Author: Neal Yonson

Neal Yonson is a native of Ottawa. He graduated from the University of Toronto with an Hon.B.Sc. in 2006 and will be happy to tell you about how things seemed to work more smoothly there. After traveling across the country for free (protip: strategically arrange grad school visits where they reimburse travel) he came to UBC to start a Ph.D. in chemistry. He was quite happy to avoid student issues until he found out how much it cost to go to the BirdCoop. Since then, he has been involved with a variety of advocacy projects.

Categories
Development Government

University Golf Course to be handed over to Musqueam

Isn’t it ironic that the University is now the the valiant protector of parkland in the face of development and the Musqueam are the rabid private interest group?

From today’s Globe and Mail:

Gary Mason
June 14, 2007
VANCOUVER — One of the most prime pieces of real estate in the country, home to one of the oldest public golf courses in the city, is expected to be handed over to the Musqueam Indian band as part of a controversial land-claims agreement.

If the deal for the 120-acre University Golf Club goes ahead, constituents in Premier Gordon Campbell’s upscale west-side riding, which encompasses the land, will be forced to take some kind of action, one former University of British Columbia official predicted yesterday.

“I can tell you right now it will have a dramatic impact on any provincial election,” said Bob Hindmarch, a retired director of athletics at the university.

“Gordon’s constituents are going to be furious. I simply can’t believe the provincial government would do this but that’s what we’re hearing is going to happen.”

Mr. Hindmarch isn’t the only person who has heard a deal is in the works. Word has begun buzzing throughout the development community too, and sources suggest the current worth of the land is $5-million an acre.

As well, some of the university’s top patrons have been tipped off and have quietly begun to mobilize forces to fight the move when it is officially announced next month.

The Musqueam have laid claim to vast tracts of the city, including land on which the University of British Columbia and University Golf Club sit. The land is some of the most valuable property in the country.

It has long been accepted that any land-claims agreement with the Musqueam would be extremely costly simply because of the value of the land to which they have laid claim.

The university bought the golf club from the province in 2003 for $11-million over the objections of the Musqueam, who wanted the property included in any land-claims negotiations. The land has a covenant on it that stipulates the property be used for a golf club, which is why it sold for only $11-million when it would be worth hundreds of millions if it was ever redeveloped for residential or commercial use.

In March, 2005, the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned an earlier Supreme Court of B.C. decision that upheld the sale. The appeal court ruled that the provincial government breached its duty to consult and accommodate the band before transferring title to the property.

Two of the three appeal court judges agreed that the order-in-council authorizing the sale should be suspended for two years while the parties tried to reach an agreement.

Details of the anticipated deal between the Musqueam and the provincial and federal governments for the golf club are virtually non-existent.

However, one university source said the government would repay the university the money it paid for the course in 2003 plus interest. The land would then be transferred to the Musqueam, who would be required to operate it as a golf course for a set period of time.

“But I guarantee you the Musqueam could and will get out of whatever covenant is placed on the course,” said one source. “And if they redevelop that land it will be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to them. It’s one of the finest pieces of real estate anywhere in the country, let alone the city.”

It’s true. But to the federal and provincial governments, the golf club represents a fairly quick and easy solution to the land-claims dilemma it faces with the Musqueam. As mentioned, the band’s claim covers vast tracts of the city, including some of the most expensive residential property in the country. The government has no intention of turning either the university or any private residences over to the band, so the golf course offers an attractive alternative.

But handing the golf course to the band will likely have to come with a fair whack of cash as well.

Calls to Musqueam band leaders were not returned yesterday. The provincial government refused to comment on the story.

The Musqueam claim has been the great elephant in the room on the land-claims front. Reaching agreements with bands in remote areas of the province is one thing, coming to terms with one laying claim to large chunks of one of the most expensive cities in the world is quite another.

“The university would have kept that golf course a golf course forever,” Mr. Hindmarch said. “The idea that the province would take it away from the university and give it to the Musqueam without securing its future as a golf course in perpetuity is unthinkable.

“But that’s what we’re hearing. And like I said, if this thing goes ahead there are going to be tons of irate people. I guarantee you. I’ve talked to a bunch of people about this already and they’re very upset. This has greater implications.”

Categories
AMS Elections 2007 Campus Life Student Politics

Chitchat with Mark Latham – he's going to take over the world!

Last year, the ex-wall street strategist, UBC alum, and ex-professor Mark Latham walked into an AMS council meeting waving around 8 thousand dollars. He wanted to use the AMS as the first testing ground for his media revolution. The result was Voter Funded Media, the contest that this blog was created for.

