Category: AMS Elections 2007

How is Kevin Keystone (current AMS President) voting in the AMS Elections this year?
Enjoy!

So I think it’s about time that I put my name behind some people running in the AMS Elections. Congratulations to every candidate – it takes serious courage to put your name on a ballot. Without further ado…

President: Jeff Friedrich
VP Academic: Brendon Goodmurphy
VP Finance: Brittany Tyson
VP Admin: Sarah Naiman
VP External: Thomas Masterson
BoG: Jeff Friedrich, Darren Peets
Senate: Jaspreet Khangura, Tariq Ahmed, Alfie Lee, Raymond Pan, Hillson Tse

Wanna see why? Check behind the jump!

President: Jeff Friedrich

I think it’s very obvious that Jeff is the better candidate, so I’m not going to elaborate much. It’s been a real pleasure working with Jeff this year, and many times I felt like he was already doing my job. He’ll make a memorable president – I’m looking forward to it.

A word on Maxwell: kudos to him for running and bringing some attention to the race and key issues. I’m not talking about the cheap beer, I’m talking about communicating with students, and he’s absolutely right – the AMS does have shitty PR. On another note, Max is a friend of mine, and he’s been a really important support for me during my term. Shame on the person who dared e-mail him with nothing but personal attacks, and sign off calling him a faggot. No-one deserves that, least of all Max.

VP Academic: Brendon Goodmurphy

Brendon has some great ideas, good politics, and although he isn’t completely up to speed on the portfolio, he’ll learn quickly. He has the additional benefit of sitting on AMS Council, though I don’t think that’s a prereq for this position. Bruce has an interesting idea with the Citizens’ Assembly, and maybe it should be tried out, but the body who should be consulted on student opinion is AMS Council. That’s what they’re elected to do.

VP Finance: Brittany Tyson

Brit first joined the Finance Commission when I hired her to be my Vice-Chair. That was one of the best decisions I made my entire term as VP Finance. She’s smart, passionate, hard-working and astoundingly charismatic. She’ll make a terrific VP Finance. Although I was testament to the fact that VP Finance doesn’t require much experience, Brittany has a huge headstart. And with all due respect to Peter, not having experience is no excuse for not having a platform.

VP Admin: Sarah Naiman

Sarah has the right idea about VP Admin: it’s not just about SAC and the SUB, it’s about campus life in general. Call it VP Student Life. Although the YouBC TV idea might be a little wacky, her ideas are all about promoting campus community, and that’s what we need. I think SAC could be much more student friendly, and between Sarah and Suvina, I think Sarah’s more likely to advocate for change.

VP External: Thomas Masterson (with a long explanation)

This is probably a big surprise, but I’m voting for the underdog. When Ian took the position, he knew very little about it, and about post-secondary education lobbying in general. That convinces me that with hard work and passion, the position can be learned. I think Thomas has that, and he’s also really into school spirit, something close to my heart. Although it’s not necessarily his portfolio, Jess Klug was into it too, and it made her all the better a VP External for it. So what about Joel and Matt?

I think they’ll do great jobs too, which is why I’m not worried. Joel’s and Matt’s plans for a united movement are tried, tested, and haven’t worked before – both the past two VP Externals have pushed for a united “Students for BC” and didn’t get far. Doesn’t mean we should stop trying, but the plank doesn’t do much for me.

Joel’s into decreasing the involvement of the private sector in the university – I’m yet to really be convinced that’s a bad thing. I do think that the university’s academic priorities need to not be swayed to only market-driven priorities (eg. science and tech), but I don’t think that means shunning private dollars when they come. And I think the university is very concerned about protecting academic freedom, so I think you can have your cake and eat it too. In short, I think Joel has the right heart, but perhaps policies that are a little too, dare I say, radical for me (gasp!).

As for Matt, he’s got the experience and the political background, but his platform is also a mix of current AMS policy and ideas that I don’t think hold much water. I haven’t yet been convinced that we could do much to convince the provincial government to pick appointees we recommend. I’d be interested to see the “long-term tuition proportion reduction agreement”, but that essentially means either a tuition freeze and more government money, or tuition hikes and proportionally more government money. Both of those are pretty standard lobbying policy.

