Categories
AMS AMS Elections 2008 VP Academic

What to learn from the Crompton Lougheed affair

Due to a hole in WordPress, this post’s author is misattributed. The follow was written by Maayan Kreitzman.

The world has gone mad. I don’t check comments for one day while working on a paper, and when I return there’s a frenzy! Anyway. There’s plenty of discussion in the below post about any and all aspects of this controversy. I want to zoom out and offer a few things we can take away from this episode.

1. Elections code needs to be tightened up: get rid of the ambiguity about 1 person 1 vote. Is the onus on the elections committee to ensure this, or is every person only allowed to cast one ballot, or both? Is there a functional difference between a cast ballot, and a counted vote? These are extremely easy to clarify.

2. Student Court should have its own appeals process, and its ruling should not have to be approved by council automatically, unless council specifically wants to call something in in order to overrule it (akin to a notwithstanding clause). AMS council should have a more defined role vis-a-vis the court – is it just an “advisory body” as some say, or is a real “independent judiciary“?

3. The AMS is vulnerable to cronyism, terrible PR, and political/personal motivations. Fact of life that ain’t going away

4. On the other hand, AMS council will, (maybe even when they technically should not) make decisions that best serve students – in this way, councilors are actually fairly enlightened. This decision is an example: a lot of councilors I talked to made their decisions on the basis of what would make the AMS most functional and best for students this year. Though you can make legalistic arguments for either side here, I defy anyone to claim that disqualifying Alex over this and then running a by-election in the middle of exams, or in September would best serve students. Or worse, that running a petition (as Nathan Crompton is currently doing) to get Alex impeached will ultimately serve students best.

5. Code is important. Procedure is important. Communication and honesty is important. When process falls down, the real issue is that much harder to tease apart and evaluate. An example here is that while the case was actually “Crompton vs. Elections Administrator,” Alex Lougheed was the one being essentially judged. All sorts of bad communication and confusing processes occurred as a result.

    Now, lets all move on, shall we?

    Categories
    AMS Elections 2008 VP Academic VP Admin

    Caption Contest

    “VP-Admin elect Tristan Markle adding ‘Right to Cheat’ to posters in support of
    VP-Academic elect Alex Lougheed”

    This was obviously meant to be public. If you’re not up on the controversy surrounding the VP Academic race, refer to the Ubyssey here and here. The implications of publicly discrediting a fellow executive-elect are unclear, but probably relevant to future working relationships. Tristan, and Nathan Crompton, the runner-up in Alex’s race are close friends and colleagues. Retrospective and analysis about executive dynamics by Gina coming soon.

    Categories
    AMS Elections 2008 VP Admin

    VP Administration Special Election results

    Tristan Markle 446

    Shawn Stewart 306

    Stephen McCarthy 280

    Mike Kushnir 194

    Yian Messoloras 189

    Stephanie Ryan 104

    J Mac The Keg 44

    Aaron Palm 42

    Congratulations to Tristan! Looks like the knolligarchy managed to swing it for him. Pretty good voter turnout.

    One more note: EA Brendan Piovesan resigned, effective today. Someone else will have to be hired to run the referendum. With this we conclude our elections coverage. Whew.

    AND: best quote of the day from a defeated but happy Mike Kushnir: “I can’t get elected, but I can run a fucking beer garden!!”

    Categories
    AMS Elections 2008 VP Admin

    VP Administration post of awesomeness

    Candidate analysis, random thoughts, EA deprecation, and who Maayan is voting for all rolled into one glorious post.

    Well, voting is now on for the re-vote for the fifth AMS executive position. The VP Administration race was cancelled in mid-campaign two weeks ago. Despite the fact that this cancellation was not allowed by AMS code, and caused confusion and inconvenience, this second round of elections seems to have elicited a better crop of candidates. This race is actually the most competitive, with four strong contenders. I’ve read all the platforms in detail, and I know three of the four serious candidates in varying degrees. Here’s my analysis on each.

    Yian Messoloras – Yian ran in the first race, and is the apparent reason it was cancelled (due to bad campaigning), though this was never officially confirmed by EA Brendan Piovesan. Yian doesn’t seem to understand terribly much about the AMS. His answers at Thursday’s debate were a little painful. His main plan is to execute SUB Renew gradually, sutainably, and without increasing student fees at all (of course, that’s what happens in the SUB every year when there’s small-scale renovations). His experience in construction is to help him with this, and he wants student and faculty involvement in the design process itself. He believes consultations to be a waste of money. While Yian has his heart in the right place with his promise not to increase student fees for a new SUB, the extent of unmet need revealed through the SUB renew consultations indicates that pretty large project is what students want. The university, donors, and government are unlikely to give us money if they’re not matching a contribution form students. http://www.blogger.com/www.yianmez.com

    Tristan Markle – Tristan has put together a very comprehensive platform – maybe too comprehensive. He’s got plans for just about everything from stopping the underground bus loop (which is already under construction), to sourcing ethical food, to giving clubs anti-oppression training. Tristan is thoughtful and very ambitious about this position. Unfortunately, half of his platform (the half he seems more interested in) isn’t actually the chief concern of the VP Admin portfolio. As an active organizer of Trek Park and last year’s anti-U blvd development petition, Tristan is the most interested in development issues. The internally-focused half of the portfolio isn’t addressed very thoroughly. Though SUB Renew certainly has a link to the plans for U-Square, since the U-Blvd plan revision, Tristan’s assertion that SUB renew makes U-Square irrelevant is pure fantasy. There’s no indication whatsoever that the SUB renew process will cancel other plans for the area. Moreover, it is not remotely within the VP Admin’s power to “stop” the underground bus-loop construction. If you read his platform carefully, you’ll notice repeatedly that Tristan presents things he hopes will be true, or plans to do, as irrevocable fact. This is quite misleading (especially if you don’t know abut this stuff to begin with). The VP Admin this year will have to work fairly closely with Campus and Community Planning, and the UBC administration to make SUB Renew a physical and financial reality. I fear that Tristan’s principled lack of respect for these people will not help him serve students in these interactions. Also, stepping on the VP Academic’s toes constantly about development issues would make the executive team dynamics awkward. Don’t get me wrong, I like alot of Tristan’s ideas (the real-time sustainability counter, rooftop garden, and social justice audit are all great) but I have doubts that he’ll be able to pull of even a fraction of the platform without pissing everyone off. http://www.tristanmarkle.com/

    Steve McCarthy – Steve is the UBC debate society president, former residence advisor, and scribbler for our esteemed VFM rival/partner in awesome, The Devil’s Advocate. Incumbent VP Academic Sarah Naiman actually convinced Steve to run – make your own conclusions from that. Steve’s platform is focused and pragmatic, covering the three main categories of the VP Admin portfolio: SUB Renew, SAC & Clubs, and Student Life. He’s on the right track for all of them. His idea for modeling a once a month activities night after Waterloo’s “warrior weekend” is pretty cool. He plans to restructure SAC into less, better-paid positions, and aims to use AMS Link as an administrative tool as opposed to marketing it as a sub-par social networking tool. He wants to make groups that can’t qualify as clubs into “affiliate groups”, who would have booking privileges, to foster better connections with the AMS. Steve isn’t afraid to say “I don’t know” – which will help him, since he has alot to learn. Many of the ideas here are fairly mainstream, and they’re all practical. Focusing on one special project (as opposed to Tristan’s bazillion) is wise. Also, he’s a got a great personality for this job, and is really smart. http://votesteve.blogspot.com/

    Shawn Stewart – Shawn was a SAC Commissioner this year, so he’s got the most thorough insight into the workings of the VP Admin portfolio. I don’t know Shawn personally, but I’m impressed by much of his platform, despite the silly organization of his website into vague headers like “community” and “efficiency” (and the fact that you have to download word documents to view the full platform. grr). His plans for SAC reorganization, (specifically the creation of a Student Life commissioner) are detailed and make alot of sense. His discussion of SUB consultations and what will happen if this year’s referendum fails was helpful. He’s got generally good ideas about better consultation and engagement with Residence Life and other campus groups, and wants to create an AMS Frosh program for first years. I don’t get how this differs from AMS Firstweeek, but meh. A good emphasis in Shawn’s platform is the “gateway positions” section. Both students and the organization can benefit hugely from having volunteers work on interesting projects in the events and design departments in the AMS. These types of projects are fun; volunteers that enjoy what they’re doing are some of the most committed and valuable members of a society. AMS Connect was supped to promote volunteerism in the AMS – I don’t’ know how successful it’s been. Anyway, Shawn seems pretty good. My main criticisms are that he annoyingly ends every sentence like he’s asking a question, and he’s ruined the future careers of lots of people in his outrageous “Let them Eat Cake” blog. http://www.stewart4vpadmin.com/

    Mike Kushnir – Mike has been involved in ACF and AUS for years. He decided to go serious after his first bid for this position as “scary” Mike “the rabbi”. Mike’s platform is the shortest, and not very comprehensive, but most of the ideas that are there are quite concrete. He doesn’t address the issues of Clubs and SAC at all. Go read it yourself, it’s short. I think Mike comes from a good place, but he’s ambivalent about SUB Renew, which will need immediate and detailed attention right off the bat. I feel like I need to see more here. votemike.wordpress.com

    The two non-serious candidates, Aaron Palm and Stephanie Ryan have very different schticks. Aaron quotes fitting bible verses, and Steph spouts off her personal desire for slates to be re-instituted. Weird. I’ll probably vote for Steve McCarthy in this election. He’s pretty awesome, incredibly personable, and I know that he’ll work well with the other executives. Shawn would probably be good too. To me, this race is between them.

    Something that’s come up in this race is the realization that the SUB Renew timeline is incredibly short. Choosing one of the thre
    e floorplans from Cannon Design to be placed on the referendum ballot through widespread consultation, and then promoting the referendum in about a month is pretty nuts. Maybe a post on SUB Renew is in order. Oh, and Mike and Steve’s posters are way awesome.

    Also, EA Brendan Piovesan managed to fuck up again (imagine that). One candidate’s name wasn’t on the electronic ballot for the first 12 hours of voting (see below post). It’s fixed now, but wow. Just wow.

    EDIT: This wasn’t actually Brendan’s fault at all. There was some communication problem with the university, which runs the WebVote system

    Categories
    AMS Elections 2008 VP Admin

    oh, come on

    This is a wholesale lifting of Alex Lougheed’s facebook note, in which he notices that Stephen McCarthy isn’t on the ballot.

    How to vote in the AMS Special Election

    The original can be found here.

    Props to Alex for: voting at 1am, having eagle eyes, and also wicked MSPaint skills.

    Categories
    AMS Elections 2008 VP Admin

    AMS Elections: The VP Admin Strikes Back

    I’ve had a busy couple days with Ubyssey, work, school, and photoshoots, so I haven’t had much of a chance to post photos. Anyway, these are from Thursday’s debates.
    The elections start tomorrow: be sure to get the word out and encourage your friends to get informed and get their vote on!
    vpadmindebates2
    Mike Kushnir is now running seriously. Also, his glasses aren’t real. Mike is torn on a new SUB, because it means that an entire cohort of students will have to go without a SUB, but the current one is clearly inadequate.

    vpadmindebates3
    Tristan Markle and the Technicolor Pants. Tristan’s got bold plans for a Zero-Energy SUB.

    vpadmindebates4
    Aaron Palm, of the Devil’s Advocate, is running as a joke candidate. His shtick was to answer all questions by quoting the bible. Also, he wore an awesome suit.

    vpadmindebates5
    Honestly, I was expecting the President of UBC Debate to be a stronger speaker. Steve definitely hemmed his way through a few questions but when he hit his stride was able to detail a fairly club-focused platform.

    vpadmindebates6
    I’m not entirely sure why Steph Ryan is running; every answer was prefaced with “DON’T VOTE FOR ME.” and it seemed more like a chance for her to use the debates as a soapbox for personal views than anything else.
    PS: slates only bring diversity if you consider tokenism to be diversity.

    vpadmindebates8
    Yian would stop talking, literally in the middle of a word, whenever I pointed a camera at him. The first time, I thought it was funny; the fourth time, I was (and am) firmly of the mind that this man should not be the VP Admin. Also, I fully admit that I pulled the worst photo of the bunch to include in this post.

    vpadmindebates1
    For some reason, I don’t have a picture of Shawn at the podium. He quoted his SAC experience and also presented several concrete plans to revitalize the portfolio, enhance club relations and generally springboard off his time in SAC.

    vpadmindebates10
    Mike Duncan caught me taking a photo of Alex and Lois, and decided to make a face in the background… so I made him the foreground.

    vpadmindebates9
    the crowd, mid-debate. Note Andrew Forshner not dropping the ball.

    vpadmindebates11
    Blake Frederick, current AVP Badass.

    vpadmindebates12
    Nate Crompton asking a question of the candidates.

    vpadmindebates13
    Riveting. Debate. Action.

    vpadmindebates14
    Just a quick profile shot of the candidates.

    vpadmindebates15
    Aaron Palm is not pleased

    vpadmindebates17
    Kasha Chang moderated the debates. It’s a thankless job.

    vpadmindebates16
    I sense a rivalry brewing.

    vpadmindebates7
    Alex Lougheed, checking out his potential co-executives with SUS D.Finance Lois Chan.

    Categories
    AMS Elections 2008 Media

    Voter Funded Media results!

    Due to a hole in WordPress, this post’s author is misattributed. The follow was written by former Insiders editor Maayan Kreitzman.

    Well, here they are at long last!

    The Knoll – $1600
    UBC Insider – Election Edition – $1500
    The Devils advocate – $1400
    Cavalier – $900
    Let Them Eat Cake – $725
    UVote – $600
    The Underground – $600
    The 432 – $600
    Plain title: Awesome Content – $75
    The Radical Beer Tribune – $0
    Maclean’s On Campus – $0

    From the VFM administrator Paul Gibson-Tigh:

    In the name of transparency, I am passing along the VFM results as they came to me, and then in the interpolated version (both in excel). The results were tricky to interpolate, as they made for a ‘case of discontinuity’ explained at the bottom of this page (http://www.votermedia.org/ubc/InterpolatedConsensus.html). It was all planned for in advance by Mark. I encourage you to fill in the spreadsheets and see the wonders of interpolated consensus yourselves! I could try to explain the case, but I had to have it explained to me, so keep that in mind.

    A total of 249 people voted in the UBC Insiders option (ranging from $0 to $2000) – which was the highest number of votes of any media. There’s no real way of knowing how many people voted total – but lets say that 100 people voted, and didn’t vote in the UBC-i category, that’s still a pretty dire turnout for a contest that’s supposed to raise the profile of campus elecitons. The consensus percentile, p, was 61. It seems that (acording to the spreadsheet I’m looking at) the number of votes for each media were not normalized to the total number of voters, but rahter to the maximum number of voters in a particular media (249, in this case). This means that the rule in the VFM code that states that not voting is the same as voting zero wasn’t followed (I think, anyway. not sure). You can take a look at the Raw Votes spreadsheet, and the Interpolated Consensus spreadsheet for yourself – see if you can make head or tail of it!!

    My major disspointment here is Plain Title: Awesome Content. I think Ian did a great job with the mini-paper. It was the one entry, to me, that actually reached out farther than the insular AMS in-croud, to target everyone else. And he did it with hilarity, opinion, and information. S0 boo-urns to that result. Also the 432 still sucks. Alot.

    On a personal note, I just want to say a heartfelt thank you to all of you. It’s been a great ride, and that’s because of all the readers that have logged on, learned a bit, and maybe commented. The discourse generated here is really the thing that is wonderful to me. Pardon my moment of vanity, but it really is lovely to feel that our little blog is appreciated – so thank you!

    Categories
    AMS Elections 2008 VP Admin

    VP Admininstration nominations – rumor mill

    The race for the fifth AMS executive position, VP Administration, was cancelled in mid-campaign due to “campaigning irregularities.” While this cancellation was probably contrary to AMS code, and details were never confirmed by Elections Administrator Brendan Piovesan, a new race is soon to launch. And according to the rumor-mill, and the volume of nomination papers being passed around, it looks like this is going to be the most competitive race of the election. As you can see below, numerous serious, high profile contenders have stepped up:

    Stephen McCarthy – Steve is the president of the UBC debate society, and the illustrious person behind “Serious Steve” on our colleagues’ blog over at the Devil’s Advocate.

    Blake Frederick – Blake was VP Academic (and fellow blogger) Brendon Goodmurphy’s assistant this year, so he has experience working on issues in the executive structure of the AMS. He just got elected to Senate.

    Tristan Markle – Tristan is a Science councilor and is also heavily involved in the AMS resource groups. He’s also an editor of the left-wing campus rag, The Knoll.

    Mike Kushnir – Mike, who ran as a joke in the first iteration of this race as “Scary ” Mike “the rabbi”, is apparetnly running again as a serious candidate.

    Shawn Stewart – Another VFM contestant. The mind behind the persona of “le grand gateau” over at Let Them Eat Cake. Shawn is also a SAC commisioner, so he’s got experience with some aspects of the Admin portfolio.

