Category: AMS Elections 2008

Categories
AMS Elections 2008 Development

Issue of the day: The UNA – Interveiw with Mike Feeley

The UNA aren’t the fat-cats we students like to imagine. The University Town Neighbourhoods are the five outlying areas of UBC’s campus that have been leased out to private developers for the purpose of building high-end residential neighbourhoods, and thereby growing UBC’s financial endowment. The university has envisioned these neighbourhoods as part of making UBC a “complete community” in which people live and work sustainably. They’ve set (and met) ambitious goals to have 50% (I think) of the neighbourhoods inhabited by people that teach and work at UBC. Students on the other hand, see the neighbourhoods and their inhabitants as a manifestation of the privatization and selling-out of our land to build a suburb completely separate from the University’s academic mission. There’s truth in both perspectives.

The University Neighbourhoods Association (UNA) is the pseudo-municipal council for people living in the University Town neighbourhoods. It is often the target of student ire, being stereotypically branded by students as one of the reasons UBC is “selling out,” screwing over students, and generally going to the dogs. Now I know it’s a shocker, but stay with me: the residents of the University Town neighbourhoods don’t necessarily represent competing interests to those of students; in fact, they experience many of the same problems we as students have with the governance structure of UBC.

I sat down with UNA board member and UBC engineering prof Mike Feeley a month ago to try and dig down and find the kernel of truth behind the hyped-up animosity between students and U-town residents. And what I found was that it shouldn’t even be there. One of the first things Mike said to me was that U town residents themselves are not the people that decided to develop that land. “Once the development happens, the relationship changes to one between people,” he said. The UNA, though it approximates some functions of a municipal government (like garbage and noise regulation, running its own community centres and gardens, allocating the tax and levy for U Town residents) is in fact an opt-in society constituted under the Society Act of BC, and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the UBC Board of Governors, much like the AMS.

Therefore, there is a formal problem of “taxation without representation” – the UBC BoG collects the property tax and services levy from the U Town residents, and then hands it to the UNA to spend. But, not all residents are members of the UNA due to voluntary membership, and the UNA itself is not formally represented on the BoG. It has always played a role as an “advisory board” to the BoG. There’s a debate within the UNA as to whether formal representation, or the current role is in fact more effective in advocating for residents interests. So it’s not completely cut and dry.

Some of the biggest issues the UNA looks at are

  • Running the Old Barn Community Centre (and the new community centre being built in South Campus)
  • Having control over “public” areas like gardens so that they are taken care of and planted with things that are appropriate for children and the community – not necessarily the way developers plan them.
  • Access to recreation facilities like the pool, rinks, and gyms, at cut-rate prices. (the UNA makes a contribution to the ancillary that runs them, UBC athletics, to the tune of 1/4 million a year)
  • Promoting community and volunteerism in the community.

There are some interesting dynamics at play in the UNA, I found out. On the UNA board, there are three appointed members – two from the university (AVP Planning, and AVP finance/business), and one from the AMS (the VP Academic). These members are controversial, since true municipal councils don’t have appointed members. “Why students are there is a bit hard to understand,” said Mike, “but they’ve brought a bit of energy to the board, and been tremendously helpful to our shared interests with students. The relationship with the AMS is tremendously important.” The elected seats on the UNA board, (which will increase in number as the neighbourhoods grow) are dominated by members of the U Town community that are work at UBC – and by talking to Mike, these people are hardly emblems of capitalist treachery.

Hawthorne Place, the neighbourhood that was built over the old parking lot across from Totem Park, has proven to be quite a surprise in many ways. The university expected the type of people that would purchase there to be wealthy empty nesters. In fact, 70% of the residents in Hawthorne are faculty and Staff and UBC and from 700 families that live there, there are 650 children. Three main community dichotomies exist in the community: university connected/not; new immigrants/not; and families with kids/no kids, older. In Hawthorne, anyway, it seems that the younger university-connected set is the most involved, and thus has most of the political influence in the UNA. The character of Hampton place is quite different though, and it remains to be seen what sort of community emerges in the South Campus neighbourhoods.

It has to be noted, that though UBC has been successful in ensuring that many faculty and staff are able to live in the U Town developments, the same cannot be extended to students. Mike Feeley: “If you’re a faculty member, you can barely afford to live here. If you’re a student, you can’t. If you’re a labourer, work for plant-ops, a secretary – you’re living in Surrey. I happen to think that’s wrong, and it’s a problem we need to address.” There are three buildings in Hawthorne that were actually co-developments reserved for faculty and staff only, and built without some of the fancier fixtures to allow for more affordable price points. Mike lives in one of these. He added that this problem is not one that just exists at UBC; it’s the same problem Vancouver as a whole faces as land values increase and the city become less and less affordable.

