The Insiders
-
Posts by Neal Yonson:
- A Perspective from the Ubyssey about how the War on Fun is really just paperwork, and a rebuttal from the Radical Beer Tribune.
- A first from the Ubyssey: a video recap and text summary of the first Presidential debate
- Gossip Guy’s lambasting of the Presidential websites.
- Candidate writeups on the AMS Elections site; it’s important not only to vote, but to be an informed voter.
- the comments section on this Devil’s Advocate post where Blake challenges Alex to a debate on tuition policy and issues.
- Blake Frederick — current AVP External, former Insiders writer, Presidential candidate
- Michael Duncan — current AMS President, former SUS President, often seen shirtless and painted blue
- Tristan Markle — current VP Admin, VP Admin candidate, former owner of awesome dreadlocks
- Bijan Ahmadian — current BoG rep, former AMS Ombudsman, somehow on campus for 11 years.
Jan
23
Link-splosion, January 23
Comments Off on Link-splosion, January 23
As we come to the end of the first week of campaigning, here’s a look at some of the stuff we’ve been reading:
what’s caught your eye lately?
Jan
23
I’m a big fan of balancing out coverage of the elections, and while it’s fine and well to analyze soundbites and award points, sometimes it’s necessary to post photos of people bearing facial expressions that only appear between words, and for us to come together as a community in laughing at the people who are putting so much of themselves out there in the hopes of serving their fellow students.
Ale Coates and Tom Dvorak, our VP Finance Candidates.
Fire was sadly unable to ignite the crowd’s interest; although there was plenty of kindling (especially with all the plants), the jokes just seemed to sputter.
Here’s Rory Green, Tim Chu’s painfully loud campaign manager. I found myself distracted by her a number of times, which did affect my opinions of Tim.
Serious VPX Candidates Iggy and Tim. Tim stood up when he spoke which really only served to highlight how he was a wisp of a man next to the Iggy.
Bruce Krayenhoff, electoral reform nerd (this is a term of endearment around here) asks a question about BC-STV.
The Kings Head sips tequila through a straw. I’m not sure why the joke candidates aren’t spread out over multiple races; doubling up as they have will only make it harder to get their 10% of the vote.
After Iggy’s opening gambit about protest politics, current VPX Stef Ratjen delineated all the ways in which protests, demonstrations, and student initiatives had been successful over the past year (especially in the case of the Aquatic Centre, which went from “closing the free gym” to “free for students almost all the time”) and asked if/how the candidates would continue.
The answers were interesting, but I’ll leave it up to Maria to examine them in depth.
From left to right:
Mike’s the only one who seemed to watch the crowd while the other people spoke; he also ended up looking at any cameras pointed at him, which really does work in his favor.
Debate Moderator and AUS President Avneet Johal. AJ is living in a tent in the Ike Barber Learning Centre at the moment to raise awareness and funds for schools in India. He gets five minutes an hour away from said tent to do whatever he needs to do outside the tent and so ended up staying in the tent for eighteen hours (!) to bank up the time to moderate the debate. That’s dedication, folks. Or insanity. Your call.
This is just a picture I like, but again, note that Mike is looking at the camera.
Jan
23
I must admit that I spent a large part of the debates wondering why I was there, and then another part of them wondering “If I were Fire, what puns could I make about these debates?”. Things like “none of the candidates seemed to have spark”, or “candidates preferred flame wars over debates”, or “debates lacked sizzle”. Or something infinitely more witty. If only that was something the debates actually had- humour. Instead, I, along with many others, found the debates to be painfully dull.
I came in a tad late and thus missed the first part of the VP Finance debates, but not late enough to hear Tom advocate that student businesses at UBC need money to operate and to hear Ale say that she wants to improve club relations/promotions/partnerships by having a week-long fair that’s a major event to get clubs to work together. I wasn’t quite sure how this was different from clubs days (I know that others I was talking to also seemed confused on the point), except that it would take place in 2nd term, which I agree is a good idea- it would be great to have another club recruitment drive in January. Discussion then moved onto what to do with the ACF. Ale suggested that the AUS is capable of paying off its debt, but that if it couldn’t, then a repayment fund should be looked into and set up, while Tom said that the debt shouldn’t be put on the AUS and AMS should take the hit.
One thing that struck me as being interesting about Tom is that he is very committee-happy. While committees are often a wonderful thing, it seemed like his responses to a lot of things were to set up a committee to investigate the matter- in principle, a good thing, but I think that there’s enough information out there on some things (such as the child care problem) that this sort of thing isn’t really as necessary. The two candidates didn’t really differ much on the issue of child care at UBC, however- both agreed that it needs to be addressed, and that money needs to be put into the system to make it both more accessible and more affordable.
