UBC Insiders

A lot of ink has been spilled about “apathy.” We believe that the way to address apathy is to run a (student) government that’s relevant and important to students, voter turnout and promotions be damned.

One of the recurring themes involves student life. Comments on earlier posts have included:

• “Are there not enough people coming out to X event? Then let’s figure out how to get more people to talk about X event.”
• “I’ve spent my entire time at UBC pulling away from campus events and finding cool shit/people in Vancouver for the simple reason that events on UBC campus are largely in terrible venues (aka the SUB) with crap music, food and beer”
• “why would someone subscribe to drinking beer in a tent in a parking lot or the dusty-ass SUB ballroom when they can go see the Roots at the Commodore?”
• “i care about the ams, but i never went to the events. get maxwell maxwell to plan the events. they’d be great.”

Some seem to think the AMS ought to run bigger, better events. Others think it’s worthless to compete with Vancouver. For reference, AMS Events (see link) runs two kinds of events: special events like Welcome Back BBQ and concerts in the Pit, and helping clubs/constituencies run theirs (bookings for ACF, Cold Fusion, etc.) Anybody go to the Gallery for karaoke on a Tuesday? That’s actually run by AMS Events.

So we’re like to ask: what’s the role for the AMS in campus life? Some candidates, like Sarah Naiman and “the Maxwell”, see a positive role, an AMS that ought to actually run parties and events and be good-times central. It’s also been suggested that the AMS role ought to be more of a facilitator of events, by making easier for other campus groups to do the events. And if the AMS does throw a kick-ass party, does it matter that students know it was the AMS? Or should we just ignore parties, and make sure the beer is as cheap as possible? Would you rather spend Friday night in a dingy but cheap campus bar, or a shiny but pricey one?

See below for an email from the University to Kevin Keystone, AMS President. It was sent yesterday at 5:34pm. The short version is that the University is agreeing in principle to allowing students to authorize the giving of their information to the AMS, so, by next year, the AMS may have contact info for its members!

Kudos to all those who’ve been pushing for this for years.

From: DeWolfe, Anne [mailto:xxxx@ubc.ca]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 5:34 PM
To: Kevin Keystone; David Yuen
Subject: AMS Member List Access

Hi Kevin and David,

I’ve been following up on the AMS’ request to access member’s contact information.

As you know, due to Privacy legislation, UBC cannot currently provide this data to the AMS. However, Enrollment Services has no objection in principle to including wording on the UBC application form enabling students to authorize UBC to provide information to the AMS.

To move this forward, the next steps are:

– AMS to advise what personal information they require from their members, and the purposes for which the personal information will be used by the AMS

– Once the details are sorted out, Christina Ulveteg, Access & Privacy Manager with the Office of the University Counsel, will draft wording for the application form to ensure the authorization given covers the AMS uses. As well, Ms. Ulveteg will prepare an Information-Sharing Agreement between the AMS & UBC

– Cindy Nahm, Enrollment Services will work with the AMS to provide advice, create a viable system and get it up and running

Cindy will be in touch to set up a meeting with you to discuss this initiative. It would be great if the AMS can finalize the guidelines before you both leave office so we don’t lose the momentum.

All the best,

Anne

I was going to spend a good chunk of today going through candidates’ platforms. But very few are up, and those that I have I’m not supposed to talk about yet. So I won’t.

But there is one issue that we feel is kinda important, and probably worth considering. Which is that of AMS student fees. We think they’re probably a wee bit too low.

Consider the following:

• The AMS discretionary budget is around 1.6 million dollars (out of a total budget of 11.2). That 1.6 includes services (like Safewalk), student government cost, CiTR, and the publications.
• Student fees account for roughly $3 million of the budget.
• Each student is directly paying roughly $75 to the AMS each year, about half of which is used for discretionary services.
• The amount that students pay is not tied to inflation. So when costs go up (and they do), the amount students pay for it doesn’t.
• AMS fees are among the lowest in the country given the scope of our student society.

If the per-student fee had been tied to inflation at its inception, UBC students’ fees to the AMS would be almost $200 by now. But they’re not. Instead, new, direct-pay fees are added, including Athletics and Recreation fees, the U-Pass, etc. So now students are paying several different fees, most of which grow with inflation, but the AMS one doesn’t. Which puts a financial crunch on the AMS, and hurts sustainable growth.

However, a fee increase has to be passed by referendum, which historically runs into problems with quorum. And nobody likes raising their fees. So…

• Should student fees be tied to inflation?
• Should student fees be otherwise raised?
• How can we get a bylaw passed?
• Do students want to pay more for their services?

It’s worth noting that both VP Finance candidates are, in principle, in favor of indexing student fees to inflati0n, and both raise practical concerns about the referendum.

Student apathy is a constant nagging theme threading through AMS affairs. “Students just don’t care” is a detrimental attitude into which is sometimes too easy to sink as an executive, AMS Councillor, or observer. Just look at the voter turnout, they say: as several candidates have pointed out in this election, it’s peaked at 13% and usually hovers around a dismal 10% . From a campus of 42,000 students, it is argued that it’s a pathetic number on which to base a claim to be ‘representative’ of the student body.