To me this is something UBC needs to address pro-actively. These communities are now being constructed from scratch, and there’s no reason not to do it right. By ensuring that affordable housing exists in the Neighbourhoods alongside the more expensive developments, UBC will go a long way to ensuring that U town is truly a complete, sustainable community. If students can participate in the community by living in it, you’ll see all the animosity and us/them dissipating. As for the UNA, it’s not clear if they’re interested in lobbying for political advancements like affordable housing, forwarding the Governance Review, above their work on recreation, sustainability and community events – that’ll be up to the leadership in the community. Here’s hoping they will.

What the candidates say:

President
Erin Rennie: “Forge a fair relationship with the RCMP, the UNA, and the UBC Admin.Demand more legitimate governance at UBC.”
Matt Naylor: “This past year we have been struggling with the continued alignment of student [sic] by the RCMP and others, such as the University Neighbourhoods Association. They need to learn that to be on a university campus means that, on occasion, students are going to be around.”
Mike Duncan: Couldn’t find anything.
Rodrigo Ferrari Nunes: Couldn’t find anything.

Academic
Alex Lougheed: “The UNA has a new board chair this year. This means its a good time to make new relationships with them. However I question their position in the current governance model of UBC, and many of their attitudes towards students. I hope to change our relationship with them, and their perceptions of us so we have more common understandings, and can work together. If we were to lobby together, there is no way the administration could ever say no.”
Nathan
Crompton: Couldn’t find anything.
Rob McLean: “The goal of 25% of students being able to be housed on campus is far too modest given our diversity. As a student who has lived in low-cost housing on campus for the last three years, I can attest to the need for more Fraser Halls and less Chaucers. In my opinion, if it isn’t for students of people related to the university (faculty or support staff), it does not belong near campus (especially on Wesbrook)!”

Categories
AMS Elections 2008 Media

January 17th: Debate photos and commentary.

One of the things people most frequently mention about UBC Insiders is that the posts are often wordy, and lacking in sass. This should remediate both of those.

photos and comments behind the cut (warning, there’s lots!)

debates jan 17 2
Ubyssey staff Brandon Adams and Jesse Ferreras, huddling before the debates start. Or exchanging sweet nothings. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

debates jan 17 3
Michael Duncan secretly wishes that the Presidential election was, in fact, a big hair competition.

debates jan 17 4
confidential to DP: telling girls about the size of your hydrant is a bad idea.

debates jan 17 5
Che Allison’s Head of Police forcibly ejects AUS President Stephanie Ryan.
I support the intention and the action and hope to see Stephanie more frequently bodily removed from things.

debates jan 17 6
Mike hones his “monkey see, monkey do” skills as Erin promises to fight the War on Fun.

debates jan 17 7
There was a point being made here, but I’ve forgotten it. Also, it’s not a very good photo. I’m sorry.

debates jan 17 8
Maayan asks a question, as Shawn from Eat Cake erroneously thinks that he looks better in maroon.

debates jan 17 9
Brittany promised violence upon my person if I said anything mean about her, and I figure she’d be at least as thorough at that as she was as VPF…

debates jan 17 10
Brendon watches the debates as Jeff watches us. Because Jeff is watching us all.

debates jan 17 11
Paging Dr. Freud!

debates jan 17 12
I don’t want his lucky charms.

debates jan 17 13
Chris Diplock, throwing down fresh rhymes and phat beats during the VPF debate.

debates jan 17 14
Sarah Naiman watches the debates while enjoying a “baby roll”, one of the items on the Honor Roll’s secret menu. It’s made out of babies.

debates jan 17 15
Enraged at being caught in the act of eating a baby, Sarah goes after the wrong member of the media. Luckily, Brandon survived.

debates jan 17 16
Tough questions. Reasonably priced drinks. What more could you want in a debate?

debates jan 17 17
Stef Ratjen, VPX candidate that Jesse Ferreras has neatly disassembled.

debates jan 17 18
Freeman Poritz, VPX candidate that Jesse Ferreras has neatly disassembled.

debates jan 17 19
Some of the Senate candidates look away as Colin Simkus tries to serenade the moderator. Alex Lougheed is definitely taking mental notes.

debates jan 17 21
Being on the elections committee Listening to would-be senators read their resumes would also drive me to drinking. I hope Tariq comes out of this with an intact liver.

Categories
AMS Elections 2008 Media

VFM and other media-themed updates.

Voting started yesterday (Friday). As you may have noticed, the system being used is the archaic and inflexible WebVote hosted on the UBC Student Services site, not the new AMSLink system purchased by the AMS this year, which is still not functioning. If you tried to vote, you may also have noticed that the VFM entrants are not yet on the ballot. The VFM administrator, Paul Gibson-Tigh to explains:

VFMs are not on the online ballot as of yet, because the deadline for entering the contest was today at 4pm. We didn’t want to disadvantage the last minute entrants (of which there were a few) so we couldn’t complete the list until the registration period had closed. I would call it a coordination error that I guess arose because the entry form was created before the election period was determined. People will still be able to vote in the contest, even if they have voted for candidates already, so I dont think there will be any problems. I’ll keep you and the other 10 entrants posted on whats coming up if this causes any problems.