For those of you that have been under a rock this year, Voter Funded Media was the contest that accompanied the February AMS elections here at UBC. It was a pilot project meant to increase the information available to students about the elections, leading to more informed voting. The basic idea is that voters reward the media sources that are best for them through a public financial incentive which they award by voting. When students cast their ballots for their favorite candidate, they also voted for their favorite elections-coverage media sources. So media groups (either established, or new) were vying for eight prizes collectively worth 8 thousand dollars (amiably proffered by Mark himself).

I was surprised, but happy to be summoned by Mark for a chat last Wednesday. “I’m bored,” quoth he. “I’m waiting for the contest to start again. You’re the only one that’s still active and we hadn’t met yet.” In fact, boredom figured prominently in the short meeting’s thematic material. All the major professional milestones he cited were the results of boredom. This, combined with Mark’s idealism about his big idea resulted in a decidedly adolescent vibe. Not that that’s a bad thing at all. Mark preemptively refused to delight in the AMS meeting’s (which we were both planning to attend that evening) delicious and nutritious free food. Instead, he tucked into a substantial sandwich, courtesy of the Delly, as we talked. We chatted about some of the successes and challenges of the first year’s VFM contest. He seemed interested in whether the results of last years’ contest (whereby, the familiar campus publications did better than newer, more interesting ones) would be a deterrent to this corner participating again. I assured him that as far as I was concerned it wouldn’t.

The theoretical rational behind the project has been Mark’s work of over the last 15 years or so – basically since he quit his overpaid Wall-street job with a handsome nest egg. I got to find out a bit about the genesis of Voter Funded Media: because of his business and financial background, Mark originally conceived the idea in the context of shareholders making decisions about company executives. He recounted that during his years on Wall street he had seen a lot of waste and mismanagement in companies because of bad executives. The idea was, that if shareholders themselves decided to pay outside consultants (call them ‘media’) to advise them on who to vote into the company’s executive, better people would be chosen and improved management practices would result. Over some years, between waking up late and writing the occasional article, Mark purchased shares in companies for the express purpose of trying the idea out. He wrote up and proposed this plan to his fellow shareholders at their annual meetings. Interestingly, these proposals never got more than 20% in favour. That’s when he started thinking about the parallel opportunities in politics and public life: essentially, the premise of VFM is that as information about civics and government can be thought of as a “public good” with a collective dimension, that it should have a dedicated public reward system. This public reward system will encourage “good” reporting in civics and government, leading to better election choices and improved policy.

I’m not entirely sold on this line of reasoning. First, it’s not clear that the definition of a “public good” – that is, something that either applies to nobody or everybody, like the environment or national security – applies to information. Most people seek out the information they care about individually, and share it with a select number of people that are also interested. Mass entertainment maybe reaches a certain degree of “universality,” but the type of in depth investigative reporting Mark wants to encourage never has – only a subset of people are interested in that. Moreover, while we are forced to contribute to public goods through taxes, VFM only asks us to add another way to reward media – through voting on a public purse. It is unclear whether people would vote for media choices differently than the way they already support media – through their viewership. If everyone voted in VFM for the same networks they watch all the time, no change would take place. It is possible that the very act of conscious voting for media sources on the basis of their elections coverage would create a consciousness different from the one that informs our natural preference for entertainment – but that’s speculation.

The other interesting aspect of VFM is the creation of new media groups – ones that in theory, would slowly gain reputations and be able to compete with existing sources. Here at UBC, where there’s limited existing media in the first place, and they contain almost no political coverage on a regular basis, that seems reasonable. With time, blogs like this one or future VFM outlets could become players in the UBC information market. I’m skeptical that the same thing could be said for the real world though: large and small media organizations saturate the market already, and it would be tough to break through if all you’re doing is in depth politics.

In my view the biggest success of VFM is in its capacity to excite, reach out, and re-engage sullen or cynical voters. It’s a neat idea that people like to talk about. It makes people want to jump in. At least here at UBC, it created the most interesting campaign is years. Mark is planning to start VFM with some more student unions in BC this year, and then take it to municipalities. From there, his idea will take over the world, or that’s the plan.

Categories
BoG Development

Campus Plan Report


You’ve all seen the signs carpeting our pavements and draping our buildings at UBC, asking you “what’s the plan?”. This fancy publicity campaign is promoting the process of coming up with a ten-year strategic plan for the academic campus of UBC. The Plan addresses the holistic, and specific vision for all of the university’s institutional buildings and spaces ; these include residences, research facilities, classrooms, administration buildings, gardens, etc. Basically, the consultation and publicity campaign regard the academic core of the campus – as distinct from the various outlying areas owned by UBC where private development has taken place: these are not considered academic buildings. Important to note, is that the University Boulevard area is not included in the academic Campus Plan process, though it is located in the centre of the campus; it is designated as a “neighborhood,” like the outlying private developments. This means that, first, it’s farther along in the development process (time-wise) than the main Campus Plan, and that second, its development process has not been tied to that of the rest of campus, and has been fraught with conflict. Refer to earlier posts on this topic.

