The Insiders
-
Posts by Neal Yonson:
Mar
16
This just in as a press release from the AUS:
UBC BUREAUCRACY AND RCMP CANCEL ACF REVIVAL
March 16, 2009 – Despite months of planning and organization, Arts County Fair will not be not be revived in 2009. Approval for the Arts Undergraduate Society’s (AUS) April 3, 2009 event has been denied by the UBC Classroom Services and the RCMP. This event, a revival of the largest student run event in Canada which was forced to be cancelled due to logistical difficulties in 2007, was to be held on Main Mall between the Flag Pole Plaza and Neil Wyman Plaza. Preparations and early promotions were already underway, in the assumption that an agreement in good faith could be reached with all relevant parties. During the process, the AUS consistently approached concerns with nothing but good faith and a willingness to compromise in order to ensure that this event could take place. Through such a process,Capt. Bill Douglas of Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services and the AUS were able to modify the event plans appropriately, gaining the approval of the VFRS. Similar meeting took place with the RCMP’s Sgt. Dan Wendland. Classroom Services denied the AUS’ request to book the Main Mall venue on February 26, 2009, citing “concerns raised by internal parties at UBC.” AUS requests for more information, including suggestions on how to change the event plan to gain approval were not answered. The AUS began an appeal of Classroom Services’ decision, finally being granted a meeting with Classroom Services staff. On March 13th, the AUS was notified by Classroom Services that the RCMP’s University Detachment has was refusing to entertain any request for the Main Mall venue, despite verbal agreements to the contrary. “I was shocked at the decision,” said event organizer Mike Kushnir, “I had expected that the good word and the handshake of Sgt. Wendland would hold our agreement in principle until other logistical difficulties could be dealt with.”
The AUS and RCMP had tentatively negotiated a capacity of 2,500 patrons, on the clearly stated understanding of the AUS that, in order to ensure sufficient supplementary police resources would be available, the AUS may be expected to cover some of those costs. The AUS is disappointed by the lack of willingness to negotiate and collaborate in good faith on the part of Classroom Services. The inability to secure meetings to engage in a dialogue regarding existing concerns was a significant problem – only after speaking with senior administrators in the VP Students office was a request to meet with Justin Marples, head of Classroom Services, granted. During the meeting Marples was adversarial and disrespectful, displaying the lack of good faith that has characterized this process.
The AUS had been willing to make significant changes to event plans and specifically meet with and address concerns of campus stakeholders. “It seems to me as if we were the only ones in this process with any willingness to come to the table,” said AUS President Avneet ‘AJ’ Johal.
Sorry about the formatting- I’ll try to fix it a touch later. Thoughts on the matter? I’m always slightly skeptical when I do hear only one side of the story, and it seems that a statement such as this won’t do the AUS too many favours if they would like to hold the ACF in future years (calling someone adversarial and disrespectful is a touch antagonistic, no?). It seems that the only way to really be able to have the ACF again is to demonstrate that the AUS is capable of hosting a big event that does not result in the problems of previous years. It’s too bad that Classroom Services was not willing to uphold the verbal agreement, however, as that doesn’t do much to strengthen the relationship between students and the university- really, both sides need to demonstrate a degree of trust. And maybe a written agreement would be better next time, given that verbal statements can be interpreted differently by different parties.
Mar
14
SUS Elections
Comments Off on SUS Elections
Results are as follows:
President
Jimmy Yan
VP Internal
Amandeep Sehra
VP External
Sumedha Sharma
Director of Administration
Jennifer Fong
Director of Finance
Justin Yang
Director of Sports
Soroush Liaghat
Public Relations Officer
Annie Yun
Senator
Bryan Tomlinson
Social Coordinator
Eugene Wong
AMS Representatives
Tahara Bhate
Maria Cirstea
Justin Yang
Aaron Sihota
Mar
12
SUS Elections- Turnout and Endorsements
Comments Off on SUS Elections- Turnout and Endorsements
It would seem that SUS elections are facing a record-low turnout this year. So far, voter turnout is only about 1/3 of what it was last year. Granted, elections haven’t really been promoted all that much- there have been reminders on the Science-wide email, as well as through other mailing lists. I would thus highly encourage everyone who has not yet voted to vote before noon tomorrow, where the voting period officially ends. So for everyone sitting at home and reading this- you have about 14 hours to match last year’s turnout! So go to WebCT and vote- it will seriously take no more than about 1 minute of your time.
