UBC Insiders

We haven’t written much about the BoG race. So I will.

To begin, a some candidates say, well, nothing, and offer us platforms with platitudes and no evidence of depth of analysis/understanding. That’s not to say they aren’t intelligent, thoughtful people; in fact, they deserve significant credit for putting themselves out there. But the BoG responsibility is one that demands a baseline knowledge and experience: you only have five meetings in the year to make an impact. That’s a steeeeeeep curve.

Chris Marincat wants us to believe he’s understanding and a consensus-builder, and he may well be, but there’s no evidence in any of his writings to indicate that. Rob McLean wants us to vote for him because of his daddy and sister. A campaign based on nepotism – yikes. Hillson Tse, an apparently enthusiastic and energetic first-year student would clearly be out of his depth altogether on BoG. And Melody Ma has the opposite problem altogether: her platform consists of a string of grievances against the University. While they’re valid and often insightful, BoG isn’t the forum to change these.

We’re left with four candidates. One of the three is not like the others: Tristan Markle. He has some excellent ideas, including ethical investment of the endowment, and a more democratic BoG where students (and other elected reps) can actually get motions on the agenda. However, his rhetoric betrays a radical ethic, and a somewhat careless demeanor, neither would serve him particularly well on the Board. To suggest that the voting bloc of elected members is concerned with education is to imply that the appointed members aren’t; similarly, to characterize the institution as “archaic”, “pompous”, and its members anus’ as receptacles for developers’ appendages might reflect valid sentiments, but aren’t likely to endear him to them. Is sucking up good policy for a BoG rep? Of course not. But nor is pissing them off. How would you respond to that?

To compare the platforms of the remaining candidates is an exercise in similarity, though there are some differences. Darren Peets brings the focus on minutiae that comes with his years of experience on campus development boards, committees, and working groups of various kinds. Aidha Shaikh understands the issues of communication, and brings an understanding of the level of strategic decision-making that takes place on Board, rather than merely getting bogged down in detailed complaints. And Jeff Friedrich‘s platform is one that is heavily influenced by the student political world, and well-versed in UBC lingo.

(An important side question: can one person do the job of President and BoG rep simultaneously? YES. In fact, he’d have more depth of knowledge, he might be better off. And time’s not an issue; time spent learning the issues helps both jobs. There are some conflict issues, though. Jeff ought to seek some best practices guidelines on how to handle them should he win.)

Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much time for the race to develop. The candidates had a forum on the first day and, since, haven’t been heard from. This is unfortunate. Hear that, AMS Elections? One of the strengths of VFM is that actual issues have emerged; it’s a shame that BoG (and Senate) aren’t getting opportunities to engage in that discussion, at least not in the officially sanctioned way.

Who governs UBC? Right now it’s a complicated balance between the University’s BoG, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). In short, UBC’s BoG has the final say on development on campus, provided it conforms with various strategic plans (OCP, etc) that are the purview of the GVRD.

However, what happens when there’s a conflict? What happens when UBC thinks development conforms, while the GVRD doesn’t? (See the Marine Drive Residences, for an example.) In these situations, the governance conundrum is apparent. Who ought to have the final say in how UBC’s property is developed? UBC? GVRD? Students? Vancouver? Right now, nobody really knows.

There are four generally considered options:

1. Status quo. UBC autonomy, with some GVRD oversight, to ensure compliance.
2. UBC joins the GVRD, and all development must be approved directly by the GVRD permit board, like any other development.
3. UBC forms its own municipality, with a municipal governance structure all its own and separate from GVRD/Vancouver
4. No municipal gov’t controls on UBC whatsoever

In addition, there is a movement to amend the BoG composition. Some argue there should be more student seats, though, that might not be the most sturdy basket in which to store all your eggs. And while BoG reform is important, the Governance Review is already happening, so where the candidates stand is important.

There are some very important questions inherent in the options.

• Who votes? Residents, students, resident students?
• How to reconcile the vastly different interests of students/non-students?
• Who provides municipal services?
• Which should be more powerful? An elected council, or BoG?
• Should institutional (classrooms, student-only residences) and non-institutional development (condos) be treated differently?

So, once again, back to you. The AMS instigated a governance review, at the GVRD level, to consider this very question. So we leave it to you: which option is preferable? What should the AMS’ role be? Should there be a municipal government at UBC?

Where the candidates stand:
Darren Peets: A municipal government regime at UBC is a good idea.
Jeff Friedrich: Any governance regime must include students.
Brendon Goodmurphy: Hasn’t made up his mind, but is leaning towards a municipal structure at UBC.
Bruce Krayenhoff: Continue my predecessor’s work with the GVRD towards giving students a real say in development decisions.
Joel Koczwarski: The Provincial seats on the BOG should be chosen through an electoral process. The more democracy in the BOG the better. And proportional rep for students.
Tom Masterson: Equal rep in proportion to the amount to which we fund the University.
Matthew Naylor: Lobby to ensure that the appointed BoG reps have student interests in mind.

Today marked the second VP Administration debate. I use the term loosely. Generally speaking a debate involves a clash of ideas, and usually some disagreement. These candidates? Well, they just don’t. They generally agree. Students need to be more involved in renovation decisions, there needs to be less red tape for SAC, we need to be more responsive to commuter students, the SUB needs to be more accessible, and we need to plan for the advent of University Town. Not to diminish the above points; they’re all fair and valid. And I’m glad they’re priorities. But they don’t help us distinguish the candidates.

(The only conflict was Lougheed the Barbarian’s not at all staged fight with a brutal assailant. But even more impressive were the reflexes of the J-School photogs; they bounded to cover it as though it was a race for a Pulitzer.)

That having been said, the candidates are still distinguishable. It’s quite clear that Suvina To views her job through the lens of a SAC veteran, someone who has a very in-depth understanding of the student bureaucracy, and its inherent hurdles. By contrast, Sarah Naiman views the job through the lens of someone who’s focused on student life, and is very interested in building/developing it through the job. These are two good, valid perspectives, and either would make a very good VP Admin.

This corner was disappointed, though, with the lack of depth they showed on SUB Sustainability. Neither had thoroughly thought through (say that three times fast) how to make the SUB a more sustainable building, one that can serve as an example of green buildings for students. Only “more recycling” and “reduce energy use” were really considered.

When I was running Imagine UBC, one of my colleagues had a great idea, which I’m proud to appropriate for these purposes. Which was the “sustainability audit.” It’s refreshingly simple: ask the UBC Sustainability office (or Sustainability Ambassadors) to go through the building, observe its operations, and come up with recommendations to make it more sustainable. With Imagine, we were able to reduce waste by a significant order of magnitude. I have no idea whether the AMS has done such a holistic review in the past; if they have, have the recommendations been implemented? (I also think there’s huge strategic value in engaging directly with the University on questions of sustainability.)

The real value of this site is to hear other opinions, though. So we’re asking you: what, in your experience, can be done to make the SUB more sustainable? And by sustainable, we mean in every way (though with an obvious bias towards the “greening” element). We heard the “People’s Potato” in an earlier comment, and that was a very interesting idea…. any others?

It’s become clear, through comments, that most students don’t really know how Universities are funded, and how the financial aid process works. And since it currently ranks highest on our survey as an issue, we’re presenting this backgrounder. It’s wonky, but hopefully in plain English.

1) Government funding
The government funds Universities in many ways. The largest one is its operating grant, which is based on the number of students (full-time equivalents, or FTEs) enrolled. It’s a fixed amount, per student. This translates into a certain percentage of the cost being borne by government. Right now that’s around 72%; most student groups think it should be higher. Right now the University is in deficit, for two reasons. Large increases in faculty salaries, and limited government funding.

2) Tuition
Tuition is one way to cover the difference between gov’t funding, and costs. UBC has differential tuition, though, which means that there are differences based on programs. The lowest (basic undergraduate) is Arts, and it grows up to Commerce. Then there are programs like law (10k) and dentistry (43k). Tuition is set by UBC’s Board of Governors. But the government has limited growth in tuition to inflation, or roughly 2%/year. International students pay much higher tuition; they have to pay 100% of their costs.

So what happens if you can’t cover tuition? UBC passed Policy 72, which says that students who don’t have enough money will have access to UBC. But in order to benefit, students must have exhausted all other options, including parental contributions and loans.

Loans, bursaries, and where the candidates stand, behind the cut.

3) Student loans
The government doesn’t give much money; most of their money is in loan form, which means it has to be re-payed. (They do have loan forgiveness programs, which are after the fact cash awards.) There are some restrictions on eligibility:

• Parental annual income must be below the threshold, OR the student must be 4 years out of high school
• Student income must be below a certain level
• If the student is married, or has assets like a house or car, those are counted against loan levels.

If a student meets all the criteria, the government assesses their need. Need is tuition plus the costs that the gov’t assumes (living, books, rent, food, entertainment, etc.), minus resources. After that, the gov’t will give you as much as meets the need, up to $10,800. This is a loan, split 70-30 between the federal and provincial governments, respectively.

4) Bursaries
If a student’s total costs are greater than the loan amount, then they’re eligible for need-based bursaries from UBC. First, the entire amount of available money (“the envelope”) is calculated. Then, it’s distributed to each student, as a percentage of their unmet need. So if student A has an unmet need of 5k, and B has an unmet need of 2k, and UBC has enough to meet 50%, then A will get 2500, and B will get 1000. Last year, for most undergrad programs, UBC was able to meet 100% of the unmet need. But for other programs, like law, medicine, and dentistry, they didn’t.

So where does the money come from?

• Bursaries donated by individuals. These are part of the endowment, but not the part related to development. They’re where individuals donate a chunk of cash to the University. The University invests it, and the return on the investment goes to students.
• Endowment generally. The entire value of the endowment (including development) is invested, and a portion goes to the bursary fund.

That’s the basic funding regime. There are issues, though:

• What of students whose parents refuse to support them?
• Is putting the primary emphasis on loans helping or hurting students? Is a loan-based system producing the kinds of graduates we want?
• Why is bursary support after loan support; should it be the other way around?
• Should the government fund need-based grants, rather than just loans?
• What’s the impact of loans over grants?

Candidates:
Matthew Naylor argues for a grants system, and an agreement to set the level at which the government funds education.
Jeff Friedrich supports a cap on the tuition level paid by students, more financial aid for international students, and policy control of the endowment.
Joel Koczwarski argues for a 20% cap on tuition, and a return of the grants program.
Maxwell Maxwell stands for lower tuition.
Chris Brush supports a provincial grant program, and a percentage of construction revenues going towards tuition.
Tom Masterson supports grants as a way to alleviate student debt.

As you may know, we did a survey of our readership. Stats are below the jump:

Total responses: 43

Percentage planning to vote: 88.2%

Are they AMS types? 27% said yes, while 9% said they pay attention and show up occasionally. 41% said they had a few friends involved, while 24% said they had no involvement/connections whatsoever.

Issues that matter: Fees, U-Pass, Student Life, Educational Quality, Financial Aid, Apathy
Issues that don’t matter (relatively): Apathy (right on the border), UBC-O, External Lobbying, Transparency/Accountability, Athletics Fees.

There was almost a three-way split between Yes/No/Maybe on whether AMS fees should be indexed to inflation, with the smallest number saying “No.”

77% said the AMS has an important role to play in developing campus life, compared to 9% who said they should stick to helping other groups do so.

When asked what about the AMS was most important to know, it appears everything was important. Maybe it’s a poorly-designed survey. Wouldn’t be surprised. Highest: Services. Lowest: Minutes, Council, Elections.

2/3 of all respondents rated the AMS between 5-7 when asked to rate it from 1-10 on how well it was meeting its mission statement.

My favorite written answer was the person who wrote that the AMS did nothing to help his/her “personal” life, then, on the next question, wrote that the U-Pass was helpful because it helped her/him see his/her boyfriend.

Respondents enjoyed clubs, social activities, and the U-Pass. And complained about the physical layout of the SUB.

Subtitle: Naylor vs. the World

We observed a unique phenomenon at the debate today. Matt Naylor knows a lot, and brought a lot of ideas. As punishment, he had to deal with all the other candidates shooting for him, trying to criticize him and his ideas. They clearly see him as the front-runner. This corner sees a much tighter race.