So to recap, I vote Thomas because I think he’ll bring a different flavour, and he won’t have trouble picking up the job. That said, I won’t be disappointed if Joel or Matt win.

Board of Governors: Jeff Friedrich, Darren Peets

I think there’s a whole lot of logic having the AMS President also sit on Board, and I think Jeff’s already made the case. As for my second seat, I pick Darren. He’s been around forever (really. since Strangway) and he’s extremely well-versed in how the BoG runs, and how to make things happen. He also has the right attitude about the position: if you aren’t willing to play the game, you’ll get shut out. I think there’s also value in having a grad student on BoG.

Senate: Jaspreet Khangura, Tariq Ahmed, Alfie Lee, Raymond Pan, Hillson Tse

Jaspreet and Tariq are obvious candidates: they’re already going strong, especially Jaz. I’m looking forward to seeing her Pass/D/Fail initiative happen. As for the others, they represent three of the four candidates (other than Jaz and Tariq) who had write-ups in the Ubyssey, and I thought they had decent things to say. Alfie wants extended library hours (it was done by Senator Gina Eom, so there’s precedent), Raymond wants to review the exam hardship policy (a very typical platform point), and Hillson is concerned about academic fraud (word of advice: see if you can get one united plagiarism policy for the entire university – right now, they’re faculty-specific). I was fairly satisfied by those choices.

So that’s a wrap! Best of luck to all the candidates, and hopefully no hard feelings.

Love,
Kevin K.

Remember a couple years ago, when there was the Architectural Competition for University Boulevard? (Click here to see the documentary depicting the process.) For those who weren’t here, University Boulevard is the area from the trolley bus loop to the bookstore, including the gym, the Aquatic Centre, and the plaza on the South side of the SUB. There were three designs, and the campus voted for the one they liked. The winning design is at left.

The idea was to create a “hub”, a central area on campus. It would create a mixed-use plaza, housing new administration buildings, shops, a cinema (ha!), and the underground bus loop. Another notable feature – the market housing lining the boulevard. (This writer believes that the basic idea of creating more of a “hub” on campus is a fundamentally good idea, but this idea is seriously flawed… read on!)

Criticisms abounded. The plan destroyed all open green space, would create an automobile thoroughfare where there probably shouldn’t be one, would hurt the SUB, place market housing right in the core of campus, and, most poignantly, destroy the grassy knoll.

Interestingly, the project has gone through no end of trouble. First, the jury approved a version different from that which people supported in the vote. Then there was the issue with the re-location of the outdoor pool. Next, the architects dropped out; rumour has it that they had difficulties working within the constraints of UBC Properties Trust. Add the cost over-runs, the division of the project into phases, the issues with the bus loop, and you’ve got a fiasco.

It came to a head in summer 2006 when the Board of Governors had a “fish or cut bait” meeting in Kelowna, where they had to make a final determination about the future of the project. It passed. But consider that the project was initially supposed to begin construction in late 2005; a year later the completion date was early 2008. Now, with no firm architects on board, the completion date is even fuzzier. At the last Board meeting, the discussion of the Boulevard was in closed session, reports Darren Peets, which indicates that the conversation is sensitive and probably weighty.

The implications, positive and negative, are weighty. Yes, it might create more community, a more vibrant “heart” to a campus that very dearly needs one. But at what cost? Of green space? Of the SUB’s health? Of market housing right at the student core? As well, the University is going through a hard decision; what ought the AMS role to be? A complete re-design? Scrapping the project? Continuing it, with major changes?

Where the candidates stand:
Jeff Friedrich – Specific “zoning” regime for student housing.
Jerry Fan Fan – Lobby University to allow only non-competing businesses. Have to be practical, not idealistic.
Brendon Goodmurphy – Prioritize study space, student and local businesses, student housing options, green space, and student employment
Bruce Krayenhoff – Include affordable student housing.
Darren Peets – We need to re-consider the project – “why are we doing this?”
Tristan Markle – Set requirement for 25% of students living on campus.

March 8 is International Women’s Day. Established in 1977 by the UN, it is a tribute to the continuing struggle and progress for women’s rights and women’s diversity.

This year at UBC, on this day, the GAP (Genocide Awareness Project) is planning to show pictures of aborted fetuses and try to equate that to the Holocaust, claiming it’s genocide. The GAP is the ultimate misnomer, a semantic exercise in bullshit. They solely exist to make women feel bad about the prospect of abortion, a reprehensible tactic to say the least. The fact that it’s mostly men each year holding those signs is even more revealing of this oppressive anti-woman agenda.

UBC Okanagan and Carleton have banned them. AMS Council entertained a motion to ban them, and the motion was defeated. Moreover, UBC’s Policy #3 states:

“Behaviour which obstructs free and full discussion, not only of ideas which are safe and accepted, but of those which may be unpopular or even abhorrent . . . cannot be tolerated.”

Therefore, they technically have a right to be here and voice their point of view. And one of these writers has previously publicly supported their right to protest.

For the record, Gina despises them with every single fibre of her body. She takes it personal and it’s emotional. At the same time, she sees that they do have the right to voice their views, and she plans on exercising those very same rights by organizing a counter-campaign. Tim was more likely to laugh at them than to be viscerally offended. To look at their argument is to see the most inane of human logic. He always found the GAP argument to be more stupid and ignorant than dangerous, per se.

But we can’t help but wonder, in this case, if the GAP case is teasing at the fringes of freedom of speech. By timing their demonstration with International Women’s Day, they’re making a statement. It’s clearly driven by a lack of respect, a scorn for the institution and for the political beliefs. The right to free speech is not absolute. And while they’re not crossing it, they’re definitely getting close enough to thumb their noses at it.

We support the expression of unpopular ideas. But Lifeline and GAP are coming dangerously close to crossing the line from unpopular and stupid, to hateful.

Click here for the related discussion on Policy Motions.

VP Academic candidate Bruce Krayenhoff’s campaign has some new ideas (“green power” cards, and borrowing textbooks rather than buying them), one in particular stands out. His “Citizen’s Assembly.” It’s generally a very good and creative idea. But I have an important criticism.

In sum, the body operates as follows:

• Randomly select 12-36 students from across campus, and pay them to sit on the Assembly.
• Serve as a consultative body for UBC and the AMS, as well as select a few issues each year to be decided by referendum.

The idea is that it will be more representative of the campus as a whole, which is a problem with the current AMS. Moreover, one of the premises of the argument is that this will give voice to the 87% of people who don’t vote. There’s a significant problem with this argument – this body only gives voice to an additional 12-36 people! This doesn’t reach out to the disenfranchised, it reaches out to a couple dozen of them. In fact, this vests decision-making authority in a body that’s more elite than Council. Additionally, the model suggests that the AMS is low-information, and this hurts engagement. That’s true. But adding another bureaucratic body won’t lower the cost of information; it can only raise it. He also suggests that this will remove self-selection. That’s not true; it is still limited to people who choose to accept the role, unless the AMS plans to force students to participate.

My basic criticism of the model deals with the appointment: random, while an interesting application of Grecian democracy, is inherently flawed, because there’s no guarantee of engaging students in the manner in which they’re connected to campus, and each other. It’s just some random people in a room. So I (owing a debt to Spencer Keys) support a model, similar to Bruce’s, but, in lieu of a random appointment process, choosing a body from among various student groups. Student clubs, residences, Greeks, teams, resource groups… these are how students engage with their University and student society.

So why this model? You’re more likely to get a variety of perspectives while ensuring that they’re students engaged with campus life. Moreover, it validates these groups as important elements in student life. The current model (aka Council) only engages students involved with undergrad societies. Bruce’s model engages only those students who choose to accept their appointments, if they win the lottery. While my suggestion reaches out to students in ways in which they are already engaged. Plus, they have some element of a representative mandate, there exists some context for their involvement beyond the mere hand of Fate.

I should note that, principally, I support Bruce’s idea, or a similar body. Particularly, I like the idea of students bringing ideas before it, and getting a “hearing” on an issue or proposal. But that’s just me. What are peoples’ thoughts on a deliberative student assembly?

We get a sense there’s some demand for Friedrich coverage. We’ve had several web hits from Maine (Jeff’s home state), and even three people searching for “jeff friedrich condom video” (we’ll save those people some time – click here).

So, what’s the deal with Jeff Friedrich? His platform has more priorities than Paul Martin riding through Quebec on a campaign swing. But thankfully he bolded his big priorities, so only every third sentence is *that* important. So instead of ten single-spaced pages, you really only have to read four!

His platform indicates a huge amount of knowledge, and a deep understanding of issues related to students, as well as those facing the University. He clearly gets it, and has solutions to everything. But could that be a problem? A President can’t fix it all. In recent years, we’ve seen the occasional President swim around in circles, seemingly over-whelmed. In short, without vision. We don’t accuse Jeff of having no vision. But we’d like to know where he’ll spend his time and energy; he can’t possibly focus on the entirety of his platform.

Much has been raised about Jeff running for both President and BoG. I’m positive that being on BoG will make him a better AMS President: there’s so much knowledge that you pick up on BoG, so much of an understanding of how the University operates. However, the converse isn’t necessarily true: being AMS President won’t necessarily make him a better BoG rep. Board members don’t care if your words have AMS backing if the argument is stupid. Conversely, if the AMS has a cogent, lucid argument, the Board will hear it, regardless of whether or not their President is on the Board.

Jeff has been a fantastic VP Academic. He’s brought about some real and important (albeit incremental) change, and learned a great deal about University lobbying. But we’re slightly worried that he sees the AMS Presidency as a mere extension of the VP Academic job. There are worse things, of course. But the AMS President has more of a stewardship role, and needs some real leadership. Yes, lobbying and politicking are very important elements of the Presidency. But there’s an internal leadership that’s required, too.

We don’t mean to suggest that Jeff doesn’t have that. And, regardless, his Presidency will be an valuable learning experience for him. (If he wins. If. Ha ha.) We’ve seen many AMS Presidents, and there’s one constant – they all leave the position as a very different person from the one who assumed the post. The only way Jeff can achieve the majority of his platform is by inspiring people he’s working with, and by empowering people who aren’t him. Which ain’t easy. But if he can pull it off, look for a much improved AMS and University.

(To learn more about the VP Finance position, and see a job description, click here for our information and interviews, and click here for the official AMS information.)

Candidates:
Peter Rizov
Brittany Tyson

Let’s begin by comparing some promises:
Peter Rizov: Trim the red tape within the AMS
Brittany Tyson: Reduce the extensive bureaucracy faced by club and constituency treasurers. (It should be noted that Britany has some good concrete ideas for doing so, including doing much of the work online, and creating a central website with the VP Admin.)

Peter: Ensure that the AMS is ready for competition from the University Town
Brittany: Develop a competitive, sustainable framework for our businesses to guide and protect them through the developments of the next several years.

Peter: Increase funding and funding control and ease of access to clubs and give students direct enjoyment of the AMS.
Brittany: Let me increase the amount of funding available to students through AMS funds, making them more accessible.

Upon closer examination…. they’re the same. Imagine that. So which candidate is more likely to succeed? Brittany says it’s her, because of her experience in the AMS and its Financial Commission, while Peter says it’s him because of fresh ideas and his Commerce education. Which do you trust?

Looking for differences? Check behind the cut.

There are some differences, too.
Peter places importance on transparency and accountability, though provides no measures. Brittany’s platform has no such emphasis. He also amorphously promises a standard to measure service performance, to trigger improvement and growth. His concrete idea is a book swap. We’re not sure how it would work. The AMS used to run one as a business, but it was shut down due to non-use. Perhaps a better way to do it would be to work with the undergrad societies to facilitate faculty-specific ones, and us the SUB as a central hub, with different rooms for different faculties/programs. Finally, Peter promises initiatives to “induce the AMS executives to have more personal contact with students on a daily basis.” Good idea, though he gives us no idea what those would be.

Brittany argues for renovations of the SUB, for two major purposes. The first is sustainability, to ensure sustainable waste disposal with more recycling facilities. The second is to reduce wait times, like Pie R Squared, to renovate and reduce wait times. This is a plan of the current VP Finance, and has been on the agenda. Nevertheless, it’s a good idea and an important priority.
Brittany also proposes an “AMS Card” or “AMS Dollars” to use at AMS businesses. In addition to making things cheaper for students, it could also increase use as well as awareness. In its rudimentary form, it’s an easily implementable idea with tremendous potential. Finally, we like her idea of creating an AMS Service to help students with their taxes. This currently exists, on a volunteer basis, and outside the AMS. While we don’t know where she’ll find the money… but that’s her job, right?

Both candidates also favor a referendum to link AMS fees to inflation. With any luck, this may be the year we finally see it.

We’ve received many questions about voting. A few are worth answering publicly:

What’s the Ubyssey Publication Society Board of Directors?
The Ubyssey paper is published by editors. Those editors report to the Board, which has very low-grade oversight of the paper’s operations. The Directors pretty much just handle business-y type stuff, and eschew editorial interference.

Who are the candidates?
I have no friggin’ clue. I go to school with a couple of them (Jeff and Jeremy) and they’re nice guys, so you should vote for them. The Ubyssey takes the AMS to task for not communicating with students, but doesn’t see fit to mention the elections for its own Board. Which are student-wide. Go figure.

What’s the Student Legal Fund Board of Directors?
Besides a playground for law school resume-padders? A very important fund that supports student-interested court challenges. When students take on serious court cases, they can turn to the SLFS for support. The Directors administer the funds and decide which cases to take on.

I have no idea what’s up with them. Their formerly functional website is no longer operational, so your guess is as good as mine.

What’s with the joke VFM entries?
We actually like the joke entries. If they’re bringing an actual perspective to the race, and trying to add some value, then we’re happy they’re involved. But there are probably people doing this because there’s “free” money. Putting in no effort and expecting remuneration. We’ll leave it to voters to determine which media outlets are attempting to engage with the election, and who are screwing around with an otherwise interesting experiment.

However, some are coming from AMS Directors. If you wonder why people see the AMS as a joke, look no further.

Before our endorsements, a quick word. We offer these endorsements not to end our coverage of the elections, but to launch it. We have biases, and, to a reader of this blog, these should come as no surprise. So this is just a starting point. We’ll still post issues of the day, and this will still be a forum for discussion and debate, as it’s become. And we’ll still bring you the best information faster than any other site, so stay tuned!

These endorsements weren’t easy. They really weren’t. We spent hours meeting candidates (sometimes twice if we wanted to chat more) and getting a “feel” for them. We read their platforms over numerous times. And, as you’ll see below, our minds aren’t completely made up. But in fairness to the candidates, and in the interest of openness, now that our minds are made up, we proudly present our endorsements.

President: Jeff Friedrich
To us, we felt Jeff was a well-rounded candidate with tremendous experience. More importantly, he knows how to lobby, how to build relationships, and has a sharp mind for the politics of the job. He’s achieved a lot as VP Academic, and know he’ll continue that as President.

VP Academic: Brendon Goodmurphy
We didn’t know Brendon very well before this race, but a few qualities stood out. First, he’s a very good learner, and doesn’t pretend he knows more than he thinks. He has a good critical mind, and channels his frustration with the University in a very constructive manner. He’s thoughtful, insightful, passionate and intelligent, and will represent students well. Out of all the candidates in this election, we believe he is the most caring and passionate. We’re excited about what his energy will bring.

VP Administration: Sarah Naiman
First, we hold her opponent, Suvina To, in the highest regard. It was difficult to not support her, but we feel that the position needs fresh and energetic vision, and some vigour. Suvina brings tremendously insightful experience and skills, and we hope she stays involved with the AMS next year. When the VP Admin has been successful in the past it’s been because s/he had energy and a clear vision, both of which Sarah brings. The student life portfolio needs a shot in the arm, and Sarah in the VP Admin portfolio is the person to do it.

VP External: Joel Kozwarski/Matthew Naylor
Here, we’re split. Gina is endorsing Joel Kozwarski, Tim’s endorsing Matt Naylor.

Gina’s thoughts: I used three standards – knowledge, competence, and political stances. From the knowledge point of view only Joel and Matt qualified. Matt clearly knows the issues better. Both have credible track records/experience. My interactions with Naylor on council have been fairly limited – he was by no means outstanding or impressive at council meetings. There is a list of off-record statements (from him and people who have worked with him closely) which have made me doubt his ability to work with others (openness to other ideas), take criticism and make judgement calls in politically sensitive matters. Joel may not know the issues as in-depth as Naylor, but he will learn. Ian (outgoing) learned and did a good job, and it doesn’t hurt that he is also endorsing Joel. Joel is calm, rational, very thoughtful and a solid candidate. I have trust and faith in Joel K and thus am voting for him.

Tim’s had the advantage of reading Gina’s reasons above. The Liberal thing doesn’t matter – Gina had no problem campaigning with Holly Foxcroft when the latter was President of the Young Liberals, and there’s no evidence that it hurt her ability to lobby. So, why Naylor? He cares, knows a great deal, and is uniquely passionate. And you can learn policy – you can’t learn passion. People with Matt’s almost rabid enthusiasm are so rare and, when one offers their help, you’re foolish not to take it. He has a lot to learn, makes mistakes, and is young. But a good leader will learn how to make the most of Matt’s considerable talents and work with him. Look at his campaign organization? Wouldn’t you want that on your side?

VP Finance: Brittany Tyson
We agree that this is a portfolio in which experience counts, and building a rapport with the incumbent is a good thing. Brittany’s combination of experience and well-considered approach to reform should serve student well.

BoG: Darren Peets, Jeff Friedrich
Both these candidates have more experience on campus development and student representation issues than the others combined. And working together they’ll be a uniquely powerful force on the Board. For Jeff, it will make him a much stronger President (though the converse doesn’t necessarily apply.) And Darren has, through U-Town, learned to work well with administrators while still putting administrators on the spot like nobody’s business.

Senate*: Tariq Ahmed, Jaspreet Khangura
Yes, we’re endorsing the incumbents right now. Both have been excellent advocates for students this past year. Jaspreet in particular has brought her pass/fail initiative towards fruition, and deserves another year. We’re leaving our ballots open, though. We don’t know enough about the remaining Senate candidates, so will pass a final decision in the future. But we know and have seen enough of Tariq and Jaspreet to know that they will continue to do a good job on senate, especially given the slow bureaucracy that this particular body is known for.

Tonight the student senators were invited for dinner with Stephen Toope. I had attended several dinners with Martha Piper, the former president, so I was wary of another superficial, “schmoozy” conversation.

It was a surprise to me that out of the conversations which unfolded at the dinner table, I received the distinct impression that this new UBC President was, well, different.

Don’t get me wrong – Martha was instrumental in attracting the “hotshot” researchers that we showcase today. The number of research papers published in Nature out of our labs each month is impressive and rivalling the ivy leagues. And this helps the few (under)graduate students who are involved and learn, without question. She also focussed a lot of her attention on doubling the endowment which, in the long run, will help students.

Martha Piper at Senate, March 2005

The Martha era, though, is notable for a decline in focus on teaching and learning. The climate at UBC is not supportive of students. There is a hostile “bottleneck” atmosphere which ruthlessly “weeds you out”. The laboratory equipments are old and falling apart. Buchanan is old and reminiscent of a high school in terms of architecture, yet the biggest undergraduate faculty traverses it and calls it their home. The class average of Chem 233 is often in the 50s. Tuition has doubled this decade. In such a competitive strenuous unsympathetic atmosphere, would I really want to retrospectively support this system? Would I not rather get the heck out and never look back?

So, why might Toope be better? Read more after the jump.

Questions were asked to Prof. Toope about the NSSE survey results. He said that the administration wanted to publicize the results. Why? Because the survey was of good quality and the data valuable (recognizing UBC’s dismal performance in the three years it’s participated). He asserted very strongly and very passionately that for all of the executives of UBC, the NSSE survey results were the number one priority on their agenda. He spoke of Carl Wieman’s initiative to evaluate the student’s experience, and the SHINE initiative to give graduate students mentorship from faculty members. Drawing from his own experience of having attended a liberal arts college, he mentioned that perhaps a pass/fail system should be implemented when taking electives (he did this, impressively, without Jaspreet having to bring it up first).

When asked about the potential merger of the Faculty of Forestry with Land and Food System, he promised the students that consultation would be sought out as soon as it came up as an agenda item before the executive. He enthusiastically affirmed that student consultation would begin at an early stage. Furthermore, and this is delicious for anyone who knows Martha Piper’s philosophy of University governance, he stated that he was “not a CEO of a corporation”, but that the university was a collegiate group of people and his job was to try to facilitate dialogue to work on arriving at a decision.

This may seem like very generic things for a President to say, but I have never seen the UBC administrator focus so much on the student/learning/teaching side of the institution. This was reaffirmed verbally several times at the senate meeting tonight when he talked about the endowment fund.

I have a feeling Professor Toope’s approach will make a few faculties unhappy because of their relative de-prioritization; this is an inevitable outcome in an attempt to balance the research and the learning which goes on here. In the past we’ve seen the Faculty (ie the researchers) receive a disproportionate amount of support from the administration. I’m hoping that Toope will balance both.

I realise this is the honeymoon year in which the new president is still figuring out his own role, and thereby treading carefully in many areas. But he has already shaken a few things up, such as improving the communication and reporting relationship between BoG and Senate, the two highest governing bodies. Overall, I can’t help but be optimistic that he has a balanced, diplomatic and visionary agenda which will not only advance the University in many aspects, but will actually uphold the Trek2010 vision in its truest spirit.

So…………… there’s a ton of info on this site. And could take a while to peruse. So we’ve made this post. It’s each candidate in 25 words or less. We’ve sent out questionnaires, had interviews, and met with almost all the candidates, read all their write-ups… and have distilled each candidate down to a few words. If you’re looking for one-stop voter shopping, look no further!

(But make sure you look further…. down the page! Our Issue of the Day post is about the educational experience. That’s important… right? So read, comment, and enjoy!)
It’s all behind the jump.

President
Jeff Friedrich – The experienced dude, who wants the AMS to be relevant, to you and for lobbying. Very knowledgeable about the AMS. Prioritizes the educational experience.
Maxwell Maxwell – Started off as joke, but learned lots and developed a strong platform. Feels the AMS isn’t relevant to students, wastes money; better parties, less clique-ism will fix it.

VP Academic
Jerry Fan Fan – Favors “student interests over AMS interests” but doesn’t really know how they differ. Wants to use WebCT to post UBC information, and prioritize campus security issues.
Brendon Goodmurphy – Thoughtful, insightful, activist who balances a strong ideological vision with practical concerns. Realistic, constructive goals. Priorities are engaging on development and governance issues.
Bruce Krayenhoff – Supports “Citizen’s Assembly” idea to engage more students and stimulate democracy. Argues for affordable housing and representative development decisions.

VP Administration
Sarah Naiman – Prioritizes “student life” and “community” and bringing more people into the AMS/SAC. Wants to hear more from students!
Suvina To – Very experienced with SAC, and knows the hurdles that people and clubs face when trying to get involved with AMS. Wants to hear more from students!

VP External
Chris Brush – Likes the existing U-Pass, argues for cheaper student housing.
Joel Kozwarski – MUN organizer. Wants united provincial lobbying, improved transit service, and more student grants.
Tom Masterson – More interested in student life than VP External portfolio. Argues that his inexperience is his biggest strength, and that he’s a quick learner.
Matthew Naylor – Policy wonk. Wants united lobbying, a tuition cap, return to grants, a stronger External commission, and student-friendly BoG reps. A Liberal.

VP Finance
Peter Rizov – The new and fresh ideas guy. Honest. Not gonna lie, steal, or run the AMS into the ground.
Brittany Tyson – The experienced insider. Sharp-minded. Not gonna lie, steal, or run the AMS into the ground.

BoG
Jeff Friedrich – Experienced, knowledgeable. Also running for Pres.
Melody Ma – Dislikes campus drainage, amongst other things.
Cris Marincat – Likes communication, consensus, listening.
Tristan Markle – Dislikes corporatization, extravagant development, undemocratic governance.
Rob McLean – Related to a senator AND a former Arts President. Will represent students.
Darren Peets – Former hydrant. Been to more meetings about development than this list combined. Including Jeff. Knows more, too.
Aidha Shaikh – Passionate about communication with students, tuition/financial funding, and development issues.
Hillson Tse – First-year commercialization-fighter!

Senate
Tariq Ahmed – Incumbent, law student. Articulate, professional, well-reasoned.
Jaspreet Khangura– Incumbent, med student. Advocates pass-fail system for electives. Passionate, articulate, professional.
Alfie Lee– Wants to bridge the disconnect between students and the admin. Very eager and keen.
Daniel Lin – Wants to communicate better with students. Absent from debate.
Raymond “Peter” Pan– Wants to change the exam hardship rules, library hours, and communication.
Lawrence Song – Wants to increase effectiveness by tightening curriculum and working with profs.
Hillson Tse– First-year apathy-fighter!