I do have some conjectures as to why voter turnout is so low, however. Despite the push for election advertising this year, many candidates are running unopposed, which reduces the incentive to really promote one’s candidacy. Sadly, even with yes/no votes, it is highly unlikely that enough people will vote No to keep a candidate out of office, no matter how unqualified. Candidates who do have competition I feel are relying on popularity, to some degree, although there are some candidates who are definitely pushing to advertise elections and do classroom announcements- Jimmy Yan, Andrew Hurlburt, and Tagh Sira are among the candidates who have done so. The problem is that 3 people telling others to vote is not enough- you definitely need a critical mass of people promoting the elections to see a shift in attitude. When many students don’t even bother to read emails that come from UBC/their faculty, promotion becomes much more important, and I’m not sure that enough is being done. I haven’t seen the same level of posterage as in the past years. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that voting should also happen on paper, as it’s much easier to get people walking by Ladha to vote right then and there than to get them to go get their laptops and then log in to do so.
Now, in terms of endorsements… I know some of the candidates too well personally to say definitively who I prefer, but I can do some analysis.
President
This one is tough- it’s a hard choice between Tagh and Jimmy. Tagh has the advantage of having been on a variety of committees, he knows how the university works, he’s a good team player, and he’ll have lots of time on his hands next year (he’s delaying graduating in order to run for the position, and last I heard he’s intending to take 1 course next year, leaving him lots of time to do SUS stuff). He has been IT Manager this year, but that’s also about all the SUS experience he has. Jimmy, on the other hand, has more SUS experience, having been VPI for 2 years, but is also going to be taking a full (or more than full) course load next year and will be writing an Honours thesis (before you all get suspicious of how I know this- we’re in the same program, and I’ll be in the same boat), which I feel would limit his time. He also has a more aggressive leadership style. That’s about as much as I can say- the rest is up to voters, and I’d encourage you all to check out their platforms.
For all the unopposed positions, I am voting Yes. I know all of the candidates personally, and feel they would do a fine job in their positions.
Senate
I would vote for Bryan Tomlinson. I have had the pleasure of working with him in the past, and he is a very dedicated individual, and really does things on time. While Aaron has served on Council for longer, there have been rumblings of unhappiness about the job he has done as Director of Finance this year, and the budget for the 2008-2009 year was only passed at the end of November. He will also have his hands full with SLFS, which I feel would detract from the Senate job should be win that as well.
Director of Sports
Andrew Hurlburt is my pick- he’s shown great enthusiasm, which is hugely important in this position, and he’s had lots of experience with running similar events. He’s also been involved with Council for a while, and knows the ropes, so to speak. He would definitely be my pick.
AMS Rep
This one is hard in the sense that I find it difficult to choose 4 candidates. So I only chose 2. My picks were Tahara, who has had a lot of experience, although I wished she would come to more meetings this year and let people know what’s going on with the AMS. My other pick would be Justin, who has shown enthusiasm, dedication, but most importantly a genuine care for students, which I feel is a rare quality among people who run for the position. I know that’s a bit harsh, but I think I’d like to see some effort to help the student community from a lot of the candidates, or at least some commitment to coming to Council meetings, getting to know the system, and actually being transparent about what goes on in the AMS. The AMS should not be used as a chance to launch a career in politics, it shouldn’t be used as an opportunity to fill your resume up with impressive-sounding committee names, nor should it be joined for the purposes of hanging out with people you might know. The job entails representing students’ interests- which can’t really be done unless people actually talk to students, or at least attend Council meetings and talk to people there. This isn’t a general seat- this is a seat for Science students, and as such, it is Science students’ interests that must be represented. I’m slightly disenchanted with some of the other candidates, so please don’t make me pick.