Anyhow, this month the report summarizing Phase Three (titled “talking about the future”) of the ten-year Campus Plan process came out. This phase comprised of various consultations, as well as a speaker series. The report, which can be found here (click), details the feedback from focus groups, presentations (including to AMS council), and an extensive on-line survey form which was open to students faculty, staff, and community members. The structure of this planning process involves the University’s Campus and Community Planning office, who conduct the consultations and public relations, and three committees that actually carry out the analysis and planning work. These are the Steering Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Project Team. They all report to the Board of Governors and each committee comprises of people from the University Neighborhood Association, students, staff, faculty, alumni, etc.

It strikes me as strange that the UNA has a stake in the main Campus Plan development process while students faculty and staff have historically had very little to do with the vision and design behind the various neighborhood developments (starting with Hampton Place, the first, which, under former President Strangway had basically no consultation). The relationship should arguably be the opposite. While the university seems to have taken a slightly more consultative approach to its profit-driven neighborhood developments in recent years with the creation of the University Town committee, it is odd that the UNA should be interested in the University’s academic buildings. Extreme deference for the Neighborhoods‘ interests in the campus’s academic core seems to be thematic, in fact: at the recent BoG meeting at least three governors repeated commitments to the neighborhoods regarding the stalled underground transit station, though such a station would hardly serve their locations at all, having nearer transit stops on the way. Could all this concern and all these committee posts be because Premier Gordon Campbell himself (a former developer and buddy of David Strangway) has taken up residence in Hawthorne Place, across from Totem Field?

In any event, the feedback was fairly predictable. Services near work and living spaces, green spaces, focus on sustainability, cycling and pedestrian focus, social spaces, density in the academic core, flexible collaborative research/work environments like the UBC Farm, and a sense of ‘place’ (whatever that means).

The UBC Farm came up repeatedly in the reported feedback, and seemed to be the single most addressed topic. It figured in the contexts of sustainability, integrative research, community outreach, and green spaces. Well done to the farm supporters for getting such a strong message across through this official consultation. It’s on paper now!!

Some of the questions in the online survey, I found very easy to either support or be concerned with. A few though were vague, hard to understand, and nearly meaningless. For example, key policy direction 3, reads thus:

New buildings should maximize the flexibility in the design of the learning
spaces to enable students and faculty to incorporate innovative teaching and
learning methods.

Now, I truly have no idea how buildings, however “flexible,” can contribute in any way to having “innovative teaching methods”. It is my impression that with appropriate AV equipment, which UBC already possesses, it is up to each instructor to teach. Key policy direction 2 is also strange. It postulates that

Building locations should enhance the opportunity for interdisciplinary research and study and collaboration between allied disciplines, and provide opportunities for undergraduate students to participate in faculty research projects.

Again, how a building’s location will create collaborative relationships and internship opportunities is a mystery to me. The campus as it is, is not vast or labyrinthine. I have never walked into an office or a lab and decided to volunteer there because it was handy to my English class. Nor have I heard of someone declining a summer NSERC because it was located more than 100 meters from their favorite lunch spot. I fear that collaborations and undergrad research opportunities still depend on people creating them. Anyhow, other than said incoherencies, the survey was fairly satisfactory. Some of the “key policy direction” statements were a little hard to disagree with because of the positive-spin phrasing, but there was plenty of space to provide written comments, and these seem to be faithfully reported (excepting my specific complaints, which I included at the time and make no appearance) in the document.

Sadly, for all the publicity, and visibility, only 277 people total and 170 students mustered the personal resources necessary to go and answer the survey. An additional number of people (amount not noted) participated in the focus groups and presentation sessions. Considering the enormous publicity effort, and the fact that farm-affiliated students alo
ne probably comprised at least a third of student respondents, I’m disappointed with the response to the online survey. 170 students is just enough to cover AMS involvees, farm people, interested parties from the school of architecture and urban planning, and a few other scattered keeners. If banners, fancy websites, and broadcast emails aren’t enough to get the general student population interested enough in their physical academic surroundings to answer a half-hour survey, I do not know what is.

Categories
AMS Student Politics

Executive interview series part IV: VP-X Matthew Naylor

Last week I sat down for the fourth chat of the our series, with AMS VP External Matthew Naylor on the sunny SUB rooftop patio.