    Patrick Meehan – Arts councilor, and politico.

    Yian Messoloras – The apparent reason why the first VP Administration case was cancelled, and has to be run again, Yian wants to build a new SUB without increasing student fees by a penny.

    All of the AUS – apparently a raft of AUSers want to run more jokes in this race than the rest of the elections put together. I sincerely hope they don’t. This elections doesn’t have much remaining credibility to lose, but any more jokes and screw-up could just scour whatever’s left away.

    As soon as these are official, we’ll have some candidate questionnaires and analysis so that y’alls can make an informed decision.

    Categories
    AMS AMS Elections 2008

    AMS Council Meeting, Jan 30, or how much we care about committee reform, deep down inside.

    Today’s council meeting was both disappointing and heartening. Disappointing because the anticipated public lynching of EA Brendan Piovesan failed to materialize. Heartening because it turns out that deep down inside, we really care about committee reform. And there were several other important (University Ombuds Office!) and thoughtful (Systemic discrimination in the AMS?) decisions.

    We got to find this out when an apparently simple motion about changing the chair of the Impacts committee (which looks at sustainability) from the VP Admin to VP finance. This motion was predicated by conversations in the impacts committee and executive committee about where sustainability issues fit best in the structure of the organization. Since the many of the sustainability and impacts issues have to do with businesses, and implementing the budgets of the sustainability strategy, they seemed to agree that the chairmanship would be best supported by the Finance portfolio. Basically, this was about finding a permanent home in the organization for a committee that has traditionally had… issues.

    Seems simple enough. Makes sense. Consultation with the committee in question took place. Both the VP Finance and Admin already sit on the impacts committee anyway. Interestingly, this motion met with resistance. Councillors wanted to refer it to the Code & Policies committee (sometimes a bad idea in my opinion). Throughout the debate, it became clear that it wasn’t just this committee, and the trivial switch in chairmanship that was bugging councillors. It was the “top-down” nature of the proposal, the fact that it was still an executive committee member that was being proposed to chair it, and that it hadn’t gone through a committee process – essentially, it turns out that council really cares about the ideas behind Spencer’s committee reform, and the fact that this change in committee structure wasn’t integrated holistically into the whole committee reform conversation, was very bothersome! Wow!

    For whatever reason, momentum is building behind committee reform. Somebody even called the phrase a buzzword today, which I had to chuckle about, considering that it’s been in negative buzz territory for numerous seasons of sitting on the backburner. But I’m very happy that people are thinking about it, even to the extent that they’re dragging it into irrelevant debates. yay!

    In other notable meeting news, the long-awaited University-level Ombudsperson Office is one step closer to reality with hiring proposed for April 2008. The Ombuds Office will be an independent and confidential service for students to voice complaints against the University and to serve as a central body where students can go to seek referrals to all other campus resources. AMS Council voted unanimously in favour of a 3-year funding package in support of the initiative with the GSS and the University providing joint funding. This office has been 16 years in coming; a previous AMS attempt in 1991 failed at the Senate level. Attempts under Martha Piper were emphatically refused by that president. When Stephen Toope came on board in 2006, students saw an opportunity to try again and found encouragement from the new President. An ad hoc committee with members from the VP Student’s office, University counsel, equity office, faculty association, AMS Ombuds, AMS Advocacy, GSS Advocacy was struck, generating terms of reference, which were reviewed and passed by the University Administration. The Ombuds Office will be housed in the Student Union Building, a nod to the independent and student focused nature of the service. [This paragraph kindly written by Joshua Caulkins, Geography Ph.D. student and Chair of the Ombuds Committee]

    Ross Horton has been hired as the new General Manager of the AMS. The GM is a hugely important position which oversees all the business and service operations of the AMS. The GM sits on the Executive committee, reports to the president, and is basically the boss of everyone that the AMS employs. He/she suplies important turnover for executives. Another complete post on the new GM is forthcoming. This is big for the AMS.

    Other interesting motions that were carried:

    • Oversight committee (which usually evaluates the performance of executives) is to seek submissions and make recommendations about this year’s election process, in hopes of improving it for the future. This research and report will be totally separate from the process of resolving current elections irregularities, which is taking place through elections appeals committees and student court.
    • An “appropriate external body” (whatever that may be) is to be employed to look at systemic discrimination in the AMS. In the last three years (maybe since the abolishment of slates? term paper anyone? (asks Jeff Friedrich)) there has been a decrease in the proportion of women politically active in the AMS. Council seems to be disproportionately low in visible minority representation as well. This ties into the commuter/non commuter dichotomy also. This is to make a professional determination about whether there is a problem, and how to address it.