Discussion then turned to tuition fees, and, for the first time in my time at UBC, I heard a candidate say what I think all students know is going to happen- that tuition will continue to go up due to inflation, at the very least. Kudos to Tom for being realistic on the issue. His solution to the problem: instead of cutting things, we need to modify business practices to bring in more money. This was in contrast to Ale, who wants to decrease student fees, and who believes that the AMS needs to assess what fees need to be decreased and to retain businesses to increase AMS revenue and stabilize student fees this way. Which sounds like it’s contradictory (stabilizing student fees vs. decreasing them). So I’m not really sure what she meant, but can’t really conjecture.
In any case, other points brought up by both Tom and Ale:
In response to Ale’s question about the increasing the student reserve, Tom said that students need to be made aware of scholarships out there that go unclaimed every year, and that an increase in the student reserve does not need to happen.
In response to Tom’s question about her experience in business operations, Ale stated that she’s worked on SAC, but other than that failed to provide any more details about her previous leadership experience, and instead talked in vague terms about how she’d ensure that things would run well.
Ale wants to create a new used bookstore on campus, which will apparently go in the place of the copyright facilities, and which will make a profit- albeit a “smaller one”- simply by being around, because used bookstores have yet to lose money.
In general, my impressions of the two candidates were “meh”. There was lots of rhetoric, but I didn’t really get the sense that Tom had a good enough understanding of some issues, and I didn’t come away feeling like Ale really knew what she was getting into. But I was treated with some nice assertions. I think either candidate would do a fine job, but neither really struck me as being particularly outstanding based on the debates alone.
Moving on to the VP External debates… oh, where do I even start… how about with some advice.
1.) Don’t plant questions. It makes you look like you can’t stand up for yourself.
2.) Don’t bring cheerleaders. Voting isn’t based on how much noise the crowd makes, or by the amount of applause you get. Sadly, it doesn’t always seem to be based on how competent candidates are either. So maybe I’m just missing something. But seriously.
3.) Don’t bring provincial politics into this. You’re running for the AMS, and not for your political party- by bringing these issues into it, you a.) don’t look like you particularly care about UBC students and b.) look like you’re trying to launch a political career (which, granted, you might be, but at least try not to look so self-interested? Although it might help people see through you… so maybe scratch this point).
4.) Don’t insult people. Especially when those people might be working with you. I’ve written about this before. Telling Cody (I think it was Cody) that she was “Another member of AMS establishment who is continuing to disappoint students” was not cool, Ignacio. Particularly when you’re talking to an outreach worker.
5.) Learn what responsibilities your position encompasses. Things like equity, Ignacio, are a part of the position.
6.) Don’t pretend to be Obama. We’d all love it if he came to Canada. But you’re not Obama, as much as you’d like to be.
7.) Don’t talk about being invited to AMS meetings (Ignacio) when they’re open to students. And maybe, I don’t know, attend some.
I think that gives you a pretty good idea of what the debates were like. My notes make it seems significantly more exciting than it actually was. Some important issues were addressed, however. As much as I’m not a fan of Tim’s promises to lower tuition fees, he seems to mostly be running on issues of equity and representations of minority groups, which I quite support, even if he doesn’t seem to have a concrete plan on how to do this. Ignacio, on the other hand, seemed to think that knowing nothing about how the AMS worked was a point in his favour, and emphasized instead how important “new blood” was to the AMS, and how he has fresh ideas (none of which I heard, by the way, but maybe his platform has more details?) while doing nothing but offering rhetoric and repeating the phrases “I have a plan”, “___ is broken”, and “I am running for Change”. Sadly, his points fell short of his rhetoric.
All in all, attending these debates didn’t really do anything for me other than make me contemplate the sad state of the elections and understand why most students don’t vote.
Jan
22
I’ve heard this question asked countless times- why don’t students care about AMS elections and student politics? Why don’t they vote? How do we get them to vote? I can’t say I have a solution, but it seems to me that this has been a problem for quite some time, so campaign promises that eloquently explain how the candidate intends to increase student participation in the AMS sound a bit hollow. From my perspective, there are at least 3 factors contributing to student apathy- not just when it comes to AMS elections, but when it comes to student government and student societies in general.
1.) Lack of knowledge. I’ve been surprised how many of my friends I’ve talked to who have been surprised to learn that AMS elections are taking place. Some of those people then go and read up on the candidates or come to watch atrocious debates, but I think one of the primary factors in students not getting involved with organizations on campus is that they simply don’t know what’s out there. I don’t think this is particularly surprising, given that UBC is a big commuter campus. However, while advertising campaigns and outreach efforts might help rope in some of the students who might potentially care about the AMS (or SUS or the AUS/CUS etc.), they don’t always increase voter turnout or student involvement in politics because those who are interested will already voluntarily seek those organizations out, but also because lots of students simply don’t care, which brings me to my 2nd point.