As the ambient noises of the water fountain and chairs being dragged about soothe you, listen to Matt talk about lobbying, government relations, the tuition debate, expanded U-Pass service, politics and public service generally, and the joys of ceremonial duties.

have a listen HERE

Interestingly, Matt’s treatment of the AMS’s decision not to sign on as a petitioner in the constitutional challenge court case being undertaken by the BC Civil Liberties Association was different in this interview than in his remarks at Wednesday’s AMS council meeting: at that time he said that the rational not to be a petitioner hinged on the legal advice the AMS had sought, which indicated that presenting affidavits would be just as valuable to the case. He neglected to mention the important detail that came out in our chat earlier in the week, that the AMS was essentially rejected as a petitioner by the principal petitioners since they did not perceive that the AMS fit their profile for a partner.

Categories
Uncategorized

Intellectual boycotting – can we boycott stupid people too?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=britain+boycott&itemNo=865220

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180450954999&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Well, Britain’s academic community has once again embarrassed itself. Britain’s lecturers’ union, UCU, (numbering 120 000 members) voted Wednesday in favor of encouraging and discussing an academic boycott on Israeli universities and research institutes. The motion doesn’t impose the boycott on union members yet but rather brings the question of boycotting Israel’s academia to discussion with all the members, urging the membership to “consider the moral implications of conducting ties with Israeli academic institutions.” It calls on the EU to freeze funding of Israeli research. The UCU’s president herself is opposed to this development, and government and many British universities themselves have also reacted negatively. It will be interesting to see if this particular effort will go through after discussion with the union membership. This is approximately the third effort of this kind in the past five years in Britain’s academic community. The previous two attempts ended up failing or being revoked.

While some, (including Britain’s ambassador to Israel) say that this motion is unlikely to affect academic bilateral relations much, it is still disturbing that 158 out of 257 delegates at the UCU convention supported such a motion. The principle of academic freedom is essentially about dissociating collective administrative bodies from politics such that individual academics are uninhibited in their political and research choices. Beyond that, the concept of discouraging or restricting productive collaborative research because of unconnected political issues is incoherent to the extreme. Even forgetting the fact that the academic community is one of the most progressive and ‘peacenik’ sectors in Israeli society, what in tarnation do two cancer researchers (one at Hebrew U, and one at Cambridge) who want to collaborate, have to do with occupation and activism? Maybe what they want is merely to provide a new therapy, publish their papers, and enrich humanity’s store of knowledge. What could possibly be accomplished by stigmatizing such a working relationship?

Clearly, academics are not individuals that are miraculously free of politics, nor are academic organizations like UCU. They also have the inviolable freedom to say what they wish and carry what motions they will. But when an academic community sees fit to restrict its own intellectual opportunities, priorities have gone out of whack. Israeli research has been rich and innovative over the last 60 years – and brought into being ideas and objects of great interest and benefit, from technology for desert agriculture, to ubiquitous computer programs. Why punish one of the most interesting, international, productive, and beneficial sectors of Israeli society for an occupation that is in no way in their mandate to address? Attempting to scare British academics from collaborations, and bully Israel’s powerful intellectuals into political acquiescence is a strategy likely to alienate and anger, not build consensus or communication. It certainly won’t forward research or knowledge-making. A poisonous culture has already emerged in some British institutions whereby anything associated with the Jewish state is stigmatized, villainized, and rejected. As someone who has spent considerable time taking in both the good and the bad in Israeli society (including academics), I find myself wondering what the motivation behind this harsh profiling is – because it certainly is not warranted by reality.

So that’s where I stand, I suppose. Are collective intellectual boycotts effective, warranted, and moral in this, or other situations? I want some arguments.

Categories
AMS Student Politics

AMS meeting, may 30

Yesterday’s council meeting was a picture of brisk efficiency. A colossally long list of agenda items was faithfully plodded through to general satisfaction, though not fascination. Here’s a summary of the things I didn’t sleep through:

  • U-Boulevard efforts were successful, and monumental, said the president and VP academic. They reviewed the outcome (the plan is being redesigned) and noted that “from scratch” is not a wild interpretation according to conversations with President Toope and others. Noted that this affair is a good example of students using the AMS for their needs, sand congratulated the petition team. Check out the stories about the petition and U-Boulevard campaign that ran in the Hampton Journal community paper here, and in the Courier here.
  • The VP academic talked about re-launching Yardstick, an AMS publication which used to list teacher evaluation results. The new permutation of it will be more fun to read, more controversial, and more political, with less numbers. Articles about pedagogy, professor profiles, students’ personal essays about UBC, student surveys regarding academics, as well as some teacher evaluation results. Perhaps more comprehensive evaluation results will be available in an online supplement. An innovative idea was to create a list of criteria for what a good lecture should contain, then randomly drop in on some of the largest lecture courses and evaluate an average lecture. Results from such a survey with names of profs included would be published in Yardstick. That, and including lists of profs that refused to release their evaluations would comprise the more ‘controversial’ portion of the publication.

