Category: AMS Elections 2007

This hit me the other day. I was having a conversation with a candidate, asking him (candidate wasn’t necessarily male, I’m just using the pronoun because it’s easier) about his ideas, and he was having trouble communicating, and verbalizing them, particularly when I’d ask him to relate them to abstract concepts. I tried my reassuring best to indicate my patience, but the candidate was clearly flustered and probably growing frustrated with his inability to communicate with me.

Yes, I have a propensity for verbosity. And that’s partly to blame. But I couldn’t help but realize how damn frustrating it must be for someone for whom English is not a first language.

Think about it. How many AMS Councillors, or even Executives, have been non-English speakers? It can’t be easy to articulate relatively complex platforms, answer debate-style questions, and engage with dense blogs like this one, for someone whose comfort with English is not first-rate. I can see why it just might not be worth the effort.

Moreover, it goes beyond participating in politics. Consider services. Many English language speakers won’t know what “Advocacy” means and how it’s distinct from an Ombudsperson, never mind someone for whom the language does not come naturally. Peruse clubs days banners, or walk through the lower level of the SUB at lunch hour – many signs, publications, and conversations are in languages other than English. The demand is clearly there.

To me, it begs the question – how can we address language barriers to make the AMS more accessible? Of course I see the need for a lingua franca, a language of business, which reasonably should be English. But there are some simple things we can do, to make the AMS more accessible. And by making it more accessible, it becomes more welcoming.

• Print one-page overviews of AMS services in, say, ten different languages. Wouldn’t cost much, would greatly increase access to services.
• Have the occasional sign in a language other than English; much more welcoming.
• Ensure language support at Speakeasy and other “store-front” type services

I don’t know how to address issues of political participation, though I note that’s probably a problem in the “real world” as well. Any thoughts? Should the AMS take positive steps to be more language-friendly?

Now that online voting has closed, it’s time to pollute the waters of the Sea of Democracy with that most undemocratic of innovations – the opinion poll!!

We had 80 responses, and this violates pretty much every law of polling – no random sampling, no random ordering of the numbers, self-selecting respondents… so it’s pretty much worthless. But fun nonetheless! Check behind the jump.

President
Jeff Friedrich: 82%
Maxwell Maxwell: 18%

VP Academic
Jerry Fan Fan: 17%
Brendon Goodmurphy: 73%
Bruce Krayenhoff: 10%

VP Admin
Lougheed the Barbarian: 20%
Sarah Naiman: 39%
Suvina To: 41%

VP External
Chris Brush: 4%
Joel Kozwarski: 36%
Tom Masterson: 9%
Matt Naylor: 51%

VP Finance
Peter Rizov: 49%
Brittany Tyson: 51%

Board of Governors
Darren Peets: 67%
Jeff Friedrich: 65%
Aidha Shaikh: 24%
Tristan Markle: 11%
Rob McLean: 11%
Cris Marincat: 4%
Melody Ma: 2%
Hillson Tse: 2%

Senate
Jaspreet Khangura: 92%
Tariq Ahmed: 80%
Alfie Lee: 39%
Daniel Lin: 22%
Lawrence Song: 20%
Hillson Tse: 16%
Raymond Pang: 16%

The AMS recently passed a motion to support the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. If you haven’t read them/are too lazy to Google, they can be found here:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

At first I thought the motion was out of order as this had no context or relevancy to the AMS. And then I re-read the 1948 declaration which stated “Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.” (see link above)

Within this spirit, I would like to make a personal appeal to the candidates running in this election. See after the jump.

To give some background I will borrow from an article which I wrote a while back:
We see an increasing trend in public universities and biomedical research institutes where the promise of future royalties from licensing agreements with private corporations (eg. pharmaceutical companies) has become a prominent alternative source of revenue. This severely cripples the social contract between a public research grant and subsequent publication of research, which could eventually be translated into a public good – such as a cure for a rare disease.

Furthermore, the lucrative idea of licensing new discoveries to private industry has caused areas of public research to be more and more catered towards the commercial market-oriented interest, away from neglected diseases and deeper into the select realm of profitability. Very little, if anything at all, has been done by the governments to move away from this trend.

Undergraduate, graduate, medical and law students across North America have come together to lobby for change. The Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) has recently launched a worldwide petition called the Philadelphia Consensus Statement, with a mandate to promote equal access to university research, promote research and development for neglected diseases, and measure research success according to impact on human welfare instead of the number of patents filed in a given year.