2.) Lack of association. Students feel like student government doesn’t actually make that big of a difference. ‘But surely they know about the UPass and the efforts of AMS execs there? Or other events that student societies put on?’ you say. Kind of. But I would argue that students don’t know who is responsible for terms of negotiation, or that even if they do, the association between the concepts of “UPass” and “AMS” isn’t strong enough. Last year, shockingly few people realized that the referendum was held by the AMS- quite a few students I talked to thought it was the university itself that facilitated it. Similarly, while some students attending SUS events might know that their undergraduate society is hosting the event, some simply attend an event- not a SUS event, mind you, but, quite simply an event. Thus, students know which events are happening, but either don’t know who is hosting the event, or else quickly forget and then assert that “the doesn’t do anything.” Which isn’t always untrue, by the way. But it’s a perception that needs to be fought nonetheless.
3.) Lost trust/hope/faith in the system. There are other students who know perfectly well what’s going on, but refuse to get involved and to vote- and sometimes, I can’t blame them. While student politics are sometimes exciting, the ‘debates’ today were nothing if not disappointing. The problem is that students keep seeing the same types of people running for office- people who seem like “hacks”, for lack of a better word, or people who aren’t hacks, but who are blatantly rude or disrespectful to students who are trying to make a difference or who they may have to work with (I’m looking at you, Iggy. Or Ignacio, rather, as I fear the nickname might spoil the positive associations I currently have with that nickname and the current Leader of the Opposition, who has some admirable qualities that don’t involve insulting others; or for the hockey fans out there, Jerome Iginla), or who seem like hacks. Students also feel like the people running for office aren’t actually addressing student needs, but rather promoting their own personal agendas/political careers. I feel that an effective leader must have the trust of their constituency, and I think that’s simply not the case. Furthermore, there is such a lack of continuity between leaders that it becomes difficult to believe that anything can really be accomplished by any one leader in a given year. As a result, the impetus and incentive to vote, and the belief that one’s vote will actually make a difference, is in essence quashed. When candidates make empty promises (please, I beg you, stop talking about lowering tuition and be realistic!), students clue in, and oddly enough, it doesn’t hurt the candidate so much as it hurts the entire system. It is the entire system that loses the trust of its constituency. There have been interesting psychological studies on the matter that I won’t go into, but I think this is a major reason for students not voting- and I can’t blame them.
I’m not saying that we need an Obama to fix our system (as aMAZing as that would be). Rather, I’m saying that candidates need to be realistic, to realize how they are coming off to students, and to address students’ concerns beyond making empty promises. I think that greater transparency on the AMS’s behalf would start to address these concerns. The problem is that when even AMS candidates don’t know that AMS meetings can be attended by anyone, without invitation, how are students who aren’t interested in the system supposed to be informed about how the AMS operates (or at least how your portfolio operates)? And how are they supposed to trust a candidate who doesn’t have such basic knowledge to represent them? The problem is that candidates simply don’t present themselves well quite often. Joke candidates, while hilarious, should serve to raise important issues instead of making the entire business of elections seem like a joke by offering no substance. Don’t get me wrong- I love joke candidates- but only when they actually raise good points that serious candidates must then address. Serious candidates, on the other hand, shouldn’t be insulting, and nor should they bring in their personal cheerleaders to debates to ask rehearsed questions. And provincial politicking shouldn’t come into the picture. Perhaps if candidates were a bit more respectful of each other, they could finally get some (much deserved, at times) respect from the average student, and increase student involvement in the system. Until then, all we can do is lament about the state of apathy prevalent in our student body.
Jan
22
Rumour has it…
Comments Off on Rumour has it…
So I recently made a post about a rumour that I heard students discussing. I posted the rumour and flagged it as such, as I felt that it was something that students were talking about, and felt that it was something to be discussed. I feel that part of covering elections includes posting things that I feel students are discussing, and that may be raised as issues. However, there was a potential to substantiate the rumour despite any disclaimers, which was not the purpose of the post, so it’s been taken down. As someone rightly pointed out, sometimes informing people of a rumour causes the information to be taken seriously, and the false information is remembered as truth. This is something that I do not like, and the purpose of the post was to inform students of the fact that this specific rumour did not have evidence to support it. As such, the post, and all comments relating to it, have been removed in order to prevent adding fuel to the fire. I am sorry if the post offended anyone- it was not intended to do so, nor was it intended to hurt any of the candidates. Please consider this an open thread about the role of rumour in student politics (the goal of the original discussion). Thank you.
Here is a link to the article I read about rumours- take a look, it’s quite interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27aamodt.html?_r=1
Jan
21
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.
Jan
20
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…
Jan
20
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.
Jan
20
Presidential Platforms: Paul Korczyk
Comments Off on Presidential Platforms: Paul Korczyk
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.
Jan
19
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.
