focus on these goals when its External office is already gung-ho? Blake would make an excellent VP External, but I am left with questions about his Presidential qualifications.

Questions such as: Will he micromanage the VPs External and Academic and reduce Executive productivity? Will he be able to lead a team effectively? Will he be able to put aside his ideology occasionally to work with the Administration, UNA, and governments? Despite these lingering questions, Blake has the expe
rience in the AMS, is generally a good guy, and captured my heart in last year’s election. I find his claim that “as students, we must demand more from our educational institutions and all three levels of government” gives me a vision of the AMS as a positive force of change rather than a reactionary institution with small goals. He’s also stood out in the debates, having the clearest message of the three candidates.

Finally, Alex Monegro. Alex has a pragmatic platform with a greater balance of issues than Blake — education concerns, the cost of tuition, student services and transit all get roughly equal playing time, though it doesn’t have the cohesion that Blake’s platform does. Either Alex doesn’t have a full strategic vision for the direction of the AMS yet, or he doesn’t know how to communicate that. His debate performances confirm this for me.

I am more convinced that, if he figures out where he wants the AMS to go, he’d know how to get there. Alex has positioned himself as the “team leader” candidate, touting his experience as VP External of the CUS and pumping himself up as the man to ‘get the job done’, not by focusing on ideological goals, but by managing his Executive team to achieve more than could be done by one person. The endorsements he has (including, most recently, Darren Peets) seem to corroborate this view of him. I don’t know him at all, so I can’t personally speak to his accomplishments as a team leader, but it seems to be his strength.

If I could combine Blake and Alex into a supercandidate with Blake’s passion about the issues facing students and the university, and Alex’s apparent leadership experience and common sense, I would heartily endorse this supercandidate. Forced to make a choice, however, I’m probably going to vote for Blake. In this race, I’ll take a risk on the visionary candidate with the clear vision over the practical candidate, especially since the visionary has two years of very relevant experience under his belt. I don’t think Blake’s the perfect person for the job, nor do I think it’s the perfect job for him, but I’ll take Blake > Alex > Paul anyway.

Who will win?

This is tough. All three candidates have their separate bases of support: for Alex, Sauder students; for Blake, the knollies; for Paul, advisors and residents who know him. Given the higher proportion of commerce students who typically vote, as well as his Facebook group that is 100 people larger than his two competitors, I’m going to guess that Alex will win this one. The fact that he’s a centrist candidate who may well place second in votes for Paul or Blake will also help him in the Condorcet system.

In conclusion… these are my opinions, and you can certainly expect them to quickly be contradicted by both the UBC Insiders writers and the Devil’s Advocate editorial staff. I may even be disendorsed for switching horses and (gasp!) tacitly endorsing candidates. Be assured that I’ll be back to my usual silly and insulting self over at the D.A.

But until then, you can chew on this analysis of these races. I heartily advise everyone to visit the candidates’ websites and make up your own mind; allow me to inform your decision rather than make it for you. Cheers!

The interviews continue! This one is chock full of hockey commentary, which I quite enjoyed, and give props to.

1.) If you had to choose one thing from your platform that you would work on, which would it be and why?
When players talk to eachother on the ice, everything breaks down, and you won’t be winning too many games. In the dressing room, if players just keep quiet in their stalls, they won’t have team spirit and won’t be bought in. I’m sure you see where I’m going with this. Communication.

The AMS needs to revitalize how it interacts and communicates with students. I will personally inform residences of what we’re doing, information in residence, if presented correctly, it can spread like wildfire. A more consistent and continuous online presence is important as well. Including, but not limited to media like Facebook, blogs, and presence on the New to UBC and FYI newsletter committees.

However, communication can’t stop there. I will make sure to work with the VP external to ensure we have strong communication with the Provincial Government, CASA, and our other local students’ associations. Preventing spiking tuition fees, improved child care, and a positive Olympic experience can only be achieved if we’re effectively getting our messages across to the BC Government and City of Vancouver council.

2.) How would you describe your leadership style?
A leader needs to know how each position works, and how to act accordingly to best benefit the team as a whole. When Mark Messier came to the Canucks during the ‘dark ages’, his ego couldn’t be controlled and it led to a negative presence. He was constantly at odds with teammates, and the locker room was in shambles because of it. It was the wrong way to lead the team, and the Canucks suffered because of it.