There has been measurable success in other universities such as the University of Washington and Yale. This has caused next to no profit loss to the pharmaceutical industries, as there is no market for their drugs in the third world countries in first place. Generic drug companies in these countries would drive down the costs of these drugs (since the patenting laws are lifted within those geographic borders) and provide them at accessible costs. The most common reaction is that there would be attempts to smuggle the drugs back into first world country. Case study after case study has shown that this has not happened.

The University of British Columbia, with an increased focus on research activities over the recent decade, and with the adoption of the Trek 2010 Document, bears responsibility to live up to the mandate of the Philadelphia Consensus Statement. As former President Martha Piper stated: ”The University of British Columbia…will prepare students to become exceptional global citizens, promote the values of a civil and sustainable society, and conduct outstanding research to serve the people of British Columbia, Canada, and the world”. If research produced at a public academic institution such as UBC is accessible primarily by select individuals with privileged monetary wealth, then we cannot in our right conscience call ourselves global citizens.

Last year, AMS Council passed a policy motion supporting this initiative.

I have brought this issue up with the President Stephen Toope last week and the UAEM (which I am part of) will be meeting with him, the VP Research John Hepburn, and the University Industry Liaison Office head Angus Livingston. However, this movement – to incorporate equitable access provisions in our licensing agreements and fostering neglected disease research – will require the further cooperation and lobbying of the AMS President, VP Academic, Board of Governors, and Senators. We the students will be playing an integral role. As Gandhi said, “we must be the change we want to see in the world.”

The AMS has done a terrific job in addressing issues of systemic barriers to access. (Note: by “access” I refer to the general ability to participate in the AMS, both in terms of services and in government.) See the gender-neutral washroom, its bursary fund, cab fares after midnight, and childcare for examples.

But take a quick glance at the demographics of AMS Council and, by extension, AMS executives. I note two glaring deficiencies. The first is an absence of first-year students, the second is the absence of non-native English speakers. Herewith begins my two-part series on AMS Access – First Year Students.

There are two ways to get involved directly with the AMS. The first is to sit on Council, the second is to win a campus-wide election. It’s very very difficult for a first-year student (FYS) to achieve either. Since the undergraduate societies hold their elections in the spring, for a FYS to be on Council there pretty much has to be a vacancy at some point during the year, and some way to win the ensuing election. It’s very difficult.

Some would argue that undergraduate societies (and their respective first-year committees) serve the purpose of engaging first-year students. That certainly may be true. But the situation begs for more first-year involvement, and we’re doing them no favors by ghettoizing them in their faculty committees. The other argument is that FYS may not have enough of a grasp on campus issues, and need to learn a little before taking an active role. Again, that may be true. But consider the flip-side; by the time people get on AMS Council they are comfortably ensconced in the University, they have a place. They’ve forgotten what it’s like to be a first-year, and the gut, visceral feelings it could inspire. And that’s a valuable perspective we’d do well not to exclude.

(I should also note that the elections results will be held in the Gallery. I certainly hope that there is some arrangement whereby the underage candidates can participate in the Elections merriment, too.)

What solutions have been tried? We’ve attempted a first-year society in two successive years, each of which suffered from a lack of buy-in from various parties. Or maybe it was a doomed idea to begin with. The AMS used to have a frosh rep on Council; the position was once held by A. Kim Campbell, who would go on to become Prime Minister. Ought there to be some direct way to engage first-year students with the AMS? Or is the status quo sufficient?

The Candidates:
No candidates explicitly refer to first-year students in their platforms.
Alfie Lee (Senate) and Hillson Tse (BoG/Senate) are the only first-year students currently running for election. Jaspreet Khangura is in first-year Med, but that So doesn’t count.
Jerry Fan Fan ran for President, BoG, and Senate as a first-year student.

A quick note – the Knoll has convinced me to vote for Alfie Lee for Senate. Why? First, he’s actually showed up to all the debates. Second, he’s actually getting out there, and trying to meet people and talk and engage… and that’s really commendable. Finally, he’s enthusiastic about representing students, and that enthusiasm is kinda contagious. He also has a web site, a rarity amongst wannabe Senators.

So I’m going to vote for him.