The opening statements had a theme: CFS, CFS, CFS. All the candidates stressed working with CFS schools, including UBC-O. The also mentioned various other priorities: Naylor a tuition agreement, Tom Masterson student life, Joel Koczwarski the grants program, and Chris Brush the U-Pass. It was fun. But the resounding theme was the CFS. Candidates were asked if they supported CASA takeovers of CFS schools, something Naylor’s been accused of. All candidates thought it was stupid. They’re right. Attacking the CFS won’t work, constructive engagement and working together will. (Eventually.)

This dove-tailed nicely into a discussion of UBC-Okanagan. Chris and Tom expressed the basic “working together” rhetoric, while Naylor spoke specifically on united front lobbying. But Joel Koczwarski’s answer was particularly insightful. He rightly pointed out that we have to show UBC-O that we value working with them, and that we’re neither a big obnoxious brother, nor a bully, and that we don’t look down on them. As a means to that end, he proposed linking student-created groups, working together. We took this to mean clubs, interest groups… this shows he gets it. There’s a basic humanity and plan required to work with UBC-O, and Joel showed the depth of understanding of basic human behavior that will be necessary to make the change.

Then, the debate got wonky. When asked for their assessment of the financial aid system, all candidates miraculously agreed that absence of a grants system was its greatest weakness. Joel gets credit for answering first. Tom argued that it hurts the long-term sustainability because people will be less likely to become professors, and Chris Brush argued that tuition should be reduced by applying some funds from the construction and development. (Psst… that’s the endowment.) Shortly thereafter, Ryan Corbett asked about a dedicated federal post-secondary transfer to the province. The candidates bullshitted; they had no idea what that meant.

(FYI a dedicated transfer isn’t necessarily asking for more money. Right now the feds support Universities by giving $$ to the province, and it’s lumped in with other transfer payments. A dedicated one would create a little more accountability, and make it harder to chop money for universities. And no, it’s not a constitutional issue… that’s how health care runs.)

To wrap up, the candidates were asked what they learned. To their credits, they’ve all learned a lot. Chris and Tom mentioned Campus 2020, Joel proposed a rent subsidy to lower the costs of student residences (?), and Tom talked about student debt loads and loans. We were left with the distinct impression that none of these candidates has ever seen a student loan before, and that ideas of financial difficulties were largely foreign. (This could be wrong – feel free to correct me, candidates.) Though they’ll admit that, it’s still slightly troubling for the job. Naylor had the last word, which spun off a discussion of governance at the University… the candidates agreed that BoG reform was required, that students deserved more seats, and they possibly should be elected. We’ll discuss this further in another post. It’s much wonkier.

Each politician left a distinct impression. Chris Brush was personable, but probably a little behind on the curve (though he’s learned a lot). Tom Masterson played up the “I’m relateable and well-rounded” card, and ended on the strange theme of having more fans at football games. We see two distinct front-runners: Naylor and Koczwarski. The former knows his stuff, is a sponge for good ideas (steals them like crazy), and really cares, while the latter learns well, but his strength is relating with people and actually engaging. They’re both important. It’s a tough call.

Ordinarily, we like to look at the races race-by-race, but the Presidential race is kinda unique, the most important and, in this year’s unique circumstance, the two candidates are largely incomparable. One is offering a largely philosophical vision, the other a practical one. It’s the former with which we’re concerning ourselves, initially. Look for the Friedrich article tomorrow.

(Note: we’ve tried unsuccessfully to set up an interview with Maxwell. We will be meeting with him shortly, but he is not responsible for the lack of a meeting.)

In the beginning, Maxwell was a drunken joke candidate. But, as the narrative goes, he saw he was the only non-Jeff candidate running, and quickly decided to run seriously. This shift is admirable. In that respect, Maxwell is setting an example for disaffected students. You have a choice: sit outside and complain, or get your hands dirty and get involved. He chose the latter.