So don’t worry – everyone will still be able to vote for their favorite VFMs. Still, this timing is highly unfortunate. Media cannot themselves be publicized and marketed to a campus of 50 000 people in a timespan of days. In turn, I doubt VFM will succeed in fuelling increased voter turnout this year. We’ve learned that some last-minute entries has been submitted however. True to form though, the VFM website has yet to be updated. Another point to note is that the new voting system (Interpolated Consensus Voting) that AMS council introduced for the media contest this year can’t be administered on WebVote. The system is a little hard to understand, and I was planning a fabulous explanatory post, but don’t worry, you don’t need to know anything about it anymore. As Matthew Naylor amusingly noted last week (in a totally different context, but still) “democracy was narrowly averted”. Too bad.

Some other media notes:
The Ubyssey printed an extensive elections supplement yesterday, with profiles of all the candidates. This is great. They’ve barely published any analysis or real campaign coverage. This is sad. To summarize our official student newspaper’s coverage: 1. an article on joke candidate names; 2. an article on one specific joke candidate (the hydrant); 3. an “analysis”/opinion piece running one presidential candidate down.

This last piece is truly unfortunate. While it’s nice that the Ubyssey is trying to make it’s Friday magazine more dynamic by introducing articles that are not striclty news, but have some opinion mixed in, this patricular piece was NOT labeled as such. It’s a bit jarring to read a heavily angled and editorialized article you think is supposed to be news, and to suddenly encounter the first person “I”. Obviously, these shouldn’t take the place of actual serious reporting, which has been totally absent in the Ubyssey’s pages this campaign. The Ubyssey has formed a veritable gallery of photographers and news staff at every debate – so where’s the coverage? Given the mismanagement of the VFM contest, most voters that have read anything at all will probably be going to the polls on the basis of the Ubyssey’s inadequate and downright skewed coverage.

Categories
AMS Elections 2008 President

How the President is voting – Jeff Friedrich's ballot


Jeff Friedrich is the current AMS president. These are his words. (Cartoon by JJ McCullough):

Ok… not to add fuel to the endorsement fire- but endorsing joke candidates? Maayan and Timmy, I think you two can step up and make a real choice here. And nothing against Erin, but being a joke candidate affords you a lot of advantages in a campaign. I think Erin is great, but I’ve never been that convinced that she actually likes or understands the AMS very well. Saying that an AMS run version of ACF is unfortunate because it won’t be student run is false, on the first hand; and a real candidate would present a plan to make it’s management involve more students- a perfectly reasonable platform point.

Also- elections aren’t fun. The type of people who should probably win them aren’t often the same type of people who thrive on the shameless self promotion necessary in campaigns. The one reflection I had about them is that they can be incredibly educational. I learned a lot about the AMS from my campaign- about student’s perceptions of it’s relevance and about how your ideas and vision resonate with membership.

So aside from congratulating all of the candidates for the bravery it takes to put your name forward, one message I’d have to all candidates is to hang in there, miss a few more days of class, and to learn what you can. And to the rest of you- cut them a bit of slack. It’s absolutely brutal to go home at the end of the day and read anonymous comments that are rude and unproductive.

President (this one is longer- I felt I owed it to Matt and Mike, both people I respect for their commitment to the AMS)

The most important job a President has is building a team that respects each other and their relationship with council. Finding shared priorities, particularly within staff and the exec team, and ideally with council, leverages the contacts, abilities, and momentum of many students and makes projects happen.

The reality is that the President portfolio is awkwardly defined- you get everything (internal, external, political, and management) and nothing. You’re not a CEO, and you can’t necessarily demand action from independently elected VP’s. You have a relationship with a council that is likely too large, has clumsy structure, grandiose debate, and whose members have to balance the political interests of their respective constituencies with their fiduciary obligations to everyone’s student union- the AMS.

That means the strength and effectiveness of your leadership is fundamentally dependant on how well you build consensus and use the governance structure of the AMS to build energy and commitment to projects. Just because it’s called “President” doesn’t necessarily mean there is an overly rigid hierarchy. I’m not sure everyone appreciates that.

[Endorsements behind the jump – Ed]
Quite frankly, I do not have confidence that Matt’s leadership style, ability to receive feedback, and judgment are well developed enough to lead an exec team or a large and complex organization like the AMS. If Matt had more ability as a team player, that would be demonstrated as support and endorsements from members of his exec team or from previous exec who have worked with him. Matt might be a future AMS President, but I don’t think he’s ready yet.

