Candidate Platforms at the EUS Council Meeting

By Bowinn Ma

On the 22nd of January, 2007, Candidates were invited to give 60-second speeches at the Bi-weekly EUS Council Meeting. This offer was prompted by a request by Sarah Naiman to the EUS President, Ryan Clare, to present at the meeting. The evening before the meeting, the remaining candidates were invited to attend as well.

There is something incredibly unsatisfying about hearing candidates pour out their platforms in a mere 60 seconds. In a mere sixty seconds, we are able to hear each candidate either fumble for words as their time ticks away in the background, spill out a flurry of expressions in an attempt to pack in their reasons for why they should win your vote, or stand and quietly attempt to gather their thoughts on the whole situation. Without time allotted for questions, discussion, or other means of further clarification of their standpoints, the impression left on the spectators of this particular campaign effort was that they had just been mind-attacked by a number of run-of-the-mill students running for positions in a student society that really has nothing to do with them (the spectators). It is during the debates and the question periods that many AMS members at large suddenly undergo the epiphany that the AMS does have something to offer them and that it does matter which candidate is elected. Education is one of the largest steps we must take towards eliminating the total and complete apathy that 87% of our students feel (as suggested by the 13% voter turnout).

The first speech time-slots were dedicated to the candidates running for presidency. Maxwell Maxwell took to the podium first and, wasting no time at all in his allotted minute, began by pointing out that he was the only Presidential candidate to show. The remainder of his quick spew was (and rightly so, unfortunately) designed to appeal to the "student-politics layman". He touted better parties, cheaper beer, and his character as "just a good guy" ending off his minute to remind everyone once more that he had shown up whereas Friedrich had not.

Following Maxwell, candidates for the VP Academic were invited to speak. Brendon Goodmurphy brought up his idea of developing a student-spearheaded Campus Development Plan in order to combat the University's Campus Development Plan, which he says is not addressing student needs. He also pushed the need for academic accountability by bringing back The Yardstick, an AMS initiative that attempted to provide online teaching evaluations, and supporting innovative academic programs. Of course, without time for discussion or questions, we were unable to hear what type of innovative academic programs he would like to see more of or how he had planned to successfully operate The Yardstick, which failed due to "lack of faculty participation, limited scope of information, and concerns that the system was being used to compare and judge faculty members" (Michelle Cook for UBC Reports, Dec 2003).

Following Goodmurphy was Jerry Fan Fan who took the first fifteen seconds of his minute explaining that he could not develop an elaborate speech for the occasion as a result of a last-minute invitation - the same last minute invitation that every candidate, with exception to Sarah Naiman, received. He then goes on to highlight himself as a practical and experienced candidate and states that "both of the other candidates' ideas are impractical". Due to time constraints, no elaboration is offered.

Bruce Krayenhoff did not attend, but no attending candidate chose to state his absence to the audience.

For VP Finance, Brittany Tyson once again went through her standard platform talk and Peter Rizov once again touted his inexperience drawing attention to his major in business and economics.

Sarah Naiman for VP Administration threw out a crowd pleasing (or at least an attempt at crowd pleasing) reach to the Engineering Council by saying that she wanted to "bring Engineering into the AMS" and talked about her video sharing project (to project videos into the SUB). She did not elaborate on how a video-sharing device would help bring students together and I am not sure whether a project like that would be worth the money and effort required to put it together. Suvina To listed off goals such as improving the process of applying to become an AMS club, making the AMS more inclusive by introducing "AMS Affiliate Clubs", which would allow groups such as Engineers Without Borders to receive the benefits of being an AMS Club without actually being one (on account of them being a registered national charity), advocating to keep the Whistler Lodge for students first, and pushing her SAC experience. Lougheed the Barbarian failed to show. I have it on good word, however, that he was hunting for his dinner that night.

The only VP External candidate who showed was Matthew Naylor who is a man who tends to choose his words carefully and speak them slowly making the 60 seconds allotted to his portion seem to fly by like a student late for an 8:30am exam. He managed to throw out that he believed that our AMS needed to improve the way we lobbied with other schools, the way we look at tuition reduction, and that we needed to reinvigorate the BC Grants Program.

Darren Peets for BoG spent most of his 60 seconds explaining what BoG actually was to the Council - a necessary tidbit of information - and why he was no longer running as the Fire Hydrant. I missed Aidha Shaikh's speech because I was sitting there stunned to find out she was 20 years old and in her second year as a PhD Candidate making me feel utterly useless and behind, and Cris Marincat spent his minute talking about his character - but said nothing of what he had hoped to do in BoG. No other candidates showed.

As a side note, I thought I might mention that I do believe Darren Peets is one of those exceptions to the article I had written previously, "Experience or Not". Darren Peets is a candidate who is not only well versed in the goings-ons of the AMS, sitting quietly and intently in the background for many years, but he is also one who is "not afraid to test [his] boundaries and limits". As I spoke with him casually whilst walking through the Civil and Mechanical Engineering Building a few days ago, he mentioned that he believed Jeff Friedrich would be the most ideal Ying to his Yang if they were to be both elected into BoG. He described himself as somewhat of a shit-disturber, sarcastic, and unappealing to members of authority, while Friedrich, being the far more diplomatic of the two would be well-liked and tactful. Said Peets, "We would be the ultimate Good-Cop, Bad-Cop team".