  • SA link was passed – this is basically an integrated website for clubs and constituencies to both socially communicate, as well as conduct their financial and administrative obligations with the AMS. These are things like executive and member lists, room bookings, financial accounting, elections, and so forth. It is a new system being purchased from a young IT company called Collegiate Link, which was developed by ex-student-government hacks who realized the lack of centralized club/constituency administration – currently, club administration is a dark web of confusing and unintuitive websites that are totally unconnected. The AMS will be purchasing a new uber-server to power the new system, as well as dishing out 42 grand for the program itself. Some of the administrative roles of the finance commission and SAC may be slimmed down when the new system cuts their workload.

  • Pi R^2 renovation was approved. A new serving counter, different types of seating, and a more open design is being put in. Apparently line-ups will be better organized, and it’ll be prettier all around.

  • Pit Pub renovations were approved – $160000 is being spent to make the place slightly less dingy, but still dingy enough to retain true pit character. New seats, new paint (colour undecided), refinished tables, new railings for the dance floor, new ‘memorabilia wall, a new bar surface, new sounds system, fancy new lighting (that may or may not be energy efficient), and some new booth seats are all in the plan. This should all be finished before everyone is back for September. Since there’s no structural work being done, the bill is fairly reasonable, and it’s not expected that the pub will have to close.

  • SUB renew – the process of planning for a new, expanded, or majorly renovated SUB has taken a surprising direction. With the U-Boulevard plan being re-designed, the AMS has begun informal talk about the SUB expanding into the development itself – perhaps taking ownership of one, or part of the buildings (in whatever form they take). This integration of SUB with the development is quite exciting – and exactly what was totally lacking in the previous design. The AMS has begun consultation with architects and plans to bring a referendum to student on the topic by the end of the year. However, if integration into U-Boulevard is a direction the AMS wants to go with SUB renew, it’ll be interesting to see how the referendum’s timing can work with the BoG timeline for approval – which is around late fall 2007, immediately after the consultation and redesign are completed.

  • U-pass service is being expanded to co-op students come September. Co-op students will be considered full AMS members. This is based on a survey that went out to coop students which asked if they would like to retain full AMS membership. They were in favor by a good margin – 87%.

  • AMS website is being re-designed for a new look, and a better administrative interface. Now every little update won’t need coding, rather a simple interface (like blogger, for example) will allow normal technology dunces to update the site. A web design company called White Matter has been hired for this task. GSS president Matt Fillipiak asked why students aren’t being hired to do this type of work (or generally, why students aren’t used for design and architecture projects). The VP Finance said it was because they would cost almost as much, and the president said it was because they had really liked the product this company offered. What do people think about student vs. professional hiring for AMS projects?

A theme of both the SA link project and the AMS website redesign was making the AMS brand consistent and recognizable. These two sites are to have a common “look and feel”. Maybe having a branding design contest would be a good way to get students familiar and involved with making the AMS better recognized? Thoughts on this topic?

Categories
Campus Life

The Gossip Column

Yeah, it’s a degenerate age for journalism. (See Roman Polanski’s recent antics). Not that I’ve ever had “standards”.

Yesterday, the university’s greybeards gathered at Norman Mackenzie House (president Toope’s residence) to honour several of this year’s honorary degree recipients. The elegant reception came upon the heel of a long day of taxing hand-shaking for the President and Chancellor at a relentless stream of graduation ceremonies. Indeed, the notion that the act of standing on a stage and honoring graduates is, in itself, an invested, laudable feat, deserving of splendid respect and thanks, figured prominently in the evening’s small talk. UBC-O’s student BOG rep had attended every ceremony! The chancellor shook every student’s hand! The president actually did his job! O!

After being name-tagged and equipped with an initial glass of wine, people milled about the garden and house, nibbling on shrimp-on-a-sugar-cane-stick, mini-kebabs, barbecued chicken limbs (of mysterious size and composition), bits of fruit, and miniature chickpea salads-in-a-spoon. If they happened across the open bar a few more times than strictly probable, all the better. Two chairs in which Clinton and Yeltsin once sat were prodded, artwork was admired, and views from the cliff-edge were viewed. Small talk, a skill I’ve neglected for my entire life, is highly necessary; it’s an earnest and serious currency. Bigwigs – probably due to their horror of natural pauses – are quite friendly though. I suppose it comes in the manual. That and the polite retreat.