But perhaps it is the very fact that this campus is so large that it is particularly difficult to achieve some sense of unity. The University of Toronto is by far the largest university in Canada, but it has the advantage of partitioned into smaller colleges, which in turn act as independent, manageable-sized campuses. So this leaves us with the largest student union – the AMS of the Vancouver campus of the University of British Columbia. We also have a physically large campus, with no central “hub.” This means people feel more affinity to clubs (administered by the AMS), their residences, friends, sports teams… Also, we’re largely a commuter campus, which means UBC is just a place to spend a day, rather than “life.”

Look comparatively – the AMS voter turnout is no worse, really, than any other comparable University. And youth voter apathy is a constant problem, not just limited to the AMS – look at how few students vote in federal and provincial elections. Heck, even municipal government elections are lucky to have voter turnout around 20%. Consider referenda: when Vancouver held a referendum on a ward system, fewer than 40% turned out, compared to over 50% turnout for the referendum at UBC about the U-Pass.

So we’d ask the following:

• Are students really as apathetic as we think?
• Is the lack of voting really a good measurement of apathy? Is voter education worth the effort?
• Ought we to concentrate on engaging more students in UBC affairs, or on engaging the small number more meaningfully?
• What does “apathy” even mean?

We’ve learned that Liz Ferris has dropped out of the VP Admin race.

This corner is slightly disappointed; we were both very impressed with her, and had planned to support her candidacy. Our disappointment is tempered, though, by the fact that we know she’s going to get/stay involved on campus, and that wherever she chooses to involve herself will be the richer for her presence.

So now there’s two…

Ah, AMS Elections Season. The time of year when the Ubyssey and navel-gazing candidates fawn over “refreshingly nihilistic” candidates who scream from the rooftops that the AMS does a poor job of communicating with, and relating to, students.

It’s true. There’s no way to gloss over it – the AMS does a relatively poor job of communicating with students. But rarely to we get a suggestion of how to fix that, short of free/cheap beer. (I can’t think of anywhere in the city, besides the SUB, where you can get a pitcher for $8. But I digress.)

However, I can think of one. And it’s not the AMS’ fault that it hasn’t happened yet. It’s that of the university. And that’s using student e-mail addresses. In short, the University has them, and the AMS has no way to get them. Every time the AMS wants to e-mail students, they need to negotiate through the VP Students’ Office Executive Co-Ordinator to get so.

The AMS needs to be able to communicate with its members. And in an age where people expect electronic communication, to be unable to do so has hamstrung the operation. Similarly, the University is being unreasonable by not giving e-mail addresses to the AMS.

They have two main arguments. The first is privacy, arguing that the University can’t disclose the e-mail addresses. Bull. The Alumni Association is a third party, an independent society ,and they have an agreement that allows access to e-mail addresses. Certainly the AMS, with its special relationship, can get so as well. Moreover, just create a way to send the e-mails without ever seeing the e-mail addresses. Or have an opt-in with registration. Easy to fix. The second such argument is spam; the University fears that the AMS would over-use its e-mail privileges. This, while more sensible, is still insufficient. Surely the AMS doesn’t want to risk alienating its members any more than the University wants to do so.

The AMS has a special relationship with the University. It’s specifically authorized by the University Act to exist, student reps on the BoG must be members, and it’s the official voice of students for terms of protocol. Yet the University is selfishly refusing to hand over this valuable bargaining chip. And that’s reprehensible.

Let the AMS have student e-mail lists. There’s no reason not to.

We’ve put together a short survey. We’d really appreciate your input and thoughts, and it shouldn’t take more than five minutes.

Yes, surveys are an imperfect tool, and the AMS did one a while ago. But this is designed to get a snapshot of certain people at a period of time. The people who answer this have some interest in the AMS (hell, they’re reading this page!), and these issues are uniquely illuminated because it’s an election.

I’m not a professional surveyer, so I imagine the questions are less than perfect. But we’d still really appreciate your input nonetheless.

Please click here to take survey. If that doesnt, work, the link is: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=625783167406

In case you haven’t seen it yet, skip down a few posts to enjoy Jeff Friedrich snorting a condom. It gets funnier with time.

And even funnier? Tonight’s candidates’ forum at Place Vanier. Notably, this corner appreciated that there were more questions, more engagement, and, most importantly, more time to hear from the candidates. There were some good exchanges, there were some contrasting visions. And most of all, we left with information that will help us make up our minds.

VP Admin
To our eyes, this is the most interesting race. There are three (real) candidates, all of whom are equal in talent and skill to any candidates in years previous. And they’re all good. This corner has confidence that any of them would make a good VP Admin.