That concludes tonight’s verbose discussion of more politics. Stay tuned for results!
Mar
10
I have been incredibly busy the past few weeks, but I do want to remind people to vote in the SUS elections. Voting is taking place on WebCT- so be sure to vote this week! I encourage you all to go to the SUS website and check out the candidates, what they have to say, and what their plans are for the next year. I would also encourage you to visit both the Spectator and the RBT to see their thoughts on the election. I will be posting more once my month of ridiculous busy-ness is over!
Also, I am currently looking for bloggers. I can’t do it all by myself with 7 courses on my plate (pardon the pun), so if any of our readers are interested, please send me an email!
Feb
25
If you haven’t already been informed – it looks like Blake Frederick’s disqualification has been overturned.
More details to come.
Update 1: Hopefully the president elect will see to it that members of the Appointments Committee be chosen carefully, and the hiring of the EA happens, like, yesterday.
Feb
24
Some blogs are updating with live coverage- check out the Radical Beer Tribune or the UBC Spectator. So far, Blake, Ale, and Tristan have all laid out their cases. The latter two candidates were punished for slate-like behaviour by being fined $200 each. Most of the confusion/disgruntlement seems to stem around a couple of issues:
-what constitutes slate-like behaviour: candidates were told that they were allowed to make announcements together, yet at the same time not in a way that could be construed as slate-like (personal note: I saw several of these announcements, at no time did I feel like these candidates were a part of a slate. Nothing they said or did suggested that they were running together, and each candidate presented their own platforms only). Candidates said that they made announcements together between 5 and 10 times (out of between 25 and 50 announcements that each candidate made individually).
-being notified of disqualification: the EA did not notify Blake in person, and the other two candidates found out only about 1 week later that they had been disqualified. There seem to be some issues with email communication in general.
-Cookiegate and how many votes can be garnered in this way (i.e. by going door to door- the EAC tried it and got something like 4 votes in more than 2 hours, while the allegations were of 50-800 votes being made). Also, Cookiegate and how evidence was handled, whether or not people spoke with one another, and whether or not witnesses were friends of other candidates and were thus biased.
-the impartiality of the EAC and general bias
Decisions that were made:
-the Chief Justice will be looking at code, and a by-election for the SLFS could occur. I’m not totally sure why, but it looks like things may have been muddled with the nomination process- please correct me if I’m wrong, as I wasn’t there.
-the Chief Justice also said that Sonia’s appeal took too much time. From what I gathered, there was no evidence to substantiate her claims.
All in all, there are 4 appeals taking place- one about the SLFS (launched by Ed Durgan), one about the VP Academic/Uni Affaris race (launched by Sonia Purewal), one about the presidential race (launched by Blake Frederick), and one about the VP Finance race (launched by Ale). The latter two are based on the slate rulings (one is about the disqualification, the other about the fine). The Chief Justice presiding was Donald McIntyre.
Feb
12
There is an obvious inconsistency from year to year in the subjective interpretation of code. The question is whether there should be.
The interesting cases always arise when the political meets the judicial, and within this context let us consider the judicial party to be the four 20-something year old bushy-tailed individuals who have been appointed by councillors (last minute as always, is my guess), relying on partial evidence, but not obliged to follow any explicitly outlined procedure except for their own moral guidelines.
Of course, from year to year the Student Court anticipates being busy during this time of year, when candidates appeal the decision of the EA’s office, hoping their luck at a more “legal” or “official” body, traditionally consisting of students with at least some legal training.
Then there is the issue of whether or not AMS council, the highly political body, will decide to accept the appeals decision of the Student Court. It is in poor form not to do so, but as the archives are my witness, Council has overturned or rejected its rulings numerous times as it sees fit, at the moment’s political flavour at hand.
So, when we come back to the specific issue on slates and the recent disqualification of Mr Frederick, how robust should this interpretation of a code be from year to year? Should a candidate be “testing out” the mood of the EA, seeing what he or she can get away with?