Anyway, among the honorees were Cassie Campbell, the former captain of the women’s national hockey team, David Dodge, the CEO of the bank of Canada, Michael Bliss, a historian of Canadian medicine, Michael Halliday, a linguist, and P.J. Peebles, the cosmologist who discovered the universe’s microwave background. The Chancellor spoke a few words about each, and they all seemed quite happy. These distinguished folks have have been attending some of the graduation ceremonies this week as well. I wish there had been a bit more time for them to speak or discuss something they care about though – it’s hard to be inspired when the accomplishments of established, distant people are coagulated and volleyed at you. Though, information and inspiration weren’t really the point, I acknowledge. Appreciating, schmoozing, and “welcoming them to the university family” were.

Some of the other guests were the student valedictorians of the various grad ceremonies, as chosen by the grad council. Various administrators and department heads were in attendance too. Some distinguished students (Senator Gina Eom, SUSer Reka Pataky, UCSer Jon Lam, BoG rep Darren Peets, ex-BoG rep Omar Sirri, AMS president Jeff Friedrich, token first-year Sonja Babovic, and Senator Tariq Ahmed) were present. Cool faculty included Miltonist, historian of astronomy, and former faculty BoG rep Dennis Danielson, who apart from being a good teacher, is also responsible for the fact that there’s no traffic on U-Blvd. Nancy Gallini, the Dean of Arts, was also in attendance.

The funniest quote of the night belonged to Brian Sullivan, VP Students, who was, as always, dashing in a bow-tie. When warned not to fall off the cliff as he wandered across the lawn, he replied that not to worry, he’d probably land on squishy middle-aged bodies on the beach below if he did. Lovely. Not quite close, but also note-worthy, is when Gina Eom remarked that I truly looked like one of god’s chosen people. Cuz divine discrimination rocks. Physics professor and fellow microwave-background genius Mark Halpern and the President’s wife Paula Rosen share the prize for best-dressed. Mark wore a fantastic suit and gorgeous delicately-striped, pale green shirt. Ms. Rosen was dramatic in a geometric black ribbon and chiffon dress. A lady with a lovely red sash was also noted and admired.

Though I got permission to fabricate some table-dancing embarrassments from a few people, I’ll forgo the creative flights of fancy and conclude by assuring you all that your money is well-spent!!

Categories
BoG Development

BoG goes ahead with tunnel, utilities.

In an embattled, but clear decision, the UBC board of governors passed final approval of the University Boulevard project’s first phase on Tuesday. Though the faculty, staff, and student representatives were opposed, President Toope remained staunchly in favor of the the phase, which ensures the future of an underground bus terminal on the site of East mall and U-Blvd. The terminal itself is was not approved – only the tunnel along U-blvd that will lead to it and the movement of utilities. Discussion about the issue lasted 45 minutes. It is rare that the board pushes a decision through while it has significant opposition – but for this project, the pressure is on.

Interestingly, since the above ground potion of the plan is being brought back to consultation and re-designed, the terminal itself may have to be re-engineered too, to carry the weight. Al Poettcker, the president of UBC properties trust, doesn’t seem to like this idea, since he continuously claims that only the “programming” of the buildings, not their location, can be changed. Perhaps he does not understand the level to which it is generally expected the plan will change following consultation: buildings could conceivably change their size, location, or be eliminated entirely.

The underground loop however, is coming. It won’t be approved until the above-ground plans are further solidified, in the fall.

Have a listen to Margaret Orlowski (of the anti- U-Blvd student petition) and Nancy Knight of the campus community and planning office face off with the CBC’s Rick Cluff on the Early Edition Wednesday:

Listen here
Categories
BoG Development

UBC BoG committee approves transit tunnel for U-Boulevard.

If you’re a new reader and would like some background, refer to a few earlier posts:
The AMS and U-boulevard and What’s UBC Properties Trust? (clickies)

Yesterday, the Board of Governors’ Property and Planning committee carried a motion to approve the construction of the tunnel that is to lead to the underground bus loop – an integral part of the U-Blvd development project. This pretty much guarantees the future of the underground bus loop, if the motion passes in the general BoG meeting on Tuesday. Traditionally, all BoG members attend the committee meetings, and the whole board rubber stamps their decision officially in the general meeting. That means, unless a dramatic turnaround occurs before Tuesday, that students can come to terms with the fact that an underground bus loop is coming. UBC Properties trust will start construction of the tunnel and utilities located along U-Blvd will this summer.

