As per UBC Insiders tradition, we asked this year’s president to make some endorsements. As Blake cannot due to slate rules, this is a guest post by Mike Duncan, the illustrious president of the AMS in 2008-09, and current Board member.

If you know me, you know that I care deeply for this school and for the AMS. I want to see the best for students and think that the AMS must play a role in improving this campus. It is with this in mind that I tell you who I think would be the best for the future of the AMS.

Mike’s Ballot

Elections

President: Natalie Swift

VP Academic: spoiled

VP Finance: Elin Tayyar

VP External: Jeremy McElroy

VP Administration: Ekaterina Dovjenko

BoG(2): Azim Wazeer, undecided

Senate(5): Joel Mertens, Johannes Rebane, Spencer Rasmussen, Ryan Bredin, undecided

SLFS: roll a dice

International Rep: roll a dice

Ubyssey Publications Society: listen to the Ubyssey coverage

Referenda Questions

Student Court Bylaws: Yes

Impeach Blake: No

Impeach Tim: No

Engagement Levy: No

CPI: Yes

Bylaw Amendments 2010: Yes

Access UBC Fee: No

Reduce/ lobby for lower tuition fees: it’s your personal choice

Disabilities seat: No

General Observations

I have to be honest; so far, I have not been impressed with the individuals in the elections. I know how difficult the election time can be, but this year I see too many candidates trying to be overly political and refusing to commit to real change. My overall advice for all the races (with the exception of the Board race, which has been quite exciting) is to stop hiding and show us your personality and passion.

Presidential Race: Natalie Swift

This race is the easiest for me to endorse. Natalie Swift has, from the beginning of her time on this campus, impressed me with her dedication to her values and her ability to see the greater picture. She has the experience being a president and VP academic of a student society and would be the only person who can repair our society. Furthermore, while I respect Bijan’s ability to relate with the Board of Governors, I have seen first hand how he sides with the University when the student interest is elsewhere. I also don’t think he has the vision to be able to unite a diverse executive to achieve great things.

Vice President Academic: spoiled

So far, neither of these candidates has impressed me. Rodrigo has been at UBC for quite some time (approaching Bijan territory) and knows the issues quite well. The problem is, he doesn’t understand how to go about fixing these issues. He is an important part of this campus where he frequently defends minority positions, but he doesn’t have the leadership necessary for this position. As for Ben, he still has yet to get his platform line. Furthermore, I am not confident that he understands the position and what is necessary to succeed in it. The governance issue is going to be the largest and most important part of the VP Academic’s duties in the coming year and he hasn’t taken the time to understand this issue.

Vice President Finance: Elin Tayyar

This is an unfortunate race: one candidate vs. a joke candidate. Elin is competent and will do a fine job. Unless you want the accountability of the “Invisible Man” then I recommend voting for Elin.

Vice President External: Jeremy McElroy

This is one of the few interesting races. It includes a funny joke candidate, an incumbent who many students are unhappy with, a serious candidate from the ‘inside’, and a serious candidate from the ‘outside’. Despite what I consider to be an unfortunate website, my vote will be going to Jeremy. Jeremy has frequently demonstrated that he is on top of his game, has impressed me with how prepared he is and he truly stands up for student values. His platform is quite long (maybe too much so), but it shows a deep understanding of the issues and a commitment to making a difference. Stas seems like a good guy who cares about this position, but his platform is seriously lacking. It includes things that any VP External should do, and others that aren’t truly related to the position.

Vice President Administration: Ekaterina Dovjenko

I have been very happy with this race and would be equally comfortable with either candidate being elected. It has been hard to decide who I truly think would do a better job for the AMS. Both candidates have done their homework and know a lot about the current ‘New SUB’ process. Michael is a much more reserved character and I think his personality would fit well on an exec team; however, despite its name, the VP Administration position is the “Student Life” executive and is the position that should be spending more time engaging students. Ekaterina’s type A personality is better suited for that. Also, through watching the debates, Ekaterina seems to be able to continually trump Michael’s ideas and provide better answers.

BoG(2): Azim Wazeer

This has actually been a race where people show emotion and passion. Thank you for that. I respect where Blake comes from and appreciate his passion. I know that the UBC Administrators doesn’t like him and while I believe that personal opinions shouldn’t affect the Board, the truth is that they do and that Blake would never be listened to. Sean is another interesting character who could do a good job. Unfortunately, his election platform focuses on solutions that will not work. Guillaume spoke with passion at the debates, which I was very happy to see, but he needs to focus more on his platform as opposed to basing it off of attacking Blake. There is no doubt in my mind: Azim should get this position. He is an intelligent individual who has done a variety of things on this campus, has actually attended BoG meetings, and is aware of the issues and dynamics. He knows how to play the Board game and will do it well.

Senate(5): Joel Mertens, Johannes Rebane, Spencer Rasmussen, Ryan Bredin

Caveat: there are so many candidates in this race that I am basing my opinions primarily on the debate and previous knowledge of the individuals.

I have to say that I was quite disappointed with answers from the senate debate. People who actually knew the pertinent information were few and far between and a lot of time was spent diverting questions. That being said, I choose these 4 for a variety of reasons. Primarily, they all showed the commitment to actually come to the debate. Joel has been a senator before, knows his stuff, and while I don’t always agree with his stance, he does indeed take a stance and backs it up well. Johannes is the other knowledgeable candidate and it is inherently beneficial for the student voice to have past VP Academics on senate. Spencer was a difficult choice. He is a one-issue candidate: focusing almost entirely on sustainability. That being said, you can’t do much as a single senator and with him focusing all his energy on sustainability, he may actually be able to get results in this field. Ryan impressed me with his knowledge despite never having been ‘involved’. That being said, I am not a big fan of his “defeat the hacks” slogan.

SLFS: roll a dice

I really haven’t seen much in the way of campaigning for this race and I think that the fact that there is one slate against a few individuals, students will automatically vote for the candidates who are in the slate and are aligned with each other. This is unfortunate because it will decrease the variety in this body.

International Student: your choice

Okay, I haven’t seen much campaigning for the SLFS, but I have seen even less for this position. The AMS website has pictures and short bios with information about three of the candidates. With that, I let you decide whom you want to vote for.

Ubyssey Publications Society: listen to the Ubyssey coverage

I don’t know enough about this position and am sure the Ubyssey will have better opinions on who should get elected. Listen to their coverage.

Student Court Bylaws: in favour

This is a confusing set of bylaws and I am still not entirely convinced of its implications. In general, it will ensure that AMS Council cannot overturn election’s appeals decisions handed down by Student Court. This is important because it is very easy for AMS Council to be biased towards certain candidates in an election and it is a huge conflict of interest for council to be able to not accept these decisions. More work needs to be done to make this body useful, but for now, this referenda question is a good start.

Impeach Blake Frederick: opposed

This is no longer about trying to benefit the society by removing an individual who wasn’t following council’s views. This is now vindictive and political. Removal of Blake will cause a difficult transition, a vacancy of the Presidential position for some amount of time, and only removes him for a few weeks. It is petty to vote to impeach Blake and I can’t support it.

Impeach Tim Chu: opposed

Same answer given for Blake’s impeachment.

AMS Engagement Levy: opposed

I know there are many AMS folks who support this, but I have to say, it is not a way to increase engagement. Just because you have to vote in the AMS Elections to get your money back, does not mean you will be engaged in the slightest. If we want to solve our engagement problem, lets actually address it rather than trying to raise a fee, which will probably just piss people off.

Tie fees to CPI: in favour

I truly understand that people don’t have enough money to go to school and don’t want to see any fee increases: I am one of them. But right now, the AMS is losing money each year because our costs go up and our income stays the same. The AMS has some of the lowest student fees in the country because our businesses keep us afloat. The AMS can’t do its job if it keeps loosing this money. This question only makes sense to pass.

AMS Bylaws: in favour

These are a little complicated and there are a bunch of small changes. Basically is solves a bunch of institutional mistakes with our code. I don’t have enough space to outline all the changes but they are good for the society.

Increase in fees for Disability Students: opposed

I agree that we should help fund issues related to underprivileged groups. The problem with this is that the group that this money goes to is not a UBC group. It has been created by UVIC students and doesn’t seem to have any affiliation with UBC. Sorry folks, if they want money to improve their issues, they should go to their own students.

Reduce tuition and increase support: depends

I am not taking a stance on this issue because it is a personal debate that each person should have independently. Do you think that tuition is a right or a privilege? We need to do more to ensure that education is accessible despite your personal background, but strictly lowering tuition is not the most effective way to do this.

Add a seat for Disability Students: opposed

Unfortunately I have to oppose this question. I agree that we don’t listen to underrepresented groups enough at the AMS. But the council voting system is based off of a proportional representation system and if we start adding random voting seats in a piecemeal fashion we are going against the principles of democracy. There are better ways to solve this problem that will actually make a significant improvement in the representation of these groups. Lets focus on solutions that actually work.

Editor’s Note

We also offered Blake Frederick the opportunity to give us a write-up detailing his selections. However, because he is running for BoG and Senate, the Elections Administrator ruled this would be unacceptable under slate regulations.