The largest chunk of the AMS’ discretionary budget, and their largest non-food/beer source of relevance to UBC students, is their services. (Full list here). It should be noted that Services are administered directly by the Executive Co-Ordinator of Student Services, a hired (non-elected) position that serves as the sixth member of the Executive Committee.

Some services partner directly with the University for delivery. These include Tutoring (LEAP), Joblink (Services), and First Step (Orientations). Others can refer to University resources, like Speakeasy (Counseling Services) and Safewalk (Campus Security); in these examples, they work closely with their University colleagues, but they don’t program jointly.

Interestingly, though, many of the Services derive their value from the fact that they’re not University services. The argument goes that AMS provision of the service serves a political/lobbying aim, by highlighting the University’s weaknesses and addressing problems “our way.” These include Safewalk and Advocacy.

It’s Safewalk that often generates the most controversy. It’s the most expensive service, simply because of staff time. Depending on whose numbers you use, it costs on average $30-$60 per walk. That’s expensive. (They used to operate a van, but can’t anymore for some “union reasons” of which I’m not aware.) There are times when Safewalk is rarely used, but those who use it and operate it swear by it, and argue strenuously that it makes a much safer environment. Every year there is discussion about reducing its cost or looking at a new model, but nothing ever comes of it, and it retains its operational efficiencies.

Services are constantly in flux. Three years ago the AMS canned Orientations, then the next year helped build First Step. VP Finance candidate Brittany Tyson advocates making the Student Tax Assistance Clinic a full-fledged AMS Service (it’s currently an AMS club), which would guarantee it a year-round co-ordinator, but at the cost of staffing it.

We leave it to readers:

• Which services give you the most value? What do you use/not use?
• Which do you see as central to the AMS mission?
• Ought we to re-visit the debate over Safewalk’s efficiency?
• What other services do you think the AMS should have?

So, in honour of legal gambling everywhere, I’m proud to offer the following proposition wagers on the AMS elections. Note: these are for entertainment purposes only. And if you use them for any gambling purposes whatsoever, please report yourself to the nearest authorities. Immediately. As well, Elections Insider makes no warranties for any wagers, nor are we a bookkeeper in any way, shape, or form.

President:
Friedrich 5 to 4
Maxwell 70 to 1

VP Academic:
Goodmurphy 2 to 1
Fan Fan 25 to 1
Krayenhoff 7 to 1

VP Finance:
Tyson 9 to 5
Rizov 11 to 5

VP External:
Naylor 4 to 1
Kozwarski 9 to 2
Brush 50 to 1
Masterson 11 to 2

VP Admin:
Naiman 9 to 4
To 7 to 4
Barbarian 50 to 1

Over/Under on number of votes cast for President: 4200
Odds that Darren Peets gets more votes than as hydrant: 3 to 2
Over/Under on time the elections results are announced: 9:45pm
Over/Under on number of beers Tim drinks: 7.5
Over/Under number of appeals: 0.5

Add your own wagers!! Test our ESP!!

Due to a hole in WordPress, this post’s author is misattributed. The follow was written by former Insiders editor Tim Louman-Gardiner.

Those of you who know me in real life know that one of my pet peeves is when the media talk about the media. But thankfully for my sense of dignity, this ain’t the real world.

As you know, the Voter Funded Media (formerly TurboDemocracy… I much prefer that title) contest is running in parallel to the AMS elections. I, like most, am surprised at number of media that are involved. By my observation, they fall into four general archetypes:

1) Involved people who know a lot and write in-depth
I’d put ourselves and the Knoll in this category, for instance. We both have significant understanding of the AMS and UBC, hold strong opinions, and write (relatively) frequently. We’re both insiders, trying to make our knowledge more accessible to those who aren’t. My primary criticism is that sometimes it’s very inaccessible. Much of our writing is geared to people who are already past square one – the high-information voter. (I note with amusement the Knoll’s slogan – “We’re like a slate that isn’t running”. It’s odd, because the Knoll is running a slate!)

2) Serious coverage from people who aren’t heavily involved
For this, look at Myrfield or the Thunderbird. Both collectives ought to be commended for trying to add some perspective and depth of coverage to the AMS elections. But it’s clear that they don’t know the issues much themselves. Which is fine, because they’re more journalist-y than analyst. Their appeal is more towards the mid/low-information voter, and a baseline understanding of the candidates, if not the issues.

3) Joke coverage from people contributing to the discourse
I’d throw Eat Cake and the Radical Beer Tribune into this category. And I really appreciate them. While there’s no serious issue-based coverage, they both engage with the candidates and the process, and in doing so contribute to the election. There’s a huge value-added, and they bring something that I can’t possibly hope to. Plus, look at the RBF photos. They’re downright amazing. (Image at right courtesy RBT.)

4) Supid entries trying to scam money
Let’s just call this the Duncan-Kearney media group. As far as I can tell, they’re just after beer money. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but a far more deserving entry will finish ninth to the “name recognition” crew. Come to think of it, there’s a profound arrogance required to say “I’m gonna win this based on how popular I am.” And Directors, AMS Councillors, ought to treat the AMS process with a little more respect. It was put far more eloquently by an anonymous commenter: “I do have a problem with AMS councillors misusing their reputations and this money for doing absolutely NO work whatsoever with the elections.”

I’ve also been asked to stop taking pot shots at the Ubyssey. Sorry guys, no dice. The Ubyssey is content to take pot shots at the AMS elections candidates with significant regularity, so I’m happy to return the favor. But a suggestion that AMS elections are full of tools (see: cover), and a “we don’t care” endorsement for the person responsible for making sure the Ubyssey’s offices still exist, tell me that they’re not trying to earn students’ confidence. But more importantly, guys, the 1980’s called, and they want their hackneyed sense of disaffected cynicism back. It’s often the last reserve of the uninformed. Maybe it’s the AMS’ fault for not issuing press releases like UBC Public Affairs – now that’s a guarantee of Ubyssey ink! (Full faith/credit: their news coverage has improved significantly over the course of the election.)

So, what’s the impact been of VFM? I’d suggest that it’s influenced the candidates more than it’s influenced voters. The occasional voter will be swayed/convinced by something they read here or in the Knoll (or the Ubyssey… see, that’s my attempt at humour), but, more importantly, it’s changed the candidates’ perspectives on the race. There’s actually been a discernible campaign of ideas in most races and, more importantly, these have evolved over the past two weeks. Now much of this hasn’t made its way to most of the voters, but I can’t help but feel it’s probably producing better candidates.

More importantly, it’s helped those who already want to be engaged. It can be very hard to get information about the AMS and UBC, and the issues. And for those who want to cast an informed vote, they had a bit more information this year. I guess that’s a victory, right?

What are your impressions on the VFM, and on the candidates? Is it making a difference? I know most candidates would probably argue that they’ve been a huge time drain… so I’d ask those candidates, was it worth it?

I’d like to give my impressions on the election campaigns this past week.

First of all, I’m happy to see that the debates have improved by a lot – the debate structure has been changed to allow for elaborate answers, and the candidates in turn have done their homework.

The Wednesday VP Academic debate for example was highly impressive with Jerry Fan Fan and Brendon Goodmurphy having well thought out directions in terms of lobbying for student housing.

Despite of opponent Peter Rizov’s objections from the last debate, Brittany Tyson moved away from the “experience vs nonexperience” spat and focussed on her ideas including the AMS card, end of the day price drop at AMS food outlets, 99cent Pizza Fridays at Pir R Squared with donations to services, more support for the TACS assistant clinic.

The Debate on Friday was distracting due to the Guitar Club having a full-out concert at the SUB concourse. To my surprise VP External Candidate Joel Koczawarski didn’t show, and his opponents Matt Naylor and Chris Brush both finished strong.

However it was hard for Tim and I to believe it was campaigning period. Why? Because we’ve seen no active campaigns this past week, with the one exception of Jeff Friedrich and his partner standing outside the SUB with a sign.

Sure, most corkboards on campus have been plastered with posters, and I’ve received a handful of emails from candidates soliciting votes. But I have seen zero classroom announcements, no flyering, no spectacles. This is political lobotomy!

Risking the label of UBC Dinosaur, I want to reflect back to the days when slates were still around. I ran with a slate, namely the now legendary (and infamous?) SPAN slate – Student Progressive Action Network.

A look back at slates…. behind the jump.

Planning started in November.

Former VP Admin Josh Bowman and VP Academic Laura Best who were both elected the previous year on SPAN spent an entire day informing us on the issues. There was a 40 page long information package on all of the issues from tuition to campus development to waste management of the SUB. Regardless of which position we ran for, we were well-informed on all of the issues.

We booked a theatre and practiced classroom announcements. We spent hours taking the perfect photo for our flyers, coloured overheads, and posters. There was one colour and a logo which identified us all. There were patches to be worn on bags, sweaters, and our support network was encouraged to wear them.

There was strength in numbers. Each of us had signed up at least 20 volunteers who were willing to flyer, poster, make classroom announcements.

getting ready for a huge postering spree

We solicited the support from clubs, informal support from undergraduate society execs, and shook hands with sorority presidents. The campus was painted red – there were balloons tied to trees, patches, posters everywhere legal (and illegal?), we even had people flyering at the Broadway Skytrain station out in East Vancouver.

Our campaign schedule started at 8am, and ended at 8pm on an early day. There were events to be attended thereafter: beer gardens, concerts, anywhere where we would expect UBC students to be.

I’m NOT saying that it’s impossible put on a similar campaign without a slate. It just takes a heck of a lot more work and a larger support group for one individual. The learning curve is ten times higher as there is no advice passed on in an institutional manner. Spencer Keys’ presidential race is a prime example of a well coordinated campaign – it was realised through the strong support of his peers. But then again, Spencer Keys had been trained by a slate prior, when he ran for VP Admin in 2003 and the next year for VP External with Students for Students (SFS). Either way, everyone knew his name. People who I didn’t know were interested in politics talked about Spencer Keys.

So it doesn’t feel like there’s a real election going on. There is no buzz in the air, and the energy seen in other years seems lost in antiquity. Where is the movement?

by Sophia Haque, AMS VP Finance

Currently, students pay $196.98 in student fees towards Intramurals and Athletics–whether they use the program or not. IF they choose to participate, they pay:

• Approximately $300/year for a gym membership
• $100 each for a fitness class (yoga, pilates, dance etc)
• Approximately$65/team for intramural sports

It’s not cheap being an active student on this campus. What’s worse? UBC students pay more than most other schools across Canada to access fitness facilities.

This past year, Athletics asked the AMS to run a referendum asking for a $40 increase in athletics fees. Where would the fees go?
1) Towards building a bigger SRC and 2) towards lowering user fees by up to 50%.

More room and lower fees? Sounds great, but when the AMS approached Athletics to figure out how the money was currently being spent, Athletics became reluctant to share any information and was particularly wary of the information going public. After many conversations and much detective work, the AMS was able to obtain the numbers it was looking for.

Of the over $6 million dollars collected in student fees, less than $800,000 is dedicated to Intramurals/UBC REC activities. In other words almost 85% of student fees are going towards funding/subsidizing varsity sports–a level of sport that a very small percent of UBC students can ever dream to participate in.

What the AMS has done, and the plan for the future, behind the jump:

What has the AMS done about this?
The AMS took the stance that it would hold a referendum (and thus, give students the opportunity to decide for themselves) under two conditions: Athletics would be more transparent with their budgets, and would decrease user fees.

The second demand was made primarily because Bob Philip, Director of Athletics, commented at AMS Council that one of the main reasons fees couldn’t be reduced without a new, larger building was because of the lack of space. Their underlying concern would appear to be lower fees means more people means poor quality of service/facilities. This implies that fees were kept artificially high, potentially preventing lower income students from having access to UBC REC facilities. The AMS argued, that before we ask students to pay more, Athletics should first decrease user fees (conversations with Bob had indicated that there was sufficient funding to do so) and give students the opportunity to access the current facilities.

Where do we stand now?
Bob Philip has agreed to make the athletics budget numbers accessible to the public. Athletics has also budgeted a $50,000 decrease in user fees for 07/08 with Bob citing plans for a 70% decrease in user fees over the next 2 years. However, after a recent conversation with Alnoor Aziz, Associate Director of Finance for Athletics, the chances of seeing the 70% decrease is slim. UBC Athletics, as an ancillary of the university, may be faced with higher overhead charges as part of the university’s plan to cover its deficit.

Looking ahead, the referendum question is back on the table for discussion which poses both an opportunity and a threat for the AMS. It’s an opportunity because an athletics referendum question can almost guarantee quorum by mobilizing the support of varsity athletics and UBC REC enthusiasts. And, it’s a threat, since a fee increase question for athletics decreases the AMS’ chances to increase fees (by indexing them to inflation, for example).

So what are your thoughts?