Everything in the U-Blvd project above the ground is a different story though. The unpopular design plan, that features shops, market housing, and a paved square in place of the grassy knoll, may not be similar to the final product at all, gaging by the Board’s comments. The Board uniformly felt moved and disturbed by the 2500 signature student petition, and AMS policy, recently brought to bear against the current design. AMS VP Academic Brendon Goodmurphy (after being incorrectly introduced by the chair as the “AVP External”) had the opportunity to give the board a presentation about the petition and AMS policy. He did this clearly, outlining student’s concerns, the petition and the policy (which both call upon the board to refrain from making further decisions until meaningful consultation has occurred), and the AMS’s intentions to move forward and cooperate with the board to make a revised plan happen.

At the proposal of Nancy Knight, from the campus community and planning office, the board agreed to begin a new consultation process around the above-ground portion of the project, to begin in September when students return for fall term and to be concluded in November. This consultation is to be modeled like the “what’s the plan?” consultation which is largely regarded as thorough and satisfactory. This is very exciting – we will see how serious this process will be come September.

President Toope admitted that consultation for the above-ground plans had been rushed and insufficient due to the lateness of their completion (for example, they were only presented to the AMS council last week). He cited juggling design and budget as a major roadblock to the timely design of the project. His comments were extremely sympathetic to students’ concerns about the design of the above-ground plan: “Our desire is to re-engage,” said Toope, saying that the space “should be an enhancement to community life” and needs students’ support. However, the President was staunchly convinced that beginning construction of the underground tunnel and loop would not adversely effect the “re-engagement” or overhaul of the above-ground design. He cited some detailed Translink studies, and the OCP, which respectively recommend and obligate UBC to build a transportation hub in the particular location of U-Blvd and East Mall. Toope said that while the above-ground design has been problematic, and subject to many iterations already, the underground bus loop has been well-planned and studied over ten years since the OCP mandated it in 1996. BoG student reps Darren Peets and Jeff Friedrich raised some questions about whether an underground loop meets the long-term transport needs of the campus, and also questioned whether sustainability objectives of the project were justified. Would the residents of the new neighborhoods use the loop? Is a central station preferable to various routes around campus?

The board in general seemed more eager to make up to “outside commitments” (translink, neighborhoods association, OCP,) than actually look at the essential aims for the project: sustainability and building community. They were also very eager to “move forward” such that when OCP evaluation comes up this year (as every five years) they will have something to show – since the underground bus loop is mentioned in the OCP, and there has been no action. Personally, I was unimpressed by the fire under their asses because of this OCP review. The purpose of the review is…to review, and maybe even change, not to enforce. Jeff Friedrich made the point that simply going forward for the sake of going forward (or to satisfy outside commitments) was unwise when the basic purpose and vision of the project are in question. He also questioned the importance of the commitment to the Neighborhoods given that they will not be using the facility nearly as much as others, having bus stops nearer to their residences.

Both the staff and faculty Board representatives were not comfortable going forward with the underground portion until the whole design was consulted, reviewed and approved. They preferred to move ahead as a whole, after gaining the endorsement of students and community members. This means, as Margaret Orlowski pointed out to me yesterday, that the faculty students and staff reps (ie. the elected members of the people that populate the university) were all against going forward now, while the provincial appointees were in favor.

Essentially though, this is a serious victory for students. Though the committee indeed carried the motion for the tunnel and utilities, and construction will begin as soon as the BoG approves it, they were strongly affected by the petition and Brendon’s presentation about the AMS policy. Their commitment to delay the process again in order to gain real feedback and make changes is very positive. So keep you ears open in November when the consultation finishes. And congratulations to the good people behind the petition for their achievement! (They were out in full force at the meeting yesterday, sporting snazzy t-shirts). It remains to be seen how much the design for the “university square” will end up changing to reflect the priorities of students at the end of the newly created consultation process. These priorities are basically green space, informal study/social space, synergy with the SUB and its renewal process, and local/ethical services. The reason students are mostly still unimpressed with the plan, is that despite some public viewings and feedback sessions, it seems like no substantial changes have actually been made to accommodate these goals. As Jeff says, “student concerns have been consistent, and have remained unaddressed.” Essentially, the consultation since the 2005 architectural contest has amounted to “do you like it?”

That said, the Board, especially President and the chair of the Property and Planning committee seems to have taken the message to heart this time, at least in the scope of student dissatisfaction with the above-ground design. There is an opportunity here to create a really special centre for the university. Part of the AMS and GSS policies toward University Boulevard is to work together with the university to mobilize students in a useful way -whether that be in a consultative or design capacity. Hopefully we can do it right together.

Note: Weirdly, nobody at the Board responds to each other – there is no “debate”. Even if they disagree, they will not engage directly with another person, rather stating their position as if they were speaking to some random audience. The only time people actually speak to each other is when there’s a direct appeal for information. Quite a different style from AMS!!