Matt’s ideas are also underdeveloped. It’s mostly status quo and the things he added as priorities don’t sit well with me. Liquor law lobbying might sound nice, but I doubt we’d gain much from ABLE membership, and most of the other ideas seem like they haven’t received feedback from people who might understand the practical challenges. It’s surprising to me that liquor would get a similar quantity of platform ink as discussions around student access, debt, and academic quality.

I have a hard time believing the message about empowering council. That’s a very hard thing to do- something we need to do, but nonetheless very difficult. It means more than working with the allies you have on council, which I think is how Matt has conceptualized the issue to himself.
Please appreciate how difficult it is for me to say that, and please don’t interpret my comments as being overly critical of Matt as a person.

Matt campaigns well. So far he has done this better than Mike. Which is disconcerting, because one of the reasons I support Mike is that I believe he has an ability to motivate student attention towards a referendum campaign for SUB that could be transformative for the organization, the U-Blvd project, and for the needs of a largely commuter based and disengaged student population. The groundwork is there but the route to referendum is challenging, and someone will need to build a very effective case to convince students. Mike needs to show through his campaigning that he is that person.

So pick it up Mike. Find a passion that is about ideas rather than “the next natural step” in student leadership. It’s there. Your ideas on athletics and involvement are important. I’ve worked with you on projects and know you’ve got an ability to motivate passion in others, and you’re organized in how you delegate tasks and manage projects. Mike is approachable and amenable to changing tack when decisions go astray. He has strong relationships with, and respect from, the university administration and the staff in our organization.

For those concerned readers of The Knoll and other members of the fledgling yet always inspired activist community at UBC (much love)- Mike has more political depth than you’re likely to give him credit for: I met Mike 4 years ago when he was helping organize Farmade, a cause I know he’s committed to. My guess is that he’ll have an approach with a VP External/Academic that is largely hands-off- meaning the political ambitions of the AMS will largely be guided by these portfolios in the coming year.
Mike Duncan is absolutely the person for the job.

The rest:

Alex Lougheed– VP Academic
Chris Diplock– VP Finance
Sarah Naiman– VP Admin (Sarah is exceptional)
Stef Ratjen– VP External

Senate – outstanding caliber of candidates this year…

I’m excited by, and you should vote for….

  • Blake Frederick (is qualified to be VP Academic)
  • Alfie Lee
  • Azim Wazeer (great focus on LPI- an issue which hasn’t gotten as much discussion as it should)

Can do the job, but I honestly don’t know enough about their platforms…

  • Aidha Shaikh
  • Colin Simkus

You should vote for one of these if you’re voting for them for VP Academic (it will help build a better relationship between the Caucus and AMS council)…

  • Alex Lougheed or Rob Maclean

I don’t know them, but their material looks professional and/or I’ve heard positive things about them…

  • Eileen Harder
  • Phillip Edgecumb

Board of Governors

Andrew Carne (good answers at the debate)
Tim Blair
Bijan is a close third for me.

Categories
AMS Elections 2008 President

Endorsement: Erin Rennie for the win!

Erin Rennie. The posture of a winner! Photo Gerald Deo

Tim beat me to the punch, but I swear my draft was here first. I decided to vote for Erin Rennie yesterday at around 12:15. Tim’s got good reasons to choose her; I feel similarly. She’s got council experience, reams of brains, and a far better personality for leadership and engagement than either Matt or Mike. It doesn’t take much to see through some of her more humorous polemics to realize that Erin actually gets politics, and gets students. She wont be beset by her adversaries’ respective problems. Problems which to me, are a fair bit too serious to just hold your nose and vote for. She’s the best for the job. Simple enough. Other people have told me that while Erin Rennie is the best candidate, there’s no point endorsing her because she can’t win. To this I call bullshit. Look to the sidebar poll – yeah it’s utterly unscientific, but I don’t think people were joking when they chose Erin in the poll. Erin for the Win!!

My other endorsements coming soon.

Categories
AMS Elections 2008 President Student Politics

TLG's Guide to Voting

Now don’t go and get your knickers in a knot – these aren’t endorsements. Far be it from me to, from the comfort of my 26th-story office, pass judgment on candidates I barely know, in an election in which I am ineligible to cast a vote. So rather than saying whom to vote for, I’ll go through questions to ask yourself when making up your own mind.

But first, a little indulgence:

Vote for Erin Rennie!
This is based on one simple principle: vote for the person who’s best for the job. I’ve worked, to varying degrees, with many of the candidates and, quite frankly, Erin’s the best. For serious. She’s got the competence, and a level of energy rivals even that of Mike Duncan, and doesn’t scream “give me attention!” She has probably achieved just as much in terms of improving students’ campus experiences as any other candidate. Most importantly, when she cares about something, she does it. She doesn’t form a committee, or make grand proclamations – she just does it. And that’s a quality we should strive for in leaders.

So, I can hear it now. “She’s running as a joke!” “She has a meagre platform!” “She doesn’t want the job!” All true (as far as I know). But I can only respond by quoting someone smarter than all of us: Plato. “The State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.” The best ruler is the reluctant ruler. You don’t want a ruler who’s in it for personal publicity or attention, or the gratification of getting love from the people that they couldn’t get from their father. Governing well and governing loudly are often incompatible; you want to elect a person who will govern well, and govern quietly. And when that person doubles as the best candidate, I happen to think the voting decision is remarkably easy.

Read my “how to make a voting decision” thoughts behind the jump.

The way this works is as a series of questions. I don’t have the answer – you do. Think of it as a filter through which to evaluate candidates, a lens through which to view them to decipher the identical Blogspot campaign sites and Facebook campaign groups.

What Have they Done?
The emphasis here is on “DONE.” They can probably list a zillion qualifications and committees and memberships – who cares? Find out what they’ve actually done with those opportunities. There’s nothing worse than a person who’s given a position of power and influence, then wastes it.

“I will change/improve AMS Council”If they were already on Council, why haven’t they done so already?
If they weren’t on Council, why not? Do they have a clue how it works? (Not to suggest that sitting on Council is a pre-requisite for executive. There can be a good answer to this question that makes them even more electable.)

“I will fight for better consultation with students”If you’ve ever seen them in a leadership role, have they personally consulted with students? Have they shown any inclination to consult themselves, or do they substitute their own views for those of “students”? It’s my experience that those who don’t consult are often useless advocates for the same.

Policy Priorities
Sure, policy priorities can be important. But this year, they’re not. There’s no significant ideological cleavage, no real debate on the merits of any particular issue or perspective. Most of the candidates are pretty much the same When they’re the same, don’t ask whether or not you agree with their opinion – instead, ask yourself if the candidate came to their opinion logically, and whether they expressed their opinion well. I don’t care if a candidate believes X over Y, I prefer if the candidate will, as they gain experience over the year, come to recognize that Y is preferable to X. And their logical reasoning is more important than their opinions.

Big Ideas
A lot of candidates have specific concrete ideas. Ignore them. Ideas fail and succeed for reasons far beyond their control, and, quite frankly, I don’t want a candidate who forces his ideas on the AMS machinery.
Instead, ask where that idea is coming from. Ask yourself why they identified this as a priority, and whether or not the fact that this is their idea illuminates a particular principle for which they stand. I call this the “Naiman Theory.” Her idea of a TV screen in the SUB showing UBC YouTube videos was rather silly, but the principle behind it, of giving students a stake in their own building and an outlet for their creativity was genius. And the principle is worth supporting, if not the idea.

Do they Play Well With Others?
No, this isn’t a popularity contest. But at the same time, some weight has to be given to their ability to work within a team. Most importantly, look at when they disagree. Do they disagree constructively, or do they go out of their way to antagonize others? Never, ever elect the latter. A year with a dysfunctional executive can have ramifications for years thereafter.

So these are the questions I tend to ask myself when voting, AMS or otherwise. They make it fun. And sometimes support prima facie absurd results – vote for Rennie!

Categories
AMS Elections 2008

Brendon's Endorsements

Here are my endorsements, for what they’re worth. I tried to give justification behind my decisions – both why I am supporting certain candidates, and why I’m not supporting others.

Please note: These are not necessarily Maayan’s endorsements, or any one else’s from the UBC Insiders, those will come later in the week. I am publishing these now because I’m getting a lot of pressure from candidates to give endorsements, so I thought I would rather publish my thoughts, rather than just showing up on people’s websites without justifying why.

My experience over the past year as the VP Academic has given me a lot of insight and knowledge into the AMS and campus politics. I think I can lend some insight into the nuances of the job, but I still have biases and opinions, and you may not agree, so make sure you figure out what you’re priorities are, and who represents them the best.

Read my endorsements behind the jump…

President: Mike Duncan
Mike is going to bring something different to the position than Jeff did – and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The AMS could use someone who can get students excited, involved and proud of the AMS. Mike will have to ensure that that involvement in the AMS is meaningful – that students take ownership over the AMS, not just participate in it. Also, Mike has a lot to learn about how to manage a critical but respectful relationship with the administration. But he’ll be able to build a good executive team, get Council participation, run a successful referendum, and bring some new perspectives into the AMS’ mandate. I have trouble seeing Rodrigo’s vision, and I think that’s mostly because he has trouble articulating it. And Matt just can’t handle the leadership role, in my opinion – he has some learning to do about being a team player, and could handle growing into his leadership style more.