That having been said, there’s some clear distinctions. Sarah Naiman is the “student life” candidate, focusing her portfolio on issues of student life, and engaging with students. Suvina To is the SAC internal candidate, hoping to bring a year of in-depth knowledge of SAC to the top job. And Liz Ferris comes to the job from Sustainability, but an intelligent and solid vision for the position. (Also, Lougheed the Barbarian grunted a lot. And I mean a LOT – see Video below:)

On the issue of resource groups there was agreement: the AMS ought to respect the autonomy of resource groups and encourage them, supporting them at arms-length. Dave Yuen (the incumbent) asked about the balance between student and commercial uses of the SUB, and the candidates broadly agreed that conference bookings were important, but not at the expense of the student experience. Again, there was not much disagreement on substance, but there were clearly differing approaches: Suvina talked a lot about SAC and how the AMS already provided the clubs with free room bookings and other services, and Sarah about student life. Liz’ contributions were more balanced.

Scott Banducci asks a question

The most interesting question was posed by first year arts student Scott Banducci, refreshingly outside the election-media complex. He noted an AMS diversity poster highlighting diversity, and wondered if the AMS perceived diversity as being solely about race, at the risk of ignoring other imbalances (like financial inequities – which determine a student’s access to postsecondary education). Sarah pointed out the recent childcare agreement which addressed one aspect of socioeconomic barriers, and Liz pointed out the gender-neutral washroom, as instances where the AMS took a lead on diversity that’s not race-based. Interestingly, both of those changes fall within the portfolio of the VP Admin.

VP Finance and Senate behind the cut. Go ahead – read more!

VP Finance
There are two candidates. And the distinction could not be more clear. Which is probably why this was the most sharp and contested debate.

Brittany Tyson is the insider, the experienced one, the continuity candidate. And Peter Rizov is the outsider, the newcomer, the fresh thinker. They told us so. Many, many times. I’ll get to that. But two new ideas were floated. Peter put a great deal of stock in an AMS book exchange. Unfortunately, the AMS had a used bookstore a few years ago, that they dumped because it wasn’t doing business. And they currently run an online exchange, including textbooks (http://www.ams.ubc.ca/exchange/). Brittany suggested “AMS Bucks”, money that can only be spent at AMS businesses. Good idea. It reinforces the idea that these are AMS businesses, and helps to reinforce the connection. This corner thought it was a terrific idea.

But this debate wasn’t about ideas, it was about philosophies. Should it be an insider, or an outsider? Peter talked about fresh ideas, his Commerce education, his knowledge of the AMS, and ability to look at the budget with new eyes. Brittany talked about her experience with the Financial Commission (FinCom), the learning curve, her relationship with the incumbent, and how a quick start is essential. Peter suggested that a shift in mindset was necessary. For instance, when Brittany argued that better promotion was the answer to getting students to know, Peter rightly pointed out that there’s new ad campaigns every year, but they don’t succeed in getting student attention. That having been said, given the Finance portfolio, her contention that experience is important carried a lot of weight.

Moreover, Brittany came dangerously close to arguing that experience was a prerequisite for AMS success, but didn’t quite do so. Regardless, to follow her contention to its natural end, one could be forgiven for coming to that conclusion. But, to her credit, Brittany argued her position with poise, intelligence, and sharp analysis, skills that will undoubtedly serve her well.

Senate
It was disappointing that only 5 out of the 7 candidates bothered to show up. The candidates were given time to make opening remarks, and one question. They all painted themselves as listening to students, responsive, representative of student voices… the same thing you’ve heard over and over and over and over. It’s enough to make you shove a condom up your nose. (See? Never gets old.)

As a result, each candidate tried to distinguish him/herself. Lawrence Song pointed out that he had a uniquely difficult courseload, ignoring the med student (Jaspreet) beside him. Hillson Tse is a first-year and brings that, Alfie Lee cast himself the outsider with fresh ideas, and Tariq Ahmed drew on his time at UVic (in Engineering) and at UBC, on both institutions’ senates. The most successful was incumbent Jaspreet Khangura, who was (rightly) proud of her pass-fail initiative, and sought a mandate to keep working on it.

The debate was also notable for the first interesting question. Responding to ideas of confronting student apathy, the Underground questioned why bother about apathy at all? Most candidates gave the boilerplate “the AMS actually matters” answer, with varying degrees of insight. Two were notable: Jaspreet, who tied it in to growing issues and the actual power of students to impact their learning environments, and Tariq, who questioned whether or not apathy was a sign of general health, in addition to arguing very forcefully and clearly why it ought to matter, and students ought to invest in making a difference.

As some of you have noticed, I’ve interviewed many old execs from the past, including:
– Spencer Keys, President 2005/2006
– Manj Sidhu, VP Admin 2005/2006
– Rev. Josh Bowman, VP Admin 2003/2004
– Ian Patillo, current VP External
– Holly Foxcroft, VP External 04/05
– Sophia Haque, current VP Finance

Check them out!

What about VP Academic, you ask?
I’m trying to find an old VP Academic who will answer my questions, but unfortunately Jeff Friedrich (current) is running in this elections, Gavin Dew (2005/06) is working for the University, and Brenda Ogambo and Laura Best (04/05 and 03/04, respectively) haven’t gotten back to me. I think I’ve done my best.

So we’re trying to liveblog the AMS elections debate. It ain’t working.

So we present you with this video of Jeff Friedrich (candidate for President and BoG) snorting a condom up his nose and back out his mouth. Enjoy!