Categories
Academic Life

UBC Senate Meeting, May 16th

Aidha Shaikh – GSS councilor, AMS councilor, and Senator – gives us an account of yesterday’s senate meeting. Aidha can be contacted at aidhashaikh[at]gmail[dot]com. Agenda and materials are available HERE.

1: Proposal to extend Mid-Term Break in Term 2 2010 at UBC Vancouver (motion passed)
The proposal made was to allow for midterm break to extend for 2 weeks (February 15th -26th) to accommodate the 2010 Olympics for two reasons:

  1. transit services could be freed up for the Olympics (and reduce traffic) and
  2. students can participate in and go to watch the Olympics
    The major consequence of this motion is the exam end date of May 1st 2010 as a number of students living off campus may have rental agreements/leases ending at the end of April.

For reference the comparison of the current calendar entry for the term and the proposed (and now accepted) Olympic term can be downloaded here. [Sorry about the tacky website – but blogger doesn’t support charts – ed]

Senate passed the motion to adopt Scenario B: to allow for accommodation of the Olympics. The issue of hardship for students who have to move as of the end of April due to rental agreements was brought up. The option of granting these students “exam hardship” was not feasible since exams have gone into the month of May in the past and thus changing an academic policy on these grounds would likely not happen. However the committee will look carefully into this issue of housing and what accommodations (no pun intended sorry :P ) could be made. For example, students living in residence will be accommodated.

Student senate caucus discussed various ways to mitigate the inconvenience. Any suggestions? Feel free to pass them on.

2: Proposed Policy on Student Evaluation of Teaching (motion passed)

As students we understand the importance of having a high quality of education at UBC. The policy document outlines the guiding principles for student evaluation of teaching. These principles include incentives that should be developed to encourage participation, the idea that evaluations should be student-centered, that these evaluations be administered in ever section of every course, a rating system of 1-5, encouragement of formative feedback, carefully planned dissemination/feedback/response strategies, and that different constituencies get access to different information.

The design is essentially modular: the University module will be available to all groups from the instructor, department head, dean, university designate and student. Questions in the faculty and departmental modules will be available to the instructor, department head and dean whereas the specific confidential teacher module will only be accessible by the teacher. This is because there will be some questions that are designed to help the faculty/department or instructor to gain specific feedback and see what changes can be made based on those. The university module will be broad enough to encompass the general areas of teaching / learning that students will be concerned with.

This motion takes care of the privacy issue raised by some faculty. Only instructors who give permission for their results to be released will. In addition this puts pressure on the university to release the results it gets to students to help ensure a higher quality of education and put pressure on instructors and professors to meet a higher standard of teaching. The policy does not outline what methods would be implemented to release the information to students but encourages a web-based system.

This is definitely a step forward and it was very encouraging to see President Toope enthusiastically supporting the motion.

In the meanwhile, the AMS would like to bring back the yardstick either as a means of discussing educational issues or have feedback from student evaluations placed on the site (only for professors who allow the information to be released, where those who don’t will have the notation that they did not allow the information to be released beside their name unless they wished to provide a reason which would be listed as well).

It’s very refreshing to see these steps forward in matters surrounding the academic quality at UBC

more senate business behind the jump

Other items relevant to students (positive motions passed):

  • A whole set of scholarships to be released to students (I’d list them but it’s a lot – they can be found in the supporting materials on the senate website)
  • New programs: MSc and PhD in cell and developmental biology, Masters of Nursing, and the transfer of the nurse practitioner specialization into the Masters of Nursing
  • More good news: The Drug Research Institute was approved: The DRI is an inter-faculty initiative of pharmaceutical sciences, medicine, science, applied science, dentistry and the Sauder School of business, lead by the faculty of Pharm Sci. This will be the core academic research facility for the Centre for Drug Research and Development which is a joint initiative of UBC, SFU, BC cancer agency, UVic, UNBC, Providence Healthcare, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the Provincial Health Services in partnership with the government and industry.
  • Two ad-hoc committees were approved: 1) Writing and communication skills and 2) academic advising issues relating to a culturally diverse student body. Since there are a higher number of appeals relating to academic discipline from international students, immigrant students and others, this committee seeks to find ways of ensuring these students get resources to help them to avoid these situations.
  • There were some revisions in the admissions for the BEd relating to the recommendation for students to take a course on aboriginal peoples before entering the program. There was also a wording change for applicants from a college or university from “recognized college or university” to “recognized degree program” since the former was undefined.
  • The graduate students of 2007 were approved! :)

One thing that was not discussed at today’s senate but was at the student senate meeting was the closure of MacMillan library. This is posted on the library’s home page but is not brought to the awareness of students very well. Also the library committee never met to discuss this. Its disturbing how such major decisions can be passed without the senate library committee discussing these things.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet