Seen in the photo below from L to R are Andrew Fergusson, Marion Pollock, Natalie Bocking, Tim Chu and Blake Frederick. The photo was taken at a social event at the BC NDP Convention that took place from Friday Nov 27 to Sunday Nov 29.
While we cannot confirm the exact time and date this photo was taken place, we have reasonable grounds (based on other photos) to believe it was the evening Nov 28th, the date of their impeachment hearing.
.
We therefore call upon the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to investigate the widespread violation and disregard for international law in Canada, and further to employ all and every means available to pressure the governments of Canada and its provinces into compliance with the Covenant.
This was written in 2005.
A spirited emergency AMS council meeting took place tonight to react to Blake Frederick’s human rights complaint to the UN. Because of the large turnout, the meeting took place in the Hebb Theatre and went for approximately three hours.
At its most populated, there were 175-200 students present, with a large number of students-at-large. As was outlined in a letter earlier today, Blake and Tim did not show up. The other three executives (Tom Dvorak, Johannes Rebane and Crystal Hon) did attend. Many students-at-large did voice their opinions during the meeting. A small contingent either defended/supported Blake and Tim’s actions, or condemned AMS Council for going ahead with this. A much larger number of students voiced their displeasure, for various reasons, with the actions of Blake and Tim.
All three motions of the motions on the agenda passed unanimously (the first motion was amended minorly during the meeting). AMS council has withdrawn the UN complaint, and asked for the resignations of President Blake Frederick and Vice President External Affairs Tim Chu.
After that business was over, Tom Dvorak and Johannes Rebane got up and addressed the fact that they both signed off on the contract with Pivot Legal Society. Tom and Johannes both apologized and took full responsibility for the lack of due diligence displayed in signing the document, and were also questioned by the audience about it.
After a number of questions, Mona Maghsoodi (GSS councillor and Former GSS President) then moved a motion to ask Tom and Johannes to resign. Much of the discussion focused on the fact that whereas Blake and Tim willfully deceived council, Tom and Johannes made an error in judgment and the fact that councillors consulted with constituents about Blake and Tim, but there has not be any time to consult constituents about Tom and Johannes. This motion was tabled until the first AMS meeting in January.
Petitions to recall Blake and Tim were also completed, putting the recall process in motion. In addition to the regularly scheduled council meeting on Wednesday, December 2, (agenda here) a special council meeting was also called for Monday, December 7, to deal with the recall.
If you want all the gory details, you can check out the live blogs:
And finally, a little history of of the last recall attempt that took place in the AMS.
Dec. 7, 2004: The Executive fired the General Manager.
Dec. 10, 2004: Council held an emergency meeting to discuss the firing, and notice was presented of motions asking for the recall of the whole Executive at a meeting to be held the following week.
Dec. 17, 2004: At the second meeting Council reversed the firing of the General Manager and passed a motion asking the President to resign. It then adjourned till after Christmas.
Jan. 5, 2005: Council met again; the President said she had decided not to resign. The motion to recall her was defeated, and the motions for recalling the rest of the Executive were essentially withdrawn. Council then passed a motion to censure the Executive.
So it started as recall, ended as censure. This way it’s going the other way around.
Another round up of other media:
The Ubyssey provides a few more updates.
Geoff Costeloe, vice-chair of the UBC Vancouver Senate with a very good piece on idealists and realists.
Radical Beer with some historical context, and the right way of dealing with bad ideas. Also, asking us in an unfortunately-worded manner to “please lay off the staff”.
Erica, bringing the dramazz and Paul Bucci love.
UBC Spectator on people who support Blake, Blake and Tim retroactively asking permission in a motion with more than a page of whereas clauses, and Blake and Tim’s letter.
Social Capital with a day two update and coverage of today’s letter from Blake and Tim.
Andrea thinks this is embarrassing and likes to plug the Social Capital blog.
Jason In Vancouver is jealous of Blake Frederick.
Chanelle, telling us to beware of the Blake Witch trials.
AMS Gossip Guy thinks he understands Blake’s rationale.
Mary with some perspective of her own, and a liveblog of her own
Jesse Ferreras still showing a few feverish symptoms of AMS-itis.
Terry spreading the word about the meeting.
Phew. And we are sure there are many other forums, tweeters and the like out there on the tubes.
Before Imagine day, I managed to sit down with Presidents Toope and Frederick to ask them three questions:
1. How will the Class of 2013’s UBC experience differ from the Class of 2010’s?
2. What is the value of an incoming undergraduate to the University?
3. Why did the entering class decide to come to University, and how will UBC deliver?
The Presidents were given the questions days in advance of their interview. Here are their responses.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3ywsazhHls]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn2gV5F8GUw]
Happy First Week all. Here’s what happened while you were out.
The Student Board of Governors representatives turned over. Tim Blair bids farewell, as Michael Duncan takes his place. Bijan Ahmadian and Alexandra Caldwell (UBC-O) were re-elected for their respective second terms.
The University approved a plan to in-fill Totem residence. This was met with surprise and glee from at least one editor of this blog. (Board item front page, 60-megabyte board presentation .pdf)
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….
Can do the job, but I honestly don’t know enough about their platforms…
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)…
I don’t know them, but their material looks professional and/or I’ve heard positive things about them…
Board of Governors
Andrew Carne (good answers at the debate)
Tim Blair
Bijan is a close third for me.
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.
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!
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.
The three “serious” presidential candidates. Foot-in-mouth disease?
Mike has always had trouble with this: even though he’s an easygoing and extroverted guy, he gets tongue-tied, stutters, and loses his place. The result is that even if he had something to say worth listening to (a questionable point itself), he’d have trouble actually saying it. Duncan needs to practice speaking clearly, in detail, and step it up a notch.
Naylor seems to have the opposite problem: He’s got plenty to say, and a good understanding of what’s important, and how issues relate. But lay off on the big words, man. I like big words as much as the next person, but you sound like you’re imitating what you imagine a politician should sound like, not letting your personality shine through. We want to hear you talk naturally, unaffectedly, and clearly. Fancy phrases won’t convince anybody.
Rodrigo is a case all his own. First, he doesn’t seem to respect time limits, which is just rude. Second, he seems to barely address the point, preferring to ramble in social-science-speak about his favorite pet topics: music, connectedness, voices, and on and on. Tighten it up Rodrigo – you’re running for a political position, not applying for grad school.
Take Jeff Freidrich, the current President (since I’m on a run, why stop?): Jeff is incredibly thorough, unaffected, honest, and genuine when he speaks. You always feel like he’s saying what he means, including questions and ideas. All the candidates should strive to emulate that great down-to-earth, look-you-in-the-eye quality he has. But build on it: get some enthusiasm in your voice and body language! Don’t ramble! Try to inspire a bit! Speaking well can be a great leadership tool.
Photo Peter Rizov
Spam prevention powered by Akismet