In contrast, my leadership is that of inclusion. Everyone brings valuable information to any team, and everyone has the potential for greatness. My leadership is based on drawing that greatness out of people, and not imposing my own beliefs or my ego on them. However, at the same time, when necessary, I’ll fight for my team, and take a game misconduct if needed.

3.) If you had to select another candidate, other than yourself, for your position, who would you select and why?
Steve Yzerman, as a write in ballot. Yzerman was one of the greatest hockey players of all time. He’s a born leader, both on and off the ice. His on-ice skill and leadership doesn’t need to be backed up, his tenure with the Red Wings brought them out of the cellar into years of league dominance.

4.) What experience have you had leading a team?
Think of me as Mats Sundin coming onto the Vancouver Canucks. I’ve got a great amount of leadership coming into the new job, but it’s coming from somewhere else. In a short amount of time, I’ll be a great benefit to the team, but it will take me a few games to learn the ropes. I’m a very quickly learner, and I easily adapt to change and adversity. I can deal with anything that is thrown at me. Like Sundin, I’ve led committees, like the Leafs’ powerplay, and I’ve been the Captain of a team, who is looked upon for decisions, as well as fighting for my teammates to referees and coaches.

5.) How are you different from the other candidates running for your position?
Many were shocked and angry when Mike Gillis was hired as the new General Manager of the Canucks. He had no previous experience in managing a national hockey league team, and he was thrust into the main role, making the hard decisions and leading a team of executives. His experience came from elsewhere, but has since proven that his lack of job specific experience did not hamper him one bit. He made some ‘bold moves’ and did a good job to ensure a competetive team ‘moving forward’, including eventually landing the biggest free agent of the offseason. His connections to the player agent world have been key in putting together some significant pieces of the puzzle.

Sound familiar? I have outside experience that will be extremely valuable. Right now, I’m working in a position that has me in constant contact with parts of campus I don’t believe the AMS has connected enough with. The VP students’ portfolio is diverse, and focuses on improving student life on campus, just like the AMS. I have dealt closely with many people involved with the portfolio’s many programs, and bridging them together with the AMS will end up being a great benefit to students. Increased presence at the SLC, LEAP workshops in the SUB, and more cross-involvement with orientations will be great for students as well as the AMS.

Working UBC Waste Management and Sustainability offices is another important step in the right direction. Compost bins with big AMS logos on them will go a long way in showing students what we’re doing for them.

6.) What would you say is the single most important issue concerning UBC students right now?
Education. Great teams always have those star players who can play multiple roles on the team. Think of the Detroit Red Wings, who have guys like Nik Lidstrom and Pavel Datsyuk. They play different positions, but they chip in all over the ice, and are great both on offence and defence. To win the Stanley Cup, you need a team where everyone is able to contribute on both ends of the rink. Similarly, to have a great University, you need professors that are stars in both teaching and research.

The university in recent years has been focusing too much on improving the researchers it’s bringing in. Unfortunately, great researchers don’t necessarily make the best instructors. The Carl Wieman teaching initiative has been great for the faculty of science, and the change in how the Wieman program science classes are being taught is remarkable. This needs to be funded and spread throughout the rest of the faculties. The LEAD program is a great step towards that goal, but moving forward, we need to make sure it keeps getting necessary funding and attention, and making sure UBC’s new strategic plan includes a vision focused on teaching just as much as it focuses on research.

7.) If you could go anywhere in the world, where would you go and why?
Time to take a break from the cheesy hockey analogies. In a heartbeat, I’d go back to Poland for a bit. I miss my family. My cousins have slowly been getting facebook the last few months, and while it’s great being in touch a little more, it’s making me miss being there. I haven’t been back in three years now. I’ve missed two weddings through not being able to afford plane tickets, and it’s been killing me. One of my other cousins is getting married this summer, but it’s not looking much better for me being able to get out there, so if I could go anywhere in the world, it’d be Poland for Tomek’s wedding.

Many of you know him as the Firehydrant, some of you may know him as Darren Peets, but regardless of how you may refer to him, you probably all know him to be someone who knows a heck of a lot about the BoG. Below is an article he wrote for the Insiders about the race for the BoG. Enjoy!