VP Academic: No One
Since this is my portfolio, I’m sure it seems pretty weak to not choose a candidate. I have hesitations about all three, and I’m not ready to endorse any of them at this point. I think Nate could bring a lot of much-needed critique of the AMS and the administration, and challenge Council’s assumptions and values. The problem is, there’s a lot more to an Executive position, and I don’t fully think he buys into the non-lobbying side of the AMS. He wants a lot to change about the AMS, and a lot needs to change, and he has a strong vision for it, but being able to create that change will require Nate to work within the structure of Council, and the bureaucratic structures of the AMS. Alex is detail-oriented, critical of the University, hard-working, and gets a lot of the issues. However, he tends to be uncompromising in his opinions. I also find his platform to be thin – I need to see how he will engage students in the governance issue, and how he plans to “organize” the student senate – it’s a relationship that requires careful treading, the AMS can’t overstep its boundaries. Also, it would be nice to see some continuity in my efforts to lobby for more student housing, not just internal issues that residents face (not that that isn’t important) – but I guess that’s kind of selfish. Rob’s platform is interesting, and he seems to understand some of the issues, but he hasn’t shown me what he’s capable of. He doesn’t give us much on HOW he’s going to meet his goals, and I really don’t think there’s room in the portfolio for student life issues, that has to stay in the VP Admin portfolio. None of the candidates have addressed the safety/ equity/diversity/social justice issues in their platforms – Nate gets the closest, but only in terms of “power for the students.” Although I don’t doubt Nate’s passion for social justice one bit, I would like to see some ideas for how he’s going to bring that into the structure of the organization effectively.

VP Finance: Chris Diplock
Chris did his homework, he knows the issues, the portfolio, and the AMS. He has a lot to learn, also, as he hasn’t had that much experience with the AMS until September – but you always have a lot to learn coming into an Executive position, and Chris has shown that he is smart and capable of learning the intricacies of the AMS and campus politics. He is dedicated to the AMS, as he has shown this in his dedication in AMS committees, and coming to AMS Council all the time (even though he isn’t on Council!), and he’s working the hardest that I’ve seen on campaigning. I know Andrew from Council, and he’s been a hardworking, dedicated Councilor, and his platform is pretty good, but he hasn’t shown me that he knows the portfolio well enough, and how he’s going to reach his goals.

VP External: Stef Ratjen
Stef has some great new ideas to bring to the portfolio. She has strong goals and a clear vision for how she’s going to reach them. I know that Stef is really hardworking, she’s passionate, and she’s shown a willingness to learn and be challenged. She will have to learn a lot more about CASA/CFS politics, and learn how to navigate them effectively, but as long as she hones her passion and frustration effectively, she could bring some new perspectives to federal lobbying. I also think Stef could get students involved in the lobbying effort. Freeman’s platform doesn’t give concrete ideas for how to do what he wants to do, and I don’t think he has the experience for the position.

VP Admin: Sarah Naiman
Is there anything to say? She has more than proven herself this year as VP Admin, and she is obviously more than qualified. We are at a pivotal stage in the SUB Renew process, and she will be integral for ensuring continuity of this year’s exec. And besides, who is that other guy?

Senate:

Blake Frederick – has been my Associate VP, University Affairs for the past year, and has done an incredible job. He gets the issues, he’s a passionate advocate for students, and he has a clear vision and a lot of experience for how to get stuff done.

Alfie Lee – has been a dedicated and hardworking senator over the past year. He is eager to learn, puts a lot of effort working with AMS Council and Exec, and another year in the position will only make him more effective.

Azim Wazeer – Azim has a lot of experience working with AMS Exec, so he will be able to keep up a strong relationship with the AMS. He is detail-oriented, passionate and competent. He has strong values, and good ideas, and I’m sure he’ll be an engaged student senator.

Philip Edgcumbe – I don’t know Philip that well, but that doesn’t mean I doubt his ability to do the job well. The first time he came into my office to talk, I was impressed by how well he got the issues. His experiences on campus, particularly with Carl Wieman will be greatly beneficial for bringing good ideas to Senate. He is smart and will take the role seriously.

Alex Lougheed – I think Alex would be a great senator. He is hardworking and detail-oriented, he won’t be afraid to ask tough questions, and he won’t be afraid to meet with an administrator or sit down with another senator to hash through something further.

BOG:

Timothy Blair – Tim knows wh
at’s going on with campus development. He has a very mature, intelligent approach, and I think he would be effective at getting the Board to listen, while still standing strong on students’ concerns.

AND EITHER

Andrew Carne – Andrew surprised me in this race. I don’t know him very well or his work in the EUS, but he has the right priorities, and he is very detail-oriented. He understands how important it is to know everything that is coming to Board, and I think he would be capable of doing the leg work to learn about issues he doesn’t fully understand. I have concerns about not being experienced enough, and not being able to ask tough questions and put some pressure on the Board.

OR

Bijan Ahmadian – Bijan will be able to get the respect of the Board. I believe that he could do a good job, and would be able to communicate the activities of Board to students. He would take the role seriously, and would work hard. I haven’t seen concrete examples of HOW he will be an effective BoG rep, or his stance/opinion on student issues (I want a BoG rep who has strong opinions), and I’d also need some reassurance that he can put on the pressure when the situation calls for it.