Is campaigning alongside other candidates in the same room vehemently slate-like to one reasonable person, but a-ok with another?
Is the EA contradicting her own words when she disqualifies candidates who campaigned together in a cafeteria, but earlier allowed classroom announcements to be made together?
The subjective interpretation of reasonable standard becomes the gray zone in which the EA’s office enters the power play to make or break the political career of the candidates.
From year to year, this interpretation has differed. To quote Spencer Keys, father and founder of the post-slate era, the punitive measures on slate-oid activity has included:
“…in 2005 one candidate was found to have had his website registered and paid on the credit card of a candidate in another race. He got a 24hr campaign suspension.
In a more relevant example, despite lots of candidates doing speeches at the same time, it was ruled (if I recall correctly) that a line was crossed when one candidate told a classroom to “Vote progressive” when numerous candidates had explicitly identified themselves as “progressive.” That person also received a campaign suspension (I think) but it hardly mattered anyway when they won by 500 votes. The first guy lost his position so it also didn’t matter.”
Should there be a list of precedent rulings to be followed as general guidelines for the candidate’s sake, such that they know what is and is not considered slate-like behaviour? Keep in mind that these rulings themselves may have had their share of controversies, involving the Student Court and lateron Council.
Or perhaps in this post-slate era, there are very few people left who remember how blatantly obvious a slate was like, and the purpose behind banning them has reduced itself into a witch-hunt for even the most invisible alignments, friendships included?
It seems to me the EA’s were given no transition as to the intentions behind this particular section of code, and are now keen for the election to become so puritan to the point where a candidate should run in the other direction if someone else is postering on a prime location, or campaigning in the same cafeteria.
What a precedent.
Feb
12
… the current president of the AMS has made some progress this year, demonstrating that the AMS can accomplish things for the students when it’s not trying to sort out elections.
Hello Everyone,
Thank you all for your help and for joining this group. We have succeeded. Athletic fees for students will be dropping substantially starting Sept. 2009. The AMS and Athletics will be issuing a press release tomorrow which I will put on this facebook group. I am sure the Ubyssey will have more info in Friday’s paper.
Some examples of the drops are as follows:
BirdCoop fees: 4 month pass $148 -> $25
Intramurals: all sports now between $5-10 per person per team (except hockey, which is being reduced, but not to those levels)
Aquatic Centre: free student access at all times
Thunderbird Winter Sports Complex: public skating -> free \\ all other drop in sports -> $2 \\ ice rentals -> 25 – 50 percent off
Tennis Centre: no deal worked out, still in progress
All these fees will be frozen for 3 years.
These drops have been realized due to the contribution students make to the department and the fact that the business model for the department has been doing quite well. These are also being realized because of the pressure the AMS has put on the department this past year. I would really like to recognize Neal Yonson, who has been integral in helping force these changes.
Now go make use of the reduced costs. Exercise and be merry.
Mike Duncan
I feel like this should serve to indicate to students that the AMS is looking out for their best interest, and that things can get done with some effort. I’m personally quite pleased, although I have yet to use the facilities. However, it’s this sort of news that makes me have faith yet in the capacity of the AMS to change things for the better on campus. There are other examples as well, of course, but I want to bring this recent thing up as an indicator of the AMS working.
Feb
11
Ah, what’s that in the air? It smells like the seemingly never ending elections cycle. While the AMS elections are sort-of-but-not-really-over, GSS elections are still going strong. This is a reminder that if you are a grad student, please vote! The GSS could do great things, but you need to make sure it has a strong, motivated executive. Voting details below.
Voting for the GSS Elections close on Monday, February 16th at 5pm. You can vote using the “Webvote” option when you log onto the SSC website. Information about the candidates can be found here. Election results will be made public 5pm on Thursday February 19th at Koerner’s pub.
Feb
10
results photos!
Comments Off on results photos!
I’ve got them up here; there might be a commentary post up later but it seems sort of silly given what’s going on.