Several candidates have asked for my endorsement, and it seemed to me that
it would be better if I did a comprehensive job of evaluating people instead
of selectively supplying soundbites. The catch, of course, is that I’ve
been out of the country since the end of September, and was very busy
writing a thesis in the spring, so I don’t necessarily know how people have
done in current roles, or how they’ve matured. I’m trusting you to take
this with a grain of salt, use your own opinions and priorities, and just
generally think for yourself.

The Board race has a very strong set of candidates this year. Since I
served on Board and know all five candidates fairly well, I figure I can
offer more insight here than in other races.

First, Board is tricky, because it requires that students have a very strong
understanding of how the university works. They need to work with
administrators to improve UBC, and they need to work with other Board
members to resolve contentious issues to the extent possible before
the meeting. Student Board members have very few meetings and essentially
no power, but they have incredible access and an excellent opportunity to
guide change. A bright and interested student dragged in off the street
could do a decent job in most (but not all) AMS executive positions. This
is not true of Board. Fortunately, all five candidates have strong
backgrounds. I’ll cover them in alphabetical order.

Bijan Ahmadian is a former student of mine. He can be quite stubborn when
he has an issue he’s pursuing, although sometimes to the point of
infuriating people. While he’d be persistent one-on-one on some specific
issues, I can’t picture him actually opposing the administration or Board if
it came down to it. His specialty is networking, and I have little doubt he
could call up any member of Board or the admin at this point and talk with
them. My concern is that he may view Board as a vehicle for personal
networking, rather than viewing networking as a way to serve students. He
has a year of experience, which is very useful, although most of the other
candidates still likely have more background on the issues. If he doesn’t
know what he’s talking about in the detail required, that may not stop him
from arguing his case, which would be extremely counterproductive —
hopefully he’s stopped doing this (this would be more an issue when talking
with administrators than Board members). He would be best paired on Board
with someone who knows the University inside and out, so they can get him
well versed on issues and put his skills to work.

Speaking of which, next is Andrew Carne. Andrew has a very detailed
knowledge of UBC and most of its inner workings, and he’s been watching
Board meetings for about 1.5 years. On quite a number of occasions, I’ve
seen him have “wait, what?” moments, where he’s been immediately struck by
the absurdity of something UBC is doing or planning to do, often clearer and
faster than me. An ability to spot things out of place quickly is
important, since Board members have very little time with the material
before they have to vote on it. My one concern with Andrew is I simply
don’t know whether he’s good at talking with administrators and convincing
them to do things, although working with then-Dean Isaacson puts a bit of a
trial by fire under his belt. He has a history of first determining exactly
what his constituents want, then working hard to get it. He’d do an
exceptional job, overall, but it might be best to pair him with someone with
better networking or connections.

I don’t envy Mike Duncan for the executive he had to hold together and keep
focussed this past year, but he seems to have done an excellent job, and is
well-known to the administration. I doubt he’s made many enemies, although
he can sometimes spread himself thin enough to seem inattentive on some
issues and he occasionally steps on toes a bit through carelessness. It’s a
bit hard for me to really know how he’d do in the Board role, since people
tend to mature a lot as President and I haven’t been around to see the
results of this. He probably doesn’t have quite the depth of knowledge of
Andrew Carne, but he has strong networking skills (as his Facebook friends
list indicates), and is good at quickly extracting the key message from a
large amount of detailed information, a useful skill. My guess is he’d be
better at strategic visioning than most, if not all, of the other
candidates. That’s a large part of the President’s job and it’s a type of
thinking that takes a lot of getting used to. He’d do a very good job, I
suspect, particularly if paired with someone who can keep him focussed on
Board and on specific issues.