Categories
AMS Elections 2008 President VP Finance

Second round of AMS debates show an improving trend.

Today saw two additional rounds of debates – one at noon for the President, VP Academic, and VP finance races, and an additional one in the evening over beers at The Gallery for the VP Administration, VP External, and Senate races. All but the BoG candidates had their chance in the hotseat. These are my personal observations – even having read platforms and listened to candidates, it’s hard to reflect in a completely “objective” manner.

The Races:

Chris Diplock and Andrew Forshner – evenly matched Photo Gerald Deo

VP Finance – This is a tough one to differentiate. The truth is that both Andrew Forshner and Chris Diplock offer excellent skills and attitude. They both emphsize the link between AMS Businesses and Services: healthy businesses mean more money for services. Both talk about appreciating employees that stick around, pay raises for students working at AMS food outlets, and modernization of the cash systems. Okay, so Chris wants to concentrate on sponsorphip opportunities, and Andrew emphasizes renewing some businesses (like the Gallery). Chris talks about ethical business practices and Andrew talks about sustainability. Andrew has more exprience running budgets through his activity with national debating; Chris has spent considerable time learning the issues of FinCom and BOC this term. From a poll conducted by the Cavalier in AMS council yesterday, most councilors support Andrew. Chris had the endorsement of the current VP finance, Brittany Tyson. It’s a tough race, and one that I’m confidant will give us a very capable VP finance whichever direction it goes. Take a look at their platforms and make up your own mind.

VPX and President behind the jump.

VP External – Freeman Poritz and Stefanie Ratjen offer a much clearer contrast. Freeman is a friendly, personable, open guy. He seems to be genuinely interested in learning and taking direction from students. Problem is, he really is quite new to this whole thing – both the AMS and the issues around post secondary education policy in general. Not that that’s a fatal flaw, but he doesn’t seem to have developed opinions on much of anything yet – many of his answers today centred on taking policy direction from council on lobbying positions regarding post-secondary funding. To me, that’s ok. But he’s running more on who he is than what he knows or what he plans – and that might not be enough. Stefanie offers a more experienced, and opinionated voice. She’s been extensively involved in various progressive and radical groups on campus (Femenist collective, Trek Park, the Knoll), and she’s thought about her politics and priorities. I don’t think Stefanie is a “scary” radical though. While she insists that education is a “right, not a privelage” (an assertion I find absurd), she’s not dogmatic or ridiculous about it. I know this because today in the debate when she was asked if international students should pay the same as Canadians, she said that she was against discrimination but would have to look at the issue more carefully. She also placed great emphasis on continuing in the effort to create a provincial lobby coalition with other schools in order to influence the most important level of government when it comes to PSE. I think that guided by council, Stefanie would do a good job.

President – Today was an improvement for the presidential candidates. They took my public speaking advice to great effect! Sweet!

“Che” continued to amuse today, and professed his resolve to dispense with all media, if elected. This corner dis-endorses him, therefore. Erin Rennie was a show of strength, humour, and intelligence. More on her soon. Rodrigo continued to be nutty, and added additional dose of hubris and self-satisfaction (if possible).

The two alleged frontrunners, Matthew Naylor and Mike Duncan (who worked with each other on the SUS executive last year) improved on Wednesday’s performace and played to their strengths. I worry for both of them that this position is more of a scalp on the belt, “the next natuaral step” (hateful phrase), than something they would actually excel at or contribute to.

Mike is shaping up as the more “populist” candidate. He’s had experience with a wide variety of student clubs and groups on campus, as well as his role as SUS president, and is very personally popular. He doesn’t have much of a mind for issues (I’ve rarely heard him materially contribute to council discussion), drinks too much, and his presidancy of SUS has been much more controversial than competent, and nowhere near inspiring. Mike’s SUS executive team has had some issues too. Mike’s platform focuses on making recreation at UBC accesible to students for cheap, and making the AMS more far-reaching through a round table (much like an opt-in stakeholders’ assembly). I like both these focuses quite a bit – they get to the heart of student’s experiences at UBC, which Mike gets.

Matt is more of a ‘policy’ candidate. He seems to know issues, and certainly speaks the language of politics, though tends to change his mind about them alot. He’s promising to implement the long-awaited commitee reform in 30 days of taking office, though sources say that he opposed the idea as late as this summer. His platform is packed with goodies: campaigning for more liquor rights on campus, forgiving ACF debt, and focus on sustainibility in the new SUB. But, there are serious questions about whether he can work well with others and lead a team – Matt is easily frustrated and sometimes expresses himself too strongly. None of the execs this year are supportng him, and he’s not (apparently) altogether loved at the CASA (our national student lobby) table either. But he is ambitious, and he’s got some good priorities – at least on paper.