Finally, the four senate candidates who attended the meeting, Ahmed, Khangura, Song, and Lee went to speak. Nothing new from their usual platform spews were offered, although I would like to point out that when Song described himself as having been involved with our Engineering Undergraduate Society as "half of the PP President" (PP being the Engineering First Year Society), it may have affected his standing with the Council more negatively than positively. This is made especially so because if I remember correctly, Song was "half of PP President" because he was impeached.

Voter Apathy - Let the Sleeping Beast Lie

Apathy has been on the mind and matter of many a Candidate and voter-funded media source in the past little while, but I still say that it doesn't make a difference. Those who don't care enough to inform themselves, shouldn't vote. Those who don't want to vote, shouldn't vote. Those who would vote if they weren't stretched between a heavy workload and a part-time job are really the only ones we should care about, but I suspect there are far fewer of those than most would have you believe.

The root of the problem really isn't our AMS government at all. The oft repeated backronym "The Almost Matters Society" is a product of our media over-stimulation. Corporate marketing companies know this well: people, in general, will not respond directly to stimuli that does not directly affect (to their knowledge) what they are doing at any given time. No one can be expected to keep up to date on campus politics while maintaining a balanced life outside of that realm, doing well in a full course-load of classes, and remain sane at the same time. There's simply too much to know. There's other politics we're supposed to keep tabs on too, like the provincial and federal on-goings, not to mention we're supposed to have hobbies and extra-curricular activities, and you still have to have that time to go out on the weekend, right?

The only real and effective way to ever dispense with the undeserved backronym would be to bring it's representatives to classes and force those people who love to complain that they don't know anything about the AMS without ever having even tried. Even then, most people wouldn't care.

There are candidates who speak of the atrocities of a 13% voter turnout - actually, that's pretty damn good for a constituency that's constantly in flux. The City of Vancouver struggles to keep their municipal election voter turnout hovering around 50% with dips as low as 30%. Why should the AMS even aim that high? They have no equivalent of parties (ie slates) that people can vote for to make research quicker and easier, their constituency is constantly changing at a grotesque rate by any political standards, they take less in fees, they are less publicized, and generally work things so as not to upset the majority of students in any way that they know about.

Most of the people who complain about low voter turnout fall into one of two categories - those hoping to capitalize and use it to their advantage one way or another, or those who are fresh from their poli-sci classes who have forgotten to take into account some of the crushing realities and differences university elections have from other, ultimately more important ones. As such, let the sleeping beast lie and don't poke voter apathy, lest you awaken the negative vote that ousted the NDP in BC, the Liberals in Canada, or most recently the Republicans in the US.

Experience or Not?

By Bowinn Ma - EUS Vice-President Internal & AMS Councillor

My first comment is that it is interesting to notice a particular trend among candidates of all elections in all levels of our student governance. The following is, of course, a "blanket observation" and I am perfectly aware that there are exceptions everywhere.

The more closely the candidate has worked with the position they are running for, the more specific their answers and ideas will be and the less likely their campaign platforms will be based around political rhetoric. This can be seen very clearly in the presidential election between candidate Maxwell Maxwell, who started out running as a joke candidate with next-to-nothing knowledge of the AMS and its inner workings and quickly shifted towards a real campaign and candidate Jeff Friedrich, who is the current AMS Vice-President Academic.

[Maxwell Maxwell] is offering a largely philosophical vision, [Jeff Friedrich] a practical one.

-Elections Insider

Of course, this discrepancy is to be expected. Candidates with experience are more familiar with the issues brought up during debates on a more practical level and are able to point out exactly what needs to be done to improve these issues.

Accompanied with this experience, however, comes a more reserved enthusiasm for what they believe can be accomplished, should they be elected. Candidates familiar with their predecessor's work will be more careful about entertaining lavish ideas and are less willing to make large promises like some of their less experienced opposing candidates. Their ideas for what can or cannot be accomplished within their position are much more down-to-earth and realistic. Perhaps it is because the more experienced candidates recognize their limits and the frustrations involved in certain initiatives: They have tried and failed or seen the brick wall and would prefer to focus their energies on what is in their own portfolios.

But is this a form of institutional destruction? If we always choose the candidate who is aware of their limits, will these limits continue perpetuate and close in on us? Will we eventually collapse our efforts down to nothing? A leader who cannot see limits will see no bounds and may take us further than we had ever hoped them to. This is why so many candidates, including a few running for Board of Governors and a few running for VP External, have taken to touting their inexperience as an asset. A new look at the problem is indeed required and refreshing, but over-zealous leaders may reach too hard for something too far away and run the risk of failing all their endeavors.

So what should we hope for? A stable executive with stable and realistic visions and the experience to carry their duties out solidly, or one who is willing to reach a bit further than others thought they could ... though possibly maybe more than they should?

Senate Candidates Don't Show!

In a surprising twist senate candidates Daniel Lin and Raymond "Peter" Pan didn't show up to the Place Vanier commons to take part in the scheduled debate.

Inexperience Touted by Candidates

Certain candidates running for Board of Governors and VP External hold their inexperience as a benefit over the so-called politically brainwashed.

Campaign Kickoffs

A mostly uninspired set of debates took place at Totem Park and Place Vanier over the past couple of days. A couple of candidates, however, did make strong impressions.