Blake Frederick I have trouble pinning down. Some of his thoughts and
opinions have been very well thought-through and well backed-up, while
others have been quite simplistic and based purely in idealism. (I’m a
practical, pragmatic person, not an idealist, as are essentially all Board
members — they ignore and get frustrated by idealists). His platform’s
introduction contains observations that are true, but not solvable at the
Board level, and assertions that are false but sound good. His platform
points blend President and Board, but most are really about provincial
lobbying (possibly due to his AMS history), and the language (“pressure”,
“oppose”, “demand”, “prevent”) suggests an approach incompatible with the
Board role. Blake knows a fair bit about UBC, and has a lot of things he’d
like to fix. I’m not convinced his approach would allow him to actually fix
much as a Board member, though. His presence serves to keep the other
students on track, but having people like that is more useful on bodies like
AMS Council, rather than Board, where only a handful of people would be
receptive. He’d be better in other portfolios, particularly VP External.

Tristan Markle is another difficult one for me. When Tristan first showed
up on Council, he came in with a background as a protester, and his
contributions were so far out in left field (framing questions around our
being in a corrupt capitalist system, with air quotes around words like
“money”) that he was met with blank stares. He quickly recognized this
gulf, and became self-mocking to deal with it. He was elected to VP Admin,
where the practicalities of getting a building built changed his approach
(although the idealism and some old bad habits are clearly still there — as
of several months ago he was still making statements in which a highly
questionable “should” would become an “is”). Again, I don’t know how much
he’s changed. In VP Admin, he’s in charge of his portfolio and answerable
to The People, and there’s no Man to fight. That’s not true with Board, and
it’s hard for me to guess whether or to what extent he’d fall back into
outbursts that they’d find insulting or incomprehensible. He has a very
detailed knowledge of specific parts of how UBC works, but not as broadly as
Andrew or Mike. I cannot imagine him networking effectively (or wanting to)
with this crowd, nor can I see him effectively convincing administrators to
change their approach. Some students like people who will take idealistic
stances and stick to them. I suspect Tristan would do this. I don’t
believe it would be effective.

For Board, I’d pick Andrew Carne and Michael Duncan, in that order of
preference.

The President’s role is the other one where experience is especially
important — if you don’t know in detail how the AMS works and what the VPs
and staff do, they’ll walk all over you for a few months until you figure it
out, and your presence will serve little purpose. If people look to you for
leadership and your response is “come back in a few months”, they’ll look
elsewhere. You can’t change a complex organization you don’t understand, in
part because the people who don’t want to change can always raise some issue
you hadn’t thought of or didn’t know about. While it may seem a bit unfair,
I’m going to summarily dismiss Paul Korczyk on this basis (note that I don’t
know him).

Blake I’ve largely covered, and there’s a fair bit of overlap in skills
required for President and Board. The President sets the overall direction
of the AMS and changes things as need be. Blake can certainly set lobbying
priorities, although I’d question the effectiveness of the approach he seems
to favour (other than as a fall-back once diplomacy has failed). Other than
lobbying, it’s not clear to me what he’d want to do with the role.

Alex is quite bright and would be an excellent team leader — the VPs would
have a lot of autonomy and support where they needed it, while he’d likely
spend a fair bit of effort pondering where the AMS should be headed and how
best to get it there. This could (but might not) lead to significant,
low-profile internal improvements. Externally, he’d be trying to convince
people to implement policy, but in a friendly, helpful manner. I’ve seen
his approach used on the provincial government, and it was quite successful.
At the municipal level, I don’t know how it will work. However, it’s
difficult to guess what issues he’d pursue, because his platform is thin,
vague and buzzwordy. Alex, you can do better.

Of the two, I’d pick Alex and hope that he figured out what he was going to
do with his year.

At VP Academic I only know one of the four candidates, and haven’t had a
chance to see her do much, so I don’t think it’s fair to comment.

At VP External, I know Tim a little, I’ve never met Iggy, and there are two
joke candidates, one the arch-nemesis of my pet Fire Hydrant. Tim is nice
and a great person, but he occasionally has some very strange priorities.
His platform has a significant focus on equity within the AMS, which is
neither a VP External issue nor an issue that any significant fraction of
the student body cares about. (Is it a problem? I don’t know. Should we
study it? Yes, and AMS Council approved doing that almost a year ago. Is
it something you can base a campaign on? No.) Can we trade Blake to VP
External for Tim and a second-round draft pick? One thing I feel compelled
to point out if Council’s make-up is at issue: a remarkable fraction of UBC
students live at home with their parents and commute (if I remember
correctly, just over 40%). When the motion came up almost a year ago to
study this, I asked how many people around the Council table lived with
their parents and commuted. One. If there’s an underrepresented group,
this is it. And almost nobody mentions them.

If I had to vote in this race, I’d need to know Iggy better before being
able to choose who to vote for.

At VP Admin, neglecting the joke candidates, we have Tristan Markle as the
status quo candidate and Crystal Hon as the outsider. I just have to repeat
that — Tristan Markle is the status quo candidate. I’ve pretty sure I’ve
met Crystal… once, and I have no idea how she’d do in the job. Tristan
has done a pretty decent job as VP Admin, is completely up to speed, and
would keep the project moving along rapidly. He seems to have a very strong
commitment to both sustainability and consultation, which are important
here. Someone new in the portfolio (as Tristan was last year) generally
feels compelled to put things on hold while they figure out what’s going on
(or risk getting steamrolled by what’s already in motion), and they
generally want to put their own stamp on the project, setting it back a
month or two. The one caveat is that the speed of the project and the
approach of Mike and Tristan to keep the project going full speed ahead and
leave the admin in the dust if need be (an approach I fully supported) may
have stepped on some toes. In that case, a change of face and short delay
may be beneficial, provided the negotiating experience isn’t lost. But my
strong inclination is to support Tristan here. As for the joke candidates,
Keg and Fountain have far too much in common to be fighting. Surely they
can agree to the installation of campus beer lines direct to beer fountains?
Come on, you two, get to know each other better over a round of drinks, and
just be friends.

At VP Finance, I barely know Ale and don’t know Tim. The budget is prepared
early in the year, and substantial change can only be made by someone from
within the finance portfolio. Neither has that background. One has a
commerce background and one has an AMS commission background, so both are
partway there.

I hope someone, somewhere, found this helpful. And again, keep in mind that
I don’t know all the people or how they’ve matured, that I tend to be the
middle-of-the-road pragmatic type, which you may not be, and that you have a
brain and should make your own decisions.

This just came into my facebook inbox after I tried to contact Bijan to hear his side of the story.

In recent days, I have come under attack based on a partial recording of a meeting of Friends of the Farm at which I spoke. Through this response, I hope to clarify both the context and my position on the UBC Farm.

I believe it is important to clarify that the recording a) represents only a fraction of a larger meeting b) was posted online without context by an anonymous blogger. Based on the way this blogger frames the issue, it seems to be part of a deliberate smear campaign designed to prevent me from being re-elected to the Board of Governors. As someone who has never taken democracy for granted, I find these politics of personal destruction disheartening.

After the Friends of the Farm mentioned that they had endorsed Tristan Markle for the Board of Governors, I explored the possibility of an endorsement from them. I was invited to present to one of their meetings, at which the group was going to vote on who to endorse as a second Board candidate. I was later told that my presentation resulted in a split vote in my favour, and therefore no endorsement was made for the second Board position. Clearly, many people at the meeting understood that I am supportive of preserving the Farm.

The clip refers to a specific project beyond general support of the Farm, for which I said I needed an endorsement to signal my relationship with the Friends of the Farm. I had discussed the details of that project with the group earlier in the meeting. Given the large number of stakeholders engaged with the Farm issue, I stressed that I was reluctant to make that project a top priority if students and the university administration would not see me as legitimately speaking on behalf of farm advocates.

My message has been deliberately taken out of context in order to imply that I am more interested in blackmail and the accumulation of personal power than in representing students. I have served UBC students in elected capacities for a number of years, and I am not unfamiliar with the political side of student politics – but to me, that accusation goes beyond the pale.

I have been very clear on my posters and website about my desire to ensure that the University meets its commitment to the UBC Farm through the creation of a refreshed academic plan across all disciplines for teaching and research on the Farm. While I have paid close attention to the Farm issue during my term on the Board, I am not a one-issue person. I have successfully focused on other matters such RCMP issues and student housing, and I will continue to do so if re-elected. I do not believe this election should be fought solely over one issue, and nor do I believe it should be fought through underhanded and misrepresentative character assassination.

Please note that the same thing was posted on Gossip Guy’s blog as well. In any case, thoughts? Is his 1.5 minute response justified by the circumstances? Who could this anonymous tipper have been? Please discuss.