Categories
AMS Elections 2008 BoG

BoG rep Darren Peets's Words of Wisdom

Darren Peets, by the incomparable JJ McCullough (don’t sue me JJ!)
Governor Peets’s priceless pearls of wisdom. Listen up BoG candidates!!

Can a bog rep actually make a difference?
Yes, absolutely, but it may not always be obvious to more than ~50 people, very few of whom are students. The turnaround time may also be very slow.

How much time does it take to know enough for each meeting?
“Enough”? Arguably infinite. To do a good job, reading the docket will take a full day or three, and following up on items in it may eat up another day or two. It depends on how much you already know, to what depth you’re inclined to dig on an issue, and how good you are at sifting out the issues that most require attention.

What’s the fastest/best way to make BoG members respect and listen to you?
Have a number of valid, thoughtful points, and not waste their time with minor issues or technicalities you could have asked or suggested to staff. Shmoozing ability is highly overrated in this regard.

what’s the most important issue that’ll be facing this year’s BoG reps?
I have a campus development bias, so I’m going to say one of U Blvd, South Campus “ecodensity”, municipal governance, or the Vancouver Campus Plan.

what would you do differently if you could try again?
Try to get introduced to, talk with, and be known to all the appointees well before turnover. The first meeting would have gone significantly better.

how many free meals did you get this year?
Not many in 2008 yet. In the Board term so far? I have no idea, and it would not be easy to count.

Categories
AMS Elections 2008 Issues

Issue of the Day: Governance, Pt. 2 – Internal Issues

At the end of the day, UBC is an academic institution. The Board of Governors should be responsive to students’ concerns, needs and priorities. Creating a University Town has changed the campus community (read about the ramifications in Tim’s article about on campus events, alcohol licensing, ACF), and has created many new pressures and responsibilities to balance that are not purely institutional. The question really is, how appropriate is it for the Board of Governors to be playing the role of a municipality? Don’t forget that over half of the BoG reps are appointed by the Province, and are very indirectly accountable to students’ needs or UNA residents’ needs for that matter (though for BoG, there’s a lot more at stake if they don’t get the relationship right with the UNA residents). The reality is, a lot more time, energy, resources and money have gone into the developments of U-Town, and getting this right is a pretty high priority for them. Meanwhile, students are asking a lot of questions…

The Endowment:

Let’s NOT underestimate the importance and benefits that we as students receive from the Endowment – to do otherwise would be premature. The University tries to call us on this all the time. And I always have to quietly explain that the issue isn’t that we don’t understand how the Endowment works, and the benefits we receive. I always say that its really about accountability – students should have a say in how the Endowment is spent on our education, and even how it is invested (from an ethical standpoint), the Endowment should be made much more public and transparent, and we should have a say in how much we’re willing to have our campus change for the sake of the Endowment.

Consultation:

Well, I wasn’t around back in the early nineties when someone came up with the brilliant idea of developing fancy houses on every inch of unused land. But, if the consultation process that I have seen over the past five years are any indication, one can only imagine what the consultation process was like when UBC was developing the Official Community Plan, and designing all the Neighbourhood Plans (Darren was around for a lot of these, and he has some interesting stories to tell).

The point is: how much say did students really have when they were making all these decisions about how the University community was going to change. And hey, maybe now that its been a couple years, and we have seen some of the ramifications of these developments, we want to see a few things change from the original agreements.

Consultation with students has improved over the year, in my opinion. After many years of sustained pressure on the University to conduct meaningful consultations, not just handing a design to students and asking them to approve it, but asking us from the beginning what we want. I also think its important that we as students don’t wear out the meaning of this word consultation. The AMS has a definition of what meaningful consultation is all about, and we need to communicate those expectations clearly and consistently to the University and we need to judge consultations on that criteria. It’s not about always getting what we want, its about the intentions of the consultation from the get-go.

Meaningful Representation

Students have seats on a lot of committees and other decision-making bodies at the University. A lot of these committees, however, are advisory in nature. Even at the Board of Governors, the student reps have to work very hard at the beginning to prove themselves, or they will be dismissed and not taken seriously for the rest of the year. A good example of this is the University Town Committee. This was the community advisory committee for all things University Boulevard related before the petition in May. All through last year the committee was giving feedback that the plans were terrible, the designs weren’t working, and the community was not really approving. Of course, the feedback was taken, and the plans went full steam ahead. What more do we need to do? Get 3500 signatures on a petition? Well, I guess so…

We as students need to be careful about the role committees play – are they taking the place of real community consultation? Are they a decision-making body (meaning, the committee has to come to some sort of consensus), or are they advisory? The worst things we can do as students is assume that a committee is just one part of the consultation process, and then realize that that was it! And the AMS is doing a lot of lobbying to get more representation (a GSS seat on BoG, for example), and more institutionalized processes for consultation and decision-making. We need student reps on all levels (Senate, Executive, BoG, AMS Council) to continue this work, and sending out this message to the University.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet