Month: January 2009

I felt like it was important to get some information from candidates running for office, so by using the handy tool that is facebook and doing some AMS election group stalking, I managed to get some email addresses and contact people running for office to ask them some questions regarding the election. I intend to keep adding more replies as they come in. Hopefully, the responses will serve to inform you all about the candidates, their priorities and platforms, and their personalities. Alex should be commended for the incredibly expedient reply- I got this at just past 2 am. I hope the rest will be coming in soon!

1.) If you had to choose one thing from your platform that you would work on, which would it be and why?

I would definitely focus on my education initiatives, specifically working with the Provost office and the Teacher’s Associations to increase the number of lecturers at UBC. From my general experience, and dealings with my peers, I have come to appreciate the value that lecturers, versus those that are purely researchers, add to the classroom environment. A good lecturer will motivate students and get them excited about learning and broadening their horizons while at UBC. I would choose this option over other initiatives because I believe that the AMS has been focusing too much in recent years on issues that don’t affect all students on campus and generally are external to the general student experience. While I appreciate the value in many of the initiatives the AMS has pursued over the years, I believe that a stronger focus on what we all come to UBC for, learning, is required.

2.) How would you describe your leadership style?

My leadership still is inclusive and focuses on building consensus. Through my experiences leading teams, I have found that people will remain engaged and motivated if they are part of the goal setting process and have a say of where the team is going. I lead by example and am known to work harder than my team members as I set high expectations for them and it would not be fair of me to not hold myself to the same standards. I believe that finding people’s passions and facilitating their pursuit of those passions will lead to better results than setting directions and tasks unilaterally. I believe heavily on constant feedback and in creating a personal relationship with those that are in my team.

3.) If you had to select another candidate, other than yourself, for your position, who would you select and why?

From those in the current race, I would select Blake. Blake has the grasp on issues required by this position. From the information I am privy to I understand he is a hard worker and a very motivated individual. I believe that one has to have a strong drive to be able to meet the demands of the role as President. I also believe that Paul, while very interested in students, is not aware of how demanding this position is. Therefore, I believe that Blake would be better positioned to do a good job than Paul would. However, I should highlight that I believe that it would be a challenge for him in terms of dealing with diverging opinions in his team as he has very strong personal interests.

4.) What experience have you had leading a team?

I’ve spent this whole year leading 9 highly motivated and accomplished individuals in the Commerce Undergraduate Society. It was a challenge to lead other leaders with very different interests. I had to constantly address their individual interests and motivations and the interests of the general commerce student population. I was able to provide a fulfilling experience by being engaged with them throughout the whole process, providing feedback and facilitating their activities to the best of my abilities. I was able to establish strong friendships with most of them. It was a very enjoyable experience for all of us even though we faced exceptional challenges this year.

5.) How are you different from the other candidates running for your position?

There are two main differentiating factors between me and the other candidates. First is the practicality of my positions. Secondly, my approach to the position and how I view my role. In terms of my positions, I worked to create solutions that are implementable and I would be able to accomplish in one year’s time. They are also positions that I believe represent the general sentiments of UBC students and not the loud voices of a particular group. In terms of my approach, I believe some of the other candidates view the President’s position as one of great power in terms of subjugating the University to our wishes. I personally believe that the President’s role is more one of building consensus and mobilizing resources in order to accomplish pragmatic solutions. I think those two differences will enable me to accomplish more and engage more people than what the other candidates are proposing.

6.) What would you say is the single most important issue concerning UBC students right now?

The mismatch between the increase in tuition and a decrease in the quality of the education. The fact the many studies point to a deteriorating academic environment in many places around the world is of great concern. The fact that the AMS has turned a blind eye to such an important issue is appalling and was the main motivation for me to run for office. With increased global competition in the workplace and amongst countries, those who can educate their people best will be better off. While cheaper tuition, more housing and increased transit service will better the immediate life of students, working with the university to increase the quality of education at UBC will benefit not only students but also Canada in the long run.

7.) If you could go anywhere in the world, where would you go and why?

These days I am very interested in going to China. The fact that it is a live experiment in terms of developing a country with such a large number of people is very intriguing to me. I am also very interested in experiencing what the world’s next superpower is like and how the people are actually living there. China also has a very rich culture, dating back to 5,000 A.D. I am always interested in experiencing how those with a different perception of the world interact with the world around them. Plainly said, I think China would be a lot of fun, it would let me travel around South East Asia, and it would allow me to experience the beautiful landscape and culture that is possesses.

This isn’t a comprehensive list, but just some pet peeves and observations.

1.) Candidates promising to lower tuition. You know who you are. Some responses to my pointing this out have been “but it sounds better”. I personally call it false advertising- but even if people wanted legitimately to try to lower tuition, it’s simply unlikely to happen. Tuition rises every year with cost of inflation, which is to be expected- the university has to cover costs that increase every year. So while people campaign on this point every year, it seems, it’s not likely to happen. However, “I promise to prevent tuition from going up by more than cost of inflation” is a mouthful and I guess isn’t as appealing.

2.) This is an observation made by a lot of the students I talked to about the debates, so I felt like it deserved a mention. Essentially, it’s been observed that candidates who are well-spoken often don’t really answer the question or go beyond a kind of script, whereas those who stumble are trying to answer the question honestly instead of sticking to typical responses and buzz words- they try to answer the question honestly instead of pandering to the audience. I have unfortunately not been able to make it to the debates so far, but I can certainly envision this being true. Evidently, this is mostly true of Alex Monegro, who apparently loves buzz words, but has little substance- a statement I feel could be substantiated by his website, which still lacks a platform, but includes catch phrases like “Better access to AMS efforts” as part of his message to students. I can’t really offer more substance than that until his platform is up, however. Thoughts? Opinions? Are charismatic leaders better than those with substance? Do people really even care? Have elections boiled down to popularity contests and perceptions of leadership? Discussion? Anyone?

3.) Another observation: all candidates look the same. This goes beyond physical resemblance (and yes, the resemblance between Johann and Alex Lougheed is uncanny). But more importantly, they seem to sound the same. Give and take some knowledge and some differences in platforms, there are no stark contrasts. Last year there were personality differences and general craziness. This year it’s sort of like a washed out rainbow. You can sort of see the colours, but you’re not quite sure they’re there because it looks generally gray.

The list will continue over the course of the election…

A long-awaited list of all candidates!

President
Blake Frederick
Paul Korczyk
Alex Monegro

VP Academic
David Nogas
Sonia Purewal
Johannes Rebane
Jeremy Wood

VP External
Timothy Chu
Fire
The King’s Head
Iggy Rodriguez

VP Administration
Crystal Hon
Tristan Markle
Water Fountain
Jeremy “Kommander Keg” McElroy

VP Finance
Ale Coates
Tom Dvorak

Board of Governors
Bijan Ahmadian
Andrew Carne
Michael Duncan
Blake Frederick
Tristan Markle

There are a few new names, but lots of people are also returning. I’m still undecided whether it’s a good idea to let people run for 2 positions. When you have the same students involved in multiple positions talk about how more people should be interested in student government, it seems odd to then run for, and more importantly- hold- 2 positions, as it means that there is then less involvement, less “new blood”, so to speak, and a smaller representation of opinions. There is a flip side, however- it is a good idea for the president, for instance, to know what’s going on in the BoG, and people running twice often have more experience with UBC politics. Nonetheless, I feel like getting more students involved is a better way to go than to leave university governance to a small circle of people who are already operating within the system.

Another note: it seems like there are a few students running for re-election- Tristan for VP Academic and Bijan for BoG. I’m still a bit surprised that Tristan was elected in the first place, particularly when, as a member of SUS, I had never seen him at a Council meeting, but I suppose those sorts of things don’t matter.

In any case, there will be more election debates:
Wednesday from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. in the Gallery Lounge
* Board of Governors
* VP Finance
* VP External

Friday from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. in the SUB Conversation Pit
* VP External
* VP Administration
* VP Academic

Tuesday (next week) from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m in the SUB Conversation Pit.

* Board of Governors
* President

Thursday (next week) from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. at Ike Barber, main floor

* All Candidate’s Forum

A reminder also that online voting begins on Thursday, January 29 (which means they’ve fixed the problem! Hopefully, in any case…)while campus poll stations will be open on Wednesday, February 4.

Alex’s platform is still not up (although I am now greeted by a nice profile shot, so as long as I see his right side, I’ll recognize him), so I’m moving on to looking at Paul’s. I was interested by the contrast of issues I found discussed on his website. Here I’m hoping to highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses, as I see them.

The first thing I really noticed was a lack of breadth in terms of the issues discussed. More than half of the platform (which contains 5 points) talks about student involvement on campus. The platform almost entirely neglects issues that students are concerned about- things like housing, tuition/other fees, etc. However, that’s not to say that the platform doesn’t have its good ideas. The first point of the platform- that of Communication- actually lays out some good ideas in terms of how to get students informed about some of the issues. Things like going to residences or blogging about the goings on in the AMS strike me as a good idea. I’m not sure how big of an audience the AMS elections attract, however, and I would conjecture that even fewer people would come out to get updates about the AMS. This issue also sort of ties in to the issue of student involvement on campus. While that’s a separate blog post, I do think that the idea of having the AMS collaborate with other student societies to put on events is a good one- it’s not something that I can recall having happened off the top of my head. The one problem I have is that there doesn’t seem to be a complete understanding of the challenges involved with, for instance, reinstating the ACF, or with getting the students who are already disinterested in what’s going at the university to pay attention to some of the issues. The bigger problem is that too much attention is focused on student involvement at the expense of bigger issues that the president would have more control over. Thus, while the platform has some good ideas that would be easy to implement, it lacks knowledge of the AMS, how it works, and of broader issues concerning both the students and the university.

While Alex Monegro’s website is not yet up and running, the other two presidential candidates have their platforms posted: http://www.blakefrederick.ca/Student%20Support.html and http://voteforpaul.wordpress.com/platform/ . I hope to provide a bit of critique of both, starting with Blake’s (I figure alphabetical organization is the least biased of options, and since Alex’s site isn’t up yet…)

Blake Frederick

While some of Blake’s platform points seem fairly perfunctory- he talks about tuition fees, housing, etc.- they are certainly important to students, and he does include some issues that I feel are important to consider, particularly for next year(Olympics, anyone?). He has a comprehensive platform, and, most importantly, some actual steps that he wants to take to achieve the major points set he has laid out. While some of these steps are a bit nebulous (things like “applying pressure”), I found it fairly clear that he knew what he was talking about. I do find his platform quite ambitious- it’s unlikely that many of the things he talked about will actually happen- but I feel that it shows that he has a good understanding of both issues important to UBC students, and of recent problems encountered by the AMS (remember CASA?). One thing I particularly like is the issue of governance that he brings up. Perhaps this is something I’ve missed in the recent years, but he points out (fairly, I think) the lack of student representation on the BoG, and cites the fact that only 14% of the seats on the BoG are held by students. He also talks about working with City Councilors to examine UBC’s status as a municipality as a way of addressing the decision-making that often seems to disregard students’ interests on campus, which I find to be an interesting approach to the problem.

Other parts of the platform that I find interesting have to do with tuition. According to his website: “…our country is currently in blatant breach of the UN International Covenant on Economic, Political, and Social Rights, which commits us to the gradual introduction of free post-secondary education.” This wasn’t actually something I knew, and I feel like it’s an important point to bring up, although perhaps one that’s not really feasible (or perhaps just plain impossible) on the university’s part.

Anyhoo, conclusions: comprehensive platform that showcases a knowledge of both the AMS, the issues that it’s facing (and a variety of issues at that), and how to actually accomplish some of the platform points. It is quite ambitious, however, and some of the points listed are a little bit hazy, but in general I like what I see. I would still encourage everyone to actually read his platform- it’s nicely laid out- as I’m sure I’ve missed important points, but the purpose here is to present a general impression and a few things that I liked about it specifically.

An overview of Paul’s platform will hopefully be up sometime tomorrow, but I don’t think I could do it justice at this hour of the night.

Also- presidential debates are happening tomorrow! Rejoice! They’re tomorrow at noon in the SUB conversation pit, so I would encourage all of y’all to come out and watch and make up your minds about the candidates.

So the candidates I know of so far running for AMS president are Blake Frederick, Paul Korczyk, and Alex Monegro. I’m sure many of you will be invited to join their facebook groups soon- I have so far managed to avoid the onslaught, but we’ll see what happens over the next few days. After all, it was the first day of campaigning, so I’m sure things will heat up soon. I regrettably missed the debates, never having actually heard that they were happening (my bad, I suppose, although I don’t know if it speaks to how little advertisement there is of the elections on campus so far), but I will be trying to make it to future debates and actually post what platforms and other such important things are. Although if last year’s election taught us anything, it’s that the number of facebook friends one has may reflect (or at least be correlated to) how well one does in the election. We’ll see. I think correlational analysis might be worthwhile, complete with 95% confidence intervals and all that jazz.

In the meantime, I have googled the candidates, and here’s what I came up with:

Paul Korczyk.
-Apart from having a cool Eastern European last name (for which one does get bonus points from me), he seems to appear on the UBC Faculty & Administrative Directory, and is listed as being in the Department of Housing and Conferences.
-He also appears to play hockey. I would like to see some of his hockey skills in action in the election. Throw in some hockey jargon, and it might make for some entertaining debates.

Alex Monegro.
-From his AMS autobiographical statement, it seems like he’s a business student who does some psychology.
-He chairs the Fundraising and Sponsorship Committee in the AMS.
-I couldn’t find anything else un-AMS related about him. This is sad-making.

Blake Frederick.
-the first google hit mentions him as having been born in Louisiana on May 26, 1978 to Davis and Willie Frede. Me thinks this is the wrong Blake. My search had to be refined.
-Modified hits yielded that he blogs for the UBC Insiders (although not currently, as that would be against some sort of code in some sort of book that none of us read. Except for some, who like to quote it :P
-He has been on Senate. And the BoG. And other positions involving the AMS.

In any case, in the next few weeks I’ll be trying to contact them and get some answers to some questions. So be prepared.

As a side note- have we ever had any female presidents? I seem to recall seeing a photo of AMS presidents, and I was overwhelmed by the fact that they were all white males. Thoughts?

Hi everyone,

Apologies on my behalf for not having blogged in a while- the year sort of caught up with me when exams rolled around and with the start of the new term and all, but blogging will resume this weekend. We will be covering the election, despite Blake’s participation in it, so your insatiable appetite for news about UBC will not be quenched! In any case, I do want to wish everyone a Happy New Year, and I look forward to blogging as soon as I have a bit of free time :)

Type the rest of your post here.