President

One of the hardest things about being president of a student society is remembering your role. The best president knows their role is to support the Executive; this often means being the number two on all major projects. They are responsible for guiding four vice-presidents, numerous staff, and a student council which can be difficult to deal with in one unified direction. Most importantly, the president needs to be able to work with council. We’ve seen an inability to do so with some current executives and it always leads to a breakdown in the AMS’s ability to work for students.

Aaron Bailey is exactly what the AMS needs in a president and is what it’s been lacking for the past year (full disclosure, I am campaigning for him). While I could go on about how he is articulate, knowledgeable, and a great leader, I’m going to focus on something else – understanding of the position.  He knows the AMS, he knows the university system, he’s been an influential council member, and is probably one of the most engaged people on campus being involved in almost every student social circle. While I’m not too happy with some of Aaron’s platform, I acknowledge that presidents don’t actually get to have grandiose platforms and those are hard to run on. While I have been impressed with Cheniel Antony-Hale, her lack of understanding of the AMS and what it does will be more of a problem than people realize when it comes time to convince the AMS Council of its priorities next year. While I think Cheniel would make a great leader, the AMS needs Aaron Bailey at the helm. Vote Aaron.

Vice-President Academic and University Affairs

It’s never fun to see races uncontested, however even it was I would recommend voting Jenna Omassi. She’s a take no prisoners, kick down the doors type of person who reminds me of Kiran Mahal (arguably the best AMS executive we’ve seen in the past five years). Jenna has the experience, she’s not afraid to tell off the university administration, and is familiar with the intricacies of the portfolio. I could go on, but you probably are cool with just voting already. Vote Jenna.

Vice-President External Affairs

For some reason people think the Vice-President External Affairs needs to be a political mastermind who knows all the right people. The AMS has staff that researches and writes policy and staff that organize events. Furthermore, no single student is responsible (or capable) of pulling meetings with the VIPs of the political world. This is why we are part of the Alliance of British Columbia Students and Get on Board (and why we should rejoin the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations… but that’s another story). The VP External should be a good team leader, an experienced manager, and someone who is personable and can talk to politicians.

Jude Crasta is this person. While a lot of my interactions with Jude have been sitting across the table arguing over AMS finances, I know Jude to be an incredible proficient individual. I’ve heard great things about Janzen Lee, however I am concerned about his lack of understanding of what the AMS does and of his “political connections”. It’s a problem for me if you’re asking people “what is the AMS and what does it do” 3 weeks before nominations are due. It’s a problem for me if you think the recent alumni of your fraternity who are well known in one or two local ridings of a federal party are people who can help get you a meeting with the minister of advanced education or finance. While I think Janzen has the passion for the position, I think he should take an additional year to better familiarize himself with the Society. Vote Jude.

Vice-President Finance

The Vice-President Finance is the most boring position to watch in an election. Now that the Business and Administration Governance Board is up and running, the VP Finance has (and should) very little involvement in the running of the AMS businesses. If the VP Finance can get anything done this year it needs to be redoing how the student government side of the AMS does its budgeting with an emphasis on moving towards value-based budgeting.

Based on what is needed I think both Mateusz Miadlikowski and Will Pigott would make a good VP Finance. I’ve chatted with both of them about their positions and they are very similar. Because of this and that of all the executive positions the VP Finance is probably the most administrative in nature, I’m supporting Mateusz as there will be no learning curve and students will get a full 12 months of effective work. However this comes with the caveat that I would like to hear him speak up more. Vote Mateusz.

Vice-President Administration

For me this race was really between Ava Ansiri and Alex Remtulla. While James Jing came off as a decent candidate, the knowledge and experience of the other two is far greater. I voted Ava over Alex because she is experienced in the position and an incredibly effective executive. She’s often unfairly criticized for delays in the Student Nest, however based on how her predecessors handled the project this was always going to be the case and is unfair to lay at her feet. While Ava’s start to her current term was rocky, she has quickly identified herself as the most productive executive and should be allowed to continue. Alex would serve students well, but the combined learning curve and inexperience with council would result in a less productive year.  Vote Ava.

Board of Governors

As a current student member of the Board of Governors, I know that a successful board member must have a fierce intelligence, the ability to stand up to university administration, and be able to cut through bureaucracy. Moreover, student board members must be highly dedicated to the student community.

Without a doubt Veronica Knott is the best fit for the position (I am also campaigning for her). I am torn between Tanner Bokor and Julie Van de Valk for the second vote as they represent two different approaches to the board. Tanner is without a doubt the most knowledgeable student on campus when it comes to UBC and would be a great policy wonk. However his propensity to want to always please all parties involved in any   issue worries me – sometimes you need to take a stance and accept the outcomes. Julie will need some hand holding in order to navigate the inner workings of the board, however working with my partner Nina Karimi this year showed me that someone other than old student politicians can be an incredibly effective board member and can bring great perspective. Vote Veronica and either Tanner or Julie.

Senate

Instead of going through each candidate one by one, I want to start with what I look for in a senator. The UBC Senate, while generally underappreciated, is the single most important body for academics at UBC. Numerous individuals have suggested that it should be a place to help grow and develop young student leaders – if students want their Student Senate Caucus (“SSC”) to be better this view needs to change! In my mind there were four candidates who stood out.

Aaron Bailey has been one of the most outstanding senators this entire year and is the chair of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Flexible Learning. He is directing the committee in an amazing way and should continue this work. Eric Zhao is another outstanding senator who has taken major leadership within the SSC in regards to mental health and wellbeing. One of the few senators that goes above and beyond his duty, Eric needs to be re-elected. While a new comer to the senate, I voted for Jenna Omassi because of there is a natural synergy between it and the VP Academic. Marjan Hatai is new to the senate but commands a surprising amount of knowledge about the senate and its current on goings. While she is untried, I am excited for her platform and would like to see her serve. The final spot vote was a tough decision between Gurvir Sangha and Viet Vu. Having worked with them both I’m confident that regardless of the outcome either of these individuals would do well. Viet is often unfairly criticized for the issue of VSEUS’ rocky first year but I doubt anyone can take on the AUS and leave unbattered. At the end my decision came down to my belief that VSEUS will need Viet next year and that he should focus there as opposed to the senate. Vote Aaron, Eric, Jenna, Marjan and Gurvir.

Vice-President External Affairs

First off, because of my involvement in the Alliance of BC Students and the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, the most familiar portfolio and dear to my heart is the Vice-President External Affairs position within the AMS. I was excited to see a competitive VP External election this year, however I was severely disappointed.  At the first debate Janzen Lee had no idea what he was talking about and Jude Crasta failed to capitalize on this and call Janzen out. Jude knows the position and can make some positive impacts with an upcoming federal election. Jude gets my vote and should get yours too!

President

Now that the most important position is out of the way (joke). . .  For president really the race would have been way more interesting with Tanner still in the running. Aaron Bailey should walk away with the role of president – he is certainly saying and doing all the right things. Aaron really impressed me as executive oversight chair last year and it was about then that I realized he would run for president this year, and I also knew I would be voting for him and for a more engaged AMS moving forward.

Board of Governors

#VERN4Everything – Veronica Knott is a true leader on this campus, through her role as president of Engineering Undergraduate Society she has shined and she will shine on as a beacon of light for students on Board of Governors.

Tanner Bokor – I have worked closely with Tanner over the last number of years and one thing you can say about Tanner is that he makes every decision with students in mind. People may disagree with his decision or direction but he believes he is making this campus better and I for the most part have supported his vision over the last couple of years.

Senate

The strongest senate team that I can see working together and really driving the student agenda are: Aaron, Jenna, Gurvir, Marjan and V, I mean Viet.

Vice-President Administration

All of the candidates are looking to change this position. Ava is in the best position to be able to complete a transition while continuing her current work. Tea parties for all!

Vice-President Finance

New buildings lead to new costs and we need the person who knows the finances to stay for once! Last year an incumbent lost this battle – Mateusz Miadlikowski has my vote this year.

Student Legal Fund Society

This society lacks accountability. Elect the accountability slate for more accountability (Students for Accountability).

Vice-President Academic and University Affairs

Jenna Omassi for VP Academic . . . sure but my real vote is for Daniel Munro lol!!

The UBC Senate race is often joked about in the UBC blogosphere because there are so many candidates. How do you keep track of 10 or 12 candidates for five spots? But when it boils down to it, there are only a few important things to look for when choosing your student senators:

1. Speaking Up

Really, this is the most important quality a student senator must have. While there will always be a few prominent student senators who can lead projects like establishing the Ad Hoc Committee on Mental Health and Wellbeing, every student senator needs to be someone who will speak up, because the work of Senate is done in committee, not in Senate itself, so if you’re one of only two or three students on the committee, you need to be able to speak up and give a student perspective.

2. Getting Informed

The university’s academic structure is complicated. The lingo that gets thrown around can be confusing (e.g. “Two parts of the Flexible Learning Initiative are a partnership with edX and better integrating Piazza into our learning technology ecosystem”). There are ways to make arguments that faculty members will listen to, and ways to make arguments that they will rip to pieces – remember that it’s literally their job to sit and analyze arguments all day long. There are a lot of background politics that one can stumble into – like the longstanding annoyance of Senate that the Provost’s Office really runs the place and the fact that as much as the university’s governance structure is supposedly bicameral (more lingo, look it up), the Board of Governors has more power since it controls funding.

Not that a newcomer can’t learn the ropes, but experience does help in navigating these waters. Reading the entirety of the package may be difficult, long, and boring but there’s a lot there  And don’t be afraid to ask questions, especially from your fellow student senators. And even if you ask it at a meeting, I’ll bet there’s always at least one faculty member who was thinking the same thing and was too scared to ask.

3. Taking Action

I said above that the work of Senate is done in committees, not at Senate itself. But that’s only half the truth. The day-to-day work happens in committees, but if you really want to get stuff done, you have to do a lot of work outside of committee. This means meeting with the Senate Secretariat, meeting with committee chairs to get their opinions on ideas, researching and writing reports, and, once your proposal is finally ready for the Senate floor, doing some serious lobbying of senators to make sure they vote for it.

A student senator who is willing to put in a lot of extra hours to do those things is a senator who will get things done.

4. Teamwork

Lastly, student senators need to see themselves as a team. For my whole time on Senate, student senators have worked together on projects, not gone it alone, and have been very effective at getting things done (despite Senate’s glacial pace). There’s a lot of work to be done for big change to happen (see #3 above), and much more will get done if everyone works together.

How I’m Voting

There’s a lot that’s broken with Senate, so it’s easy to say this race doesn’t matter. But I’m glad to say our new President knows it too so this year may see a lot of change come to the Senate, and so it will be more important than ever to have students who will be vocal and ensure that within a new structure, students will continue to have a significant voice on the Senate.

So who am I voting for? Firstly, my current fellow student senators Eric Zhao and Aaron Bailey have both been vocal, effective, advocates for students and have put many hours into their roles, and both deserve another year.

Next, Jenna Omassi and Gurvir Sangha have proven this year on AMS Council that they know how to vocally represent student voices and how to craft good arguments. Gurvir may have some learning to do about the university’s administrative structure, but I have no doubt he can learn to navigate it gracefully.

Next, I’m left feeling like a tie between Viet Vu, Marjan Hatai and Margareta Dovgal. All have been very involved in different aspects on the AMS, but none of them with any experience directly related to Senate. Margareta and Viet both have no qualms about speaking up, but I’m concerned about their ability to craft an argument in a way that will be listened to by faculty and administration. Marjan is not someone who regularly speaks up in AMS Council, and so I wonder whether she will speak up enough at Senate. All three would have some significant learning to do, but all have the potential to be effective. In the end I voted for Margareta, because she’s only in second year, so even if this is a learning year, she’ll have an opportunity to re-run and put the learning year to use.

The decisions giving rise to #iamastudent (though, as an external observer, it is unclear to me whether this continues to have any meaningful momentum) include both the tuition increase to international students and the significant increase in student housing pricing.  Unfortunately the 20% increase in student housing fees was often forgotten alongside the perennially sexier tuition debate. Under the BC Residential Tenancy Act (“RTA“), rental increases are capped in 2015 at 2.5% so why is there such a disparity?

The answer comes in the kind of legal relationship residents have with Student Housing and Hospitality Services (“SHHS”): the RTA explicitly excludes university residences from its protection. Whether or not to include university residences within the RTA was actually the dominant subject of an election in 2000. The RTA gives a number of protections including rights about landlord entry, rights about ending a contract, and rental increases.

Right now there are five candidates running for AMS executive positions with a role in policy and only two are talking about housing regulation: Cheneil Antony-Hale (President) and Jude Crasta (VP External). Antony-Hale wants a separate act and Crasta wants to include student housing within the RTA.

In my opinion, Antony-Hale’s plan for student housing is both a needed change and properly thought through. The RTA is simply inappropriate for student housing in its current form, and there are good policy reasons for not including student housing within the scheme. For example 1) you would not be able to make housing contingent on taking classes, 2) you couldn’t move residents who are not getting along with their roommates, 3) UBC could increase rent however much it desired as soon as a resident moved out of a unit, undermining price stability – one of the principal benefits of the RTA, and 4) the right to exclusive possession and quiet enjoyment of a unit is simply impossible in shared accommodation or where you have two strangers living in the same room, which is why the RTA also does not apply to living arrangements where you share a bathroom or kitchen with your landlord.

However, there are some protections that ought to be considered and could constitute the basic elements of a Student Tenancy Act governing a relationship with SHHS as a whole, rather than your individual unit:

• a capped schedule of rental increases based on the day you enter into a relationship with SHHS, so if you started at UBC in September 2014 and began living in Totem Park, in 2016 you could rent a place in Gage based on the 2014 price plus two years at 2.5%.
• the right to 24 hours notice before a university employee can enter a unit over which you have exclusive control.
• the right to no increase in rent within an academic year, regardless of whether you have moved to a more expensive unit.
• the right to a room provided you continue to be a registered student.
• and the right to appeal any application of the contract or the RTA to the Residential Tenancy Board.

There are probably individual concerns with each of these ideas or concerns about what is not included, but I’ve drafted them here to start a conversation. The purpose of a contract is to provide a stable, legal framework for a relationship between two parties. If it is a good contract, there is roughly an equal number of rights and responsibilities and under the RTA there are protections to ensure such a relationship is fair. Right now, students have no such protection.

This needs to change and is an aggressive but achievable goal. There is no internal reason for government to say no, other than to avoid pissing off colleges and universities, and I struggle to see a significant constituency that would be opposed to such a plan. Kudos to Antony-Hale for understanding the issues, and kudos to Crasta for identifying the need to change. Hopefully this is a topic that the new executive can work on together.

Probably as a result of the many candidate dropouts, the election has been a lot more dull at this stage of the campaign than expected and I am compelled to ask a 10,000 foot question:

What the hell are we doing here?

By that I mean, what are student union elections trying to achieve? Principally, voters are being asked to hire students to a) represent their views to the AMS, b) represent the AMS’s views to outside bodies, and c) manage aspects of the AMS.

These are, at best, conflicting mandates. At worst they’re dysfunctional. Sometimes the candidate whose values best align with the electorate is the least capable of taking action on those values because they are not capable of managing people or projects. Frequently, vital changes to the structure and workflow of the AMS don’t happen because it is important that a candidate who represents the opinions of students is elected to voice those perspectives, rather than a technocrat. Voters who believe they’re electing people to represent their views to the university or the government may find those executives are constrained by the views of the student council, which is also full of students who have been elected by their own constituencies.

Since August, Students Nova Scotia (in my opinion, the best student association in English Canada) has been engaged in an independent review of student association governance with “the view that student unions should hold themselves to the same standards of accountability and transparency that they ask of university and college administrators and governments.” Included in the questions it asked was:

• How should student association governance bodies be composed and how should their members be selected?

• How should student association executives, council/board members and staff members be accountable to one another and the student body?

• How should student associations more meaningfully include members of underrepresented groups (women, visible minorities, students with disabilities, etc.) in decision-making?

Go read the whole report because the issues it raises get to the same issues faced by the AMS. While it may seem navel-gazey to talk about governance during an election, there’s truly no better time. If you want a more effective student association, the report argues there should be a coherent chain of accountability – elect student council like a parliament (with parties ensuring they’re sufficiently diverse to attract the electorate*), then have the council appoint a president, representatives to external bodies, etc. so the people doing the job of representing students are aligned with both the AMS and the student body as a whole. Basically, the proposal is to stop electing executives, have their administrative duties done by hired students under supervision of the executive director, and have council members do all the outwardly facing duties.

These suggestions, in the main, make sense but are hardly a panacea for good student government. Nevertheless they identify the underlying tension of elections: what type of individual are we supposed to be voting for?

Just as the AMS has grown beyond its space, it has grown beyond its structure. A governance review has been promised, for several months, which may or may not happen. This is a good question for it to address.

*This isn’t the place for a discussion about slates, however a clarification is needed: I previously worked to end the slate system at the AMS but this is a different beast altogether. An organized and regulated party system that would get majority control is completely different from the previous system of councils without majorities and split executives.

Ultra vires is one of those annoying phrases that law students learn in first year and start throwing around like it cost them $100+ to learn, but it’s latin for “beyond the powers”.

At this moment Student Council is debating… I couldn’t really say. But it’s definitely about the Israeli boycott, divestment and sanctions (“BDS”) movement, which seeks to build international pressure to convince Israel to do a number of things, and a proposed referendum to support BDS.

The issue of building consensus in Israel and Palestine is outrageously complicated, which raises the question of if the AMS is equipped to make an effective decision on whether to support, oppose or abstain from the BDS campaign.

Of course, this is not something unique to the AMS. For companies there are provisions of the BC Business Corporations Act allowing boards of directors to disallow shareholder proposals that are tangential to the business of the company and are for the purposes of publicity. The BC Society Act, AMS Constitution, and AMS Bylaws have no such provision but that doesn’t mean they aren’t instructive.

Societies are corporations – which just means they’re a collection of people united in a common purpose and not necessarily for profit – and their constitutions define their purpose and scope of activity. If a society or a board of directors of a society makes a decision which goes outside the powers it has been granted, the courts have the right to rectify it because the decision is ultra vires.

So far, so boring. Here’s the interesting bit: nobody ever, and I mean ever, talks about the AMS Constitution because it doesn’t have much in the way of rules or meaningful guidance but the purposes set out in it are just as important as anything in the AMS Bylaws and have real weight. The reason is because British Columbian courts have ruled bylaws are essentially a contract between the members of a society and therefore “the various parts of the contract are to be interpreted in the context of the intentions of the parties as evident from the contract as a whole”. (Bhandal v Khalsa Diwan Society of Victoria, 2014 BCCA 291 at para 28) This purposive approach is really, really, really important.

Bylaw 15 defines the powers of the society, which are the powers under which a referendum gets its authority. It says “the Society has the power and capacity of a natural person of full capacity as may be required to pursue its purposes”. This incredibly broad language essentially says the rights of the membership are only constrained by the purposes set out in the AMS Constitution.

Therefore, do the purposes of the AMS give the authority to the AMS to make pronouncements about BDS? In my opinion, there are three purposes relevant to issues of political representation:

(a) To promote, direct, and control all student activities of UBC Vancouver.

…

(c) To promote the principle and practice of student representation at all levels of decision making at the University and on all agencies or other bodies which deliberate on the affairs of its members.

(d) To advance the cause of higher learning in the Province of British Columbia.

(e) To promote unity and goodwill amongst its members.

Let’s just accept that (e) is so vague as to be meaningless. For a student body as diverse as UBC, even promoting unity and goodwill would probably create some level of division. (d) is self-evidently irrelevant to this issue. (c) speaks to the importance of student representation within the University and other agencies or bodies deliberating on the affairs of its members. Arguably, that’s one way the fossil fuel divestment campaign last year was different – it was asking the AMS to lobby the university to change its practices. In contrast, the proposed referendum asks, “Do you support your student union (AMS) in boycotting products and divesting from companies that support Israeli war crimes, illegal occupation and the oppression of Palestinians?” This is asking the AMS to restrict its own activities, which legally may be a world of difference.

Finally, there is (a) which could be a bit of a catch-all provision. My best guess would be a judge’s decision would turn on what it means to “promote, direct, and control all student activities” but I would argue it means the administration and management of clubs and like activities. I say this for two reasons: 1) historically, that is probably the most defensible meaning of the phrase throughout the history of the AMS (and probably the meaning at the time it was developed), and 2) if the phrase meant the right to advance causes other than higher learning in the Province of British Columbia, it likely would have said so. Why? Because when the constitution wants to advance a cause, it does so right there for all to see! The latter argument is probably the most significant because under the purposive approach, you have to presume the text was made for a reason, endeavour to understand that reason, and interpret it in the context of that reason.

What does this all mean? In my estimation, the wording of this proposed referendum goes beyond the purposes of the AMS but there are many different practical possibilities. It could mean 1) the proposed referendum has no force or effect and it just doesn’t matter if it is held or not, 2) Student Council, or those opposing the question, sends the question to Student Court who determines whether it is ultra vires the constitution, or 3) the referendum is held and a member of the AMS takes it to real court to have the question nullified.

I may be dead wrong about the interpretation of the constitution without a record of evidence, but if I’m right, the AMS is wasting countless people hours in the Old SUB and is going to bombard everyone with a referendum power it doesn’t have the power to ask.

And why does it matter? Simple: rules matter because if they’re not followed the AMS becomes a sandbox for the involved rather than the purpose it was intended to fulfill.

This is an opinion piece not intended to be legal advice. Small changes have been made since I’ve had the time to check the appropriate jurisprudence.

Before I get too far into my ramblings on what I believe the role of the AMS President to be, I should note that I am not making any endorsements, or disendosements for that matter, in any race this year. In the wake of last year’s unfortunate endorsement controversies, from which I am not exempted, I feel it would be both hypocritical and in poor taste for me to comment on the candidates themselves. Instead, I hope to paint a picture of what life in the President’s office is like, and what qualities I think candidates need to demonstrate if they are to be successful as President.

I should start by saying that I in no way believe that I am an expert on student government. This was my first year being the President of the AMS, and it will be my last, so my pontifications here should be viewed more as advice from an older brother and less prescriptive. I have managed to get a lot done, though, in my limited time at the AMS. This year we restructured the organizational framework of the AMS and hired three brand new senior managers to help build out our potential for the new SUB. We passed the largest fee referendum in 30 years, creating more than $250,000 in funding for students and fixing the structural deficit. We reformed the health and dental plan, ensuring it’s future sustainability. And we finished designing the new SUB, complete with a 24-space childcare facility, 16 hectolitre microbrewery, nearly 50,000 square feet of club space, and two state-of-the-art performance spaces. I am not trying to toot my own horn here (well, maybe a little), but I am trying to demonstrate that the AMS has done, and continues to do, epic things. There is no student union in Canada that comes anywhere close to doing what the AMS does (not to offend students at other schools reading this) and the President is supposed to be the driving force of all of it. Now I would be a giant jerk if I didn’t give credit to my fellow executives, senior management team, student support staff, and Student Council for helping make all of these projects a reality, so I would like to take a moment to recognize their hard work and commitment. But I digress.

On Style

Being the driving force behind the AMS means you have to have a style. I don’t mean Oxfords and skinny ties, but a style of leadership. Over the past few years there have been some very particular styles adopted by different presidents. In 2008-09 Michael Duncan took to the streets, literally, with advocacy that led to the Great Farm Trek, lowering of Birdcoop fees, and running the New SUB referendum, his style was to engage the community as much as possible. In 2009-2010 Blake Frederick took to the media, writing frequent press releases, holding publicity stunts, and ultimately getting international media attention, his style was to shake the tree to see what fell out. In 2010-11 Bijan Ahmadian took to the backroom, preferring the brokering of deals to petitions, ultimately he did get the new SUB agreements signed and we made inroads on BoG issues, his style was to shake hands and rub elbows. This year, I am not entirely sure what my style has been, an optimistic irreverence, perhaps? Or maybe only my beard will be remembered. In any event, I did my best to be myself and do what I thought was right, and hopefully someone down the road can more accurately characterize my style. So candidates, don’t be afraid to show some personality and don’t shy away from your own style. And voters, pay close attention to the candidates themselves, not just their platforms, as it will tell you much more about what you can expect over the next year than talking points on a website.

On Responsibility

The President is responsible for a great number of things. From managing relationships with every corner of the university to drafting the $30 million budget, making sure the SUB gets built to keeping your VPs from killing each other (or you). Most people don’t know, and will never really “know” what a President has to do, but I am going to give you a quick non-exhaustive list of everything that the President has to deal with. The new SUB project, Student Council budget, health and dental plan, human resources (70 full-time staff, nearly 400 student staff), collective bargaining, all legal matters of the Society, liquor licensing, managing relationships with university executive, managing relationships with undergraduate societies, managing the relationship with the Graduate Student Society, planning referenda, U-Pass program, AMS subsidies, student project funding, municipal, provincial, and federal lobbying, managing relationships with other BC student societies, student outreach and campaigns, communications of the Society, managing relationships with local media (even if nobody reads the Ubyssey), knowing what is happening at the Board of Governors, Senate, and University Neighbourhood Association, brushing and flossing regularly, demonstrating value to students, getting sleep (sometimes), make a speech that doesn’t suck at Imagine Day and most importantly doing everything in one’s power to further the goals of the AMS and make the lives of UBC students better. This is the tip of the iceberg of things I had to deal with this year, and there will most certainly be more. So candidates, know that you are getting in to much more than what you might have heard about the role. And voters, know that the job of being President is so much more than the three or four campaign promises that any candidate will make. In fact, the majority of their term will be taken up with things they hadn’t planned on, so think hard about these candidates and their ability to be effective managers in addition to being student leaders.

I would again like to take this opportunity to point out that the success of the President is part in parcel with the success of the entire AMS – without everyone’s hard work, nothing would get done. But it is the President’s responsibility to oversee everything, to always know what is going on, and how to help. I must also point out that the success of the next President is predicated on all of the hard work that we have put in before them, and will serve as the foundation for success of those who come after. I got to design a new student union building because a courageous executive set out to make it happen years ago, and a future executive will be able to do more for students because of the work that my executive put in to fix the structural deficit. So be wary of any candidate that promises to fix everything in their year, and fails to recognize the work of those who have come before them.

I will leave it at that, as I have both reached my word limit, and my ability to write coherently. I apologize for not keeping in the tradition of “Presidential Endorsements” but I felt that students should better understand the role and decide for themselves. I hope that if you have read this far you at the very least better appreciate the things that I, and Presidents before me, have had to endure, and hopefully you can better judge the candidates on how they fit the job.

Over and out.

[Note: in the full interview transcripts, the 7th question was blacked out due to some confidential information in some candidates’ answers.]

In a race with only two spots available, to have 7 candidates who all demonstrated a good level of understanding and engagement in the Board process is outstanding – it shows a student interest in the larger issues like we haven’t had in years’ past. That being said, I do have to somehow narrow this list down to my two choices, so let’s have at it and see where we get.

The Highlights

Sumedha Sharma – The Incumbent
As an incumbent Sumedha Sharma is definitely one of the most adept in her answers, excellently outlining the process that items go through, as well as highlighting key players and critical discussions over the past year (all of which you’d expect from an incumbent). Her main issues from the past year included the Student Housing Financing Endowment, a massive step towards attempting to meet the demand for student housing, the SUB approval and the Wesbrook Place Neighbourhood Place approval which laid the ground work what is to come with Gage South. Her main weakness is connecting to students at large, something she’s going to work on through social media.

Mike Silley – The Moderate
Mike Silley brings to the table his year as the AMS VP Admin, as well as a fairly calm set of responses to the questions. The hospice approval and the South Campus Plan were his two critical resolutions which highlight a focus on the “neighbours” lands of the campus, and a strong interest in what is happening outside of the academic core. Ponderosa hub was also raised as an area of interest. Thought his self-identified weakness was the timeline of his graduation, through his response to question 5, I would instead propose fully researching into documentation to be an area of concern. Mike raised a discussion on affordability as one which “has NOT happened in the past few years” which isn’t correct. After the tuition motion this year, strong affordability discussion were demanded by Board members, and strategic discussion took place going over the topic – a some reworking of the Student Financial Aid office being something that came out if it. It would be appropriate to demand additional or follow-up discussions, but recognising what ground work has already been laid is critical. Mike also plans “to vote against any proposed tuition increase”, which would concern me not because of the gesture, but because it implies making one’s mind up before any facts are known. The provincial government is highly unstable right now, and by the time this vote comes up the arena could be very different.

Matt Parson – The Influencer
To be blunt, Matt Parson’s answers were exceptional. He brings a wealth of experience from the AMS VP Academic and University Affairs position, and it shows as he describes the different approval processes and discussions that took place over the past years. He has also gown his ability to influence at a committee level over that year. A strong interest in and focus on the planning, approvals and housing aspects of the Board (similar to other candidates) is prevalent across his answers, and it is also where his largest strengths lie. He definitely brings enough background on many of these topics to impact the direction of the decisions. The biggest weakness he highlights is his reputational baggage from opposing the University a number of times as VP Academic, though given the perceptions I have heard around the table, I believe this won’t stand in his way.

Justin Yang – The Academic
Justin comes from an academic background and has served for a couple years on Senate. He understands the higher levels of the university as well as the best of the other candidates, and I would claim knows the Strategic Plan better than any of the others. His biggest weakness in my mind is the year he chose to run in, this year has stiffer competition than the past 3, if not more. His presented largest weakness is that he is too “acquiescent” (and his strength is an impressive vocabulary), which is a concern I share. It is something he is working on, and knows about himself, which is positive.

Sean Cregten – The Crotchety Old Man
The most entertaining answers to the questions BY FAR, with some gems including listing his biggest weakness as “My low campus profile. The biggest barrier to me being effective on the Board is the election process. CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.”, a campaign of “Winning. From Here. “, and explaining work being done on the Board “By Sean Heisler. Or in Reflections”. While the flattery is appreciated it won’t help. Amidst these, however, Sean does convey an understanding of everything that occurs from the Board. What is clear given experience with the Board longer than any other candidate is that he knows what students need, knows what the hot buttons are, and isn’t afraid to push them. Though his cited biggest weakness is his low campus profile, I would point to his graduation creating a potential detachment from campus as a larger concern. His knowledge of policy and ability to research items is possibly only second to Neal Yonson. [Ed: While the flattery is appreciated it won’t help.]

Tagg Jefferson – The Dark Horse
While Sean Cregten claimed his low campus profile as a weakness, Tagg would win that contest. Though he is highly known across Engineering thanks to massive involvements in the EUS and both building projects the Faculty of Applied Science has been undertaking. His answers are well researched, obviously having read minutes from every meeting in the past year, and his description of how work gets done on the Board was the best of anyone. Key strengths are that he would bring is a less politicized perspective than many other “hack” candidates and a fresh perspective from the other side of the building projects that none of the members of the Board have. He also picked out Hubert Lai as a strong ally, which no other candidate did, and I can say I have yet to witness anyone disagreeing with Hubert at, or around, Board meetings.

Erik MacKinnon – The Radical
With one of the most … aggressive blogs being associated with his name, Erik’s answers are not-surprisingly the most provocative. His clear strength is an ability to state confidently whatever is on his mind, so in areas where a student’s opinions align with Erik’s, he would be a very loud advocate. He already knows a great way to get things done on the Board (“Call Reny Kahlon”) , and he knows his biggest weakness is his bluntness. In the final question, however, he makes mention that “They are 47,000 voices brought together into one, and that one should accurately reflect how the majority feels.” when speaking about the role of a representative. In this comes what I believe to be a false sense of representation. While it would be great to represent 47,000 voices, when only 2,300 vote to elect the representative, how can you claim to represent a majority? Similarly, which opinion do you represent; a popular opinion, a researched opinion, a proactive or constructive one? Too often this year I’ve seen Erik land in the popular opinion realm – and though examples exist where this is effective lack of research has been an issue in his statements previously.

The Endorsements

Tagg Jefferson

He presents an opportunity and effectiveness to the Board that I only wish I could have offered. His biggest barrier is by far his name recognition in the election, but I would anticipate given these answers and his experiences, an amazing year if he was elected.

Sumedha Sharma

A knowledgeable incumbent who has been effective in her first year is an excellent choice. Though she is graduating, there is enough passion and affinity for UBC students that I don’t believe a disenfranchisement will occur.

Though not an official endorsement I would like to make an honourable mention to Matt Parson. If he was not in the AMS President race he would have received an endorsement. The reason this worries me are a) Split Priorities, especially if both races are won, and b) Perceived Conflict of Interest. While there has been one instance of someone holding both these positions, with the Governance discussion upcoming where the AMS and UBC are potentially (and likely) directly opposing stakeholders, he would have to step away from some of the most critical discussions if elected.

The bitter impression left by Bijan in last year’s election makes executives endorsing anyone a bit hesitant. The controversy of those events will take a few years for hacks to forget.

After 3 years of working at the AMS, I will let UBC students, minus me, make their own mistakes with choosing their AMS executives.

I do feel encouraged to weigh in on one race, where I think I can offer a perspective: the Board of Governors. As you should know, the BoG has a lot of power and influence, not just as ‘deciders’ but also in terms of access to the University administration.

Some BoG reps are good at representing students at the table, some are good at ‘harmonizing’ their efforts with AMS executive, for better results. However, few have connected the issues with the student body. The last big effort to connect students with UBC issues was Bijan ‘the infamous’ Ahmadian, before running for President (I think he did some campaign for some campus plan, precursor to the LUP). Student engagement is something I believe students have under-valued, when coming to a decision on their BoG reps.

Having been at a few BoG meetings, I also do believe that we need a vocal voice from our reps. Ideally, someone with a strong enough personality can hold the ongoing attention and respect of other governors.

This is my rationale for the endorsement that you will see in a few seconds (or minutes depending on how fast you read). Having worked with this character in a committee/board setting, challenged with very difficult decisions, and having seen them in action (not like that) in several capacities, I do believe that they are definitely deserving of your support, as well as mine.

In my opinion, the race has 4 strong/qualified/good candidates; I have no comments on the other 3. My endorsement goes out to Erik MacKinnon. Hacks hate him for not being a bigger dick as the Elections Administrator, for being a big dick in all other situations, for his affinity towards the fraternities (yes, hacks hate fraternities. no exceptions), and for his allegedly borderline sexism (in fact, I want to make it clear that this is all alleged; I don’t want a defamation suit).

But the reality is, Erik, if elected, could be one of the most engaging BoG reps that we’ve seen in years. Maybe decades. Maybe even centuries. But this deadly willingness to engage students (whether through petitions or through his blog), combined with his rationality, respectable work ethic, decent debating abilities, and his genuine care for students make him a candidate extremely deserving of one half of the student seats on the UBC Board of Governors.

Now when I say deserving, I don’t think anyone deserves anything as far as any leadership positions go (except the whole AMS execs deserving a living wage thing…). Rather, I believe, having worked with him on the AMS Budget committee, that Erik is a man of principle, and that his presence at the Board table will be an asset to UBC students.

My current impression (and I realize I may be misimpressed) is that the hack community does not like Erik’s sometimes controversial nature. I urge you (probably a hack anyways if you’re reading this) to sit back and take your feelings and emotions out, and vote for Erik, and one of the other 3 good candidates. Erik will bring a strong, level-headed, well-reasoned, and well communicated student voice to the big wooden table (actually, it might be 5 big tables put together, but you get the idea).