It was readily apparent that Maxwell knew next to nothing about the AMS. His first debate was an embarrassment of giggles. But a quick glance at his website is proof that he’s done some research. He does rightly point out that the AMS accepted the tuition increase in 2005, that voter turnout is low, and that the 40k reno for Council Chambers might have been a bit of a waste.

But look more closely, and there are some very significant logical gaps. For instance, he mentions that the AMS spends over 450 of your dollars in a year. Thing is, there isn’t much he can do about that, unless he himself passes a referendum. Really, he can’t. The student fees that actually go to the AMS total roughly $33.50. That ain’t much. He also mentions that his opponent has years of experience in the rhetoric of political campaigning. Friedrich has been involved in the AMS for all of 18 months. It’s hard to really characterize him as the ultimate insider.

Of all his promises (lower tuition, more student housing, and a new student union), there’s actually one that’s within his power as President, or at least within the power of the AMS to directly affect. And that’s cheaper beer. Yes, the AMS could charge less for beer. However, to do so comes at cost. And Maxwell hasn’t suggested what he’d cut to do so. He can reduce the renovation budget, but he’d better hope that students don’t ask for renovations. Would he cut services? Executive salaries? (Right now they make around $6/hour.) Cut student jobs from AMS businesses? We’re not positive.

Maxwell’s big weakness is that he identifies several problems, and has a broad solution, but the remedy is not rationally connected to the symptoms. His solution is a “new student society,”, to problems which include wasteful renos (the Council Chambers), crappy renos (conversation pit), and bad tuition policy (2005). Problem is, the solutions to these are engaging students, better designers, and a less obsolete tuition policy, respectively. His argument also fails to recognize that the AMS has put itself in a position where these things matter, and they matter to students. That has to count for something.

The major strength of Maxwell’s campaign is he’s highlighting the weakness of the AMS in two areas. The first is communication. At the time of his interview with the Knoll, he was raging about the University’s withholding e-mail addresses (he must read this blog). The University has since agreed to work with the AMS to get them. Second, he’s highlighted the AMS’ weakness in building student life. As he rightly points out, it wouldn’t take much to throw some good parties, without getting caught up in the bureaucracy of the student union.

And it’s through this lens that we ought to examine the Maxwell candidacy. Yes, his ideas aren’t fully fleshed out. But the feelings behind them ought not to be discounted as a result. They’re valuable, and really should be an important part of the discourse. As well, it’s a testament to the weakness of the AMS if they can’t find a way to use his skills and talents. He clearly has something to offer, if the AMS is willing to listen.

This morning, Maxwell Maxwell and Jeff Friedrich had an excellent mini-debate on one of the posts below. It’s well worth reading, as it highlights the candidates’ distinctions, and provides some excellent discussion on the AMS. So we’ve reproduced it here.

Maxwell Maxwell:
To use a favourite word of mine, I think you misunderestimated my proposal. I understand that it is possible to throw events in the SUB, and the AMS can help.

However, it’s not very easy to do, and nearly impossible to find out about. One of the reasons for this is the AMS web site. It’s extremely hard to find anything useful on there, and when you do, it’s often buried in a jumble of AMS-speak that normal people don’t have the time or inclination to translate [Good point – ed.]. What I’m proposing is a simple system for making money available for Dick and Jane, who don’t know the first thing about the AMS, so they can throw a party in the Sub without spending hours messing with red tape.

If the AMS does, as you’re telling me, make it easy for individual students to get money and resources to throw parties, how come almost none of them do? Why are all the events either at the frat houses or AMS club beer gardens? But I guess I’ve been wrong all this time, and the SUB is actually a vibrant hub of activity every night. Somehow I was too busy looking at the cobwebs and empty rooms to notice all the wild parties.

In your platform (which I read all ten pages of) you say that “to a certain extent, it’s not our role to be throwing students a party.” I couldn’t disagree more. The AMS mission statement is supposed to be “to improve the quality of the educational, social, and personal lives of the students of UBC.” Yes, I think it’s great when AMS clubs have parties. However, even with them, on-campus life is still lacking. The AMS mission statement obvious implies that it’s the AMS’s responsibility to do something about it. In other words, it is, in fact, our role to be throwing students a party. When our leaders believe otherwise, it’s no wonder a Saturday night on our campus often resembles an early Sunday morning in a damp Welsh fishing village.

Platforms, fees, and Jeff’s response behind the jump

Anyways, let’s look at your platform again. It’s full of the kind of meaningful issue-tackling my critics accuse me of avoiding (take this section, for example, here reproduced in its entirety: “Web Vote: If you’re a constituency exec member you’ll know what this issue entails. It need resolution in a speedy way”). One of those issues you raised has to do with me, and I think it need resolution in a speedy way, too.

You say that I think the AMS is wasting my money while I’m enjoying the resources it provides. That’s not actually what’s going on. I object when you waste money, not when you use it to create and sustain a set of excellent student resources. I don’t think you guys are wasting money on the U-Pass, CiTR, AMS clubs, the health plan, or keeping the SUB open. You’re wasting it on things like that $40,000 interior decorating job on your Council meeting room, the sliding doors you bought and then got rid of and the hideous “conversation pit” most people refer to as the “airport lounge,” and all the other money sinks most people don’t end up hearing about.

And then there’s the matter of fees. During the debate (which, I admit, I sounded like an idiot for most of), you told me my fees were between 40 and 50 dollars. Five minutes later, they had magically shrunk to thirty bucks. In your platform write-up, you give a concrete number: $33.50. The funny thing is, if you go to the AMS web site and poke around for a while, there’s a list of fees which the VP Finance has kindly provided. When you add all those fees up, you get the amount my friends and I actually paid: $456.96.

Now, I certainly don’t think that you guys waste all $456.96 of my money. I realize that most of that money goes to valuable programs like my U-pass, the clubs, the SUB itself, and all the wonderful resource groups we’ve got. I also realize that AMS businesses pay for a big chunk of AMS costs. But still, $456.96 is a lot of money, and when I’m paying that on top of tuition, books, and room and board, I’m upset when the AMS wastes a single penny of it.

One more thing from your platform. You ask: “Is everyone going to be wearing an AMS sweatshirt by the end of next year? Probably not, and nor should they.”

Well, why shouldn’t people care about their student government? I think that with a few changes (an easy-to-navigate Web site, better events, and working e-mail correspondence, for starters), the widespread voter apathy present at UBC can be greatly reduced. The AMS is making progress towards being able to communicate electronically with its members (UBC is letting the AMS sign people up at registration to receive AMS e-mails, finally giving student government access to the amazing technology of 1994), and that should help things a lot. The problem seems to be that our current AMS is unwilling to change its strategy and unable to believe that the problems which plague it can be dealt with. Kind of self-defeating, don’t you think?

Jeff Friedrich:
I don’t think I misunderstood you. I do agree that we can do things to make it easier for the average, unaffliated student to throw a party and I don’t pretend that SUB is hopping every night. I’d suggest it’s a bit more complicated than you’re making it out, because as soon as you have a pile of money available to any student with minimal red tape- demand will outstrip supply, and some lame parties will get money. No sooner will we hear: “why is the AMS wasting my money?” But I like the idea, and I don’t think we’re saying different things.

The renovations: You’ll note that I gave you your best mud sling this campaign- I was the one who told you I wish we could reconsider the council chamber reno. That said- I never said it was a waste of money- I just don’t think it’s a first priority. The whole fucking building needs renovating- so it’s hard to describe any project as a waste. There was also a good business case- that room is one of our biggest rentals for conferences, and we need the money to support what we do (the alternative is hisgher fees). Could you suggest that we don’t consult properly? That our renos are clumsy and lack consistent style? Sure, I wouldn’t argue that that’s an area for growth. I just hope you thank me next time you use the council chamber thing.

The party thing and our role: There is a long list of canidates who were going to end apathy and make the AMS “cool.” You or I won’t be the ones to end it. You might think that’s defeatist- but it’s the reality. One of the biggest “wastes” of money the AMS had for years was a big party we throw called the Welcome Back BBQ- it’s taken a lot of hard work to make that event succesful again. So I do wish for a day that the AMS throws parties and everyone comes, and I was the lead organiser of Farmade this year, so I do believe we need to do more of it. That said- I still think it’s a better use of AMS time and money to help the Maxwell Maxwell’s and student groups of the world to throw parties.

Fees- the AMS fee is $33.50 and yeah, I was a little unclear about that in the debate. I don’t know every number in the AMS. It goes up to $450 because of the U-Pass and Health and Dental plan, but those are pre-negotiated deals and we don’t do much more than manage the money (to make more money) and sign the check every fall. The portion that is eligible to waste is $33.50, and every student can opt out of about half of that. If you have problems paying the $450 there are subsidy review committees. If you took the time to look at it, I think you’d appreciate that it’s really not such a bad model. And yeah-
I think we’d be that much cooler and able to do things if we convinced more people to believe in the power of their student society.

So, as most readers know, we have a U-Pass. Students pay $22/month, and can’t opt out unless they live outside Translink. In return, we get a pass good for Transit all over the lower mainland. The fee used to be $20/month, but we voted overwhelmingly in favor of raising it by $2/month two years ago, on the promise that it’d be the last raise for the duration of the contract.

Most schools (including colleges) don’t have a U-Pass. Those that do, pay more than UBC. Every school wants one. But they don’t want to pay more than UBC does. So they formed the “U-Pass Coalition” which is arguing for a universal U-Pass for all Universities and Colleges, at the same price. AMS Council agreed to join the coalition.

The nub of the issue is that all schools want a U-Pass, at UBC’s rate. However, it’s unlikely that Translink will lower the rate to UBC’s; what’s far more likely is that UBC’s rate will have to go up in order to support a Universal U-Pass. So the basic question: are you in favor of paying a few more dollars a month in order to facilitate a U-Pass for all Vancouver-area colleges?

Pros:

• A universal U-Pass could mean better service to UBC (and others) through more bus service generally
• Transit use reduces emissions, develops community-wide sustainable transportation
• The U-Pass Coalition is an example of all the provincial schools uniting for a single cause
• Ensures a viable U-Pass at UBC

Cons:

• UBC could be paying more for so other schools get the U-Pass
• We’ve already had to pay more once, and raise fees from their initial amount
• Transit/province/UBC should be paying for improvements, not students

We asked the candidates for VP External what they thought (Tom Masterson two didn’t answer our questionnaire):

Joel Koczwarski: I support the universal U-Pass for all university and college students. It would further reduce emissions, serve as an equilizer between schools and would hopefully help bring students closer to inter-school cooperation.

Matthew Naylor: I am only willing to see our fees increase if we are able to see a proportionate increase in service. If I were to be elected to the VPX portfolio, I would lobby with the U-Pass coalition, but my first priority would be to the student of UBC. As such, I have mixed feelings about expanding the U-Pass and the U-Pass Coalition as a whole.

Chris Brush: I would like to see the U-Pass continue in its current form. (Taken from his write-up; he didn’t answer the question in our questionnaire.)

What do you think? Is an expansion of the U-Pass program something that UBC students should pay a few extra dollars a month for?

(If you haven’t filled out the survey, please check out the post below this one… we appreciate it!)

Ironically (given the construction), student space is hard to come by on this campus. It generally exist in three forms:

1. Space in University buildings. This includes faculty lounges, lobbies, study rooms, etc.
2. Undergraduate Society spaces. Including MASS, Ladha, The Cheeze, etc. These are paid for usually by student fees (with donor/University help), and administered by your undergraduate societies.
3. SUB space. The AMS controls almost all the space in the SUB, with the exception of the cafeteria and Starbucks on the main floor. They also control all the rooms, which can be booked.

Control of the SUB Space is under the control of the VP Admin, and renovations are overseen by the VP Finance. Most changes have to be approved by Council. So it’s very relevant to the AMS elections; the people you elect are responsible for making sure the SUB meets your needs.

So does it? In recent years, they’ve renovated the conversation pit (the airport lounge), the Gallery (new paint), the Council Chambers (bet you never noticed that one), the curtains in the Ballroom, taken out the arcade and replaced it with meeting rooms, added the Honour Roll, put in sliding doors then promptly removed them. Do you like the SUB? Do you spend time there? What kind of space do you want/need?