    The last thing on the agenda was a discussion topic about the elections period that has just concluded. The discussion topic was added to the agenda by AUS president Stephanie Ryan, in order to discuss a submission she had received from a constituent. But immediately as the agenda item came up, it immediately went in camera (ie. nobody except councillors (and anyone specifically invited)) allowed. “I came specifically for this though!” said “Che” Allison, a candidate in the President race, as he waited outside the council chambers for the in camera session to conclude,” I can understand where they’re coming from, but there are people that have personal experience about the HR issues they’re going to discuss. Don’t get me wrong, I love sitting through AMS meetings [dripping sarcasm] … They invited Chris and Stef [the VPs finance and external elect], but not two other candidates, one of whose election is still unresolved! And they should have invited the VFMs – since that was a shitshow too”. In any event, it seems that some councillors have vowed to move to discount any and all elections results that include the results from paper ballots, which were not conducted in sectret on Jan 25th, when the elections results come to council for approval. This won’t happen until the various sundry official complaints are resolved.

    The whole question of in camera session when you’re talking about employees’ performance is a little mysterious to me. All students are members of the society, and should be able to participate in a conversation about HR issues in something as important as an election. Anyone care to enlighten about what libel/lawsuit worries drive council into in camera sessions? Particularly when the agenda item is just a discussion period as opposed to a deicsion-making topic?

    Categories
    AMS AMS Elections 2008

    Student Court challenges, election 2008

    The period for the 2008 AM elections was punctuated by numerous irregularities of various sorts. When problems arise in elections, or in other matters of stuff that goes against the AMS Bylaws or Code, complaints can be brought to a group of people called the “student court”. These are seven people, typically law students, that interpret the code, and make rulings based on it in whatever dispute is going on. The Student Court is comprised of one Chief Justice (who has to be in third year law) and six other students. They’ve got the ultimate say on interpreting AMS bylaws and code. AMS council can overrule Student Court rulings, but usually doesn’t. Elections-related complaints first go to the election appeal committee. This committee consists of the Elections Administrator, Chief Justice, and a representative of the person with the complaint (other than themselves). If this committee can’t decide what to do, or if the person appeals their decision, the issue goes to all of the Student Court.

    Current challenges/complaints that I’m aware of (there may well be more):

    VP Academic race: A complaint pertaining to this race has been submitted. I don’t know by whom, or any details. The VP academic race was particularly close, with only 30 votes separating the winning candidate, Alex Lougheed, from the runner-up, Nate Crompton.

    VP Admin race: Mike Kushnir, the candidate that ran as “scary” Mike “the rabbi” in the VP admin race, is filing a complaint about the cancellation of this race, in opposition to code. Specifically, he wants the results from WebVote released. To quote the formal complaint he submitted to the elections committee a few days ago:

    I am not looking to have the VP-Admin election declared valid. I am simply looking to have the election results released. I would like to have Stephanie Ryan appointed as my representative to the Elections Appeal Committee.

    BoG race/ general: According to sources, one of the winners of the BoG race sent out an email to members of the Greek system, stating that he was the only fraternity member running for BoG. This turns out to be factually incorrect, since Andrew Carne is also a fraternity member. Omid Javadi, the EUS VP external, who is filing a complaint about this and more general matters pertaining to the conduct of the Elections Administrator is on the record saying the following:

    Brendan does not deserve a penny of the honorarium he is supposed to get. The election results should be invalidated, simply because democracy was not achieved with this election. He provided no services to this society, and as such, should not be paid. This sort of ineptitude should never be seen again.

    Details are still fuzzy, since I can’t find a list of current Student Court members, and the Election Administrator isn’t answering my emails. Speaking of the EA, rumors are flying that council is going to try and fire Brendan Piovesan, this year’s EA, at tomorrow’s council meeting.

    In any event, elections results are only official after council approves them. As long as there are unresolved Student Court challenges pending, this won’t happen, so the elections results are still very much in question. Hopefully this won’t spell a huge delay for Executive turnover.

    Spam prevention powered by Akismet