Shara Lee from The Peak wrote this week about our two student societies signing on with the university to create conceptual plans for a student union building (see: "Student union building planned for SFU"). This is a letter I submitted to The Peak about our societies running a student union building. I don't know if it will get published, but since I went to all the effort here it is for our 23,000 daily viewers - Johnny
On the subject of having their very own student union building (SUB), the wisdom of our two student societies appears to be, “if we build it, they will stay.” The idea of creating more inviting spaces to keep students on campus is noble, but it’s wrong think that it’s the job of the student societies in the first place, or that a dedicated building is necessary to achieve that goal.
It is the responsibility of the university for creating an attractive campus, not any student society. The student societies certainly have a role making the campus a welcoming and tolerant place, but they shouldn’t be in the business of running entire buildings. So why has the university been able to foist such responsibility to the student societies? Perhaps it’s because our societies are so eager to perpetuate their existence that they’ve jumped at the chance to take on this new role, hire more staff, and create more electable positions. The university, in turn, gets to have the student societies pay the bulk of the costs. After all, we seem to be more than happy to throw money at our student societies (see the Society Development Fund referendum question from the last SFSS election), yet bare our teeth when tuition rises.
If the student societies are keen to foot the bill of creating better student spaces, they should instead consider the option of remodeling existing areas to achieve the same goal. Shara Lee’s article on the subject pegs the cost of the “conceptual plans” alone at over $75,000. As a point of reference, the recently opened Arts and Social Sciences Complex cost $34 million to build. How many million would our SUB cost? How much would student fees increase as a result? I’ll admit that it’s perhaps too early to ask such questions, but it’s not too early to look at more cost-effective alternatives.
Ultimately, it seems an inferiority complex is the true motivation behind a SUB. Quote our SFSS President, Joe Palling: “We’re way behind many universities in that we don’t yet have a SUB.” Yes, the new SUB is not being proposed out of necessity, but rather from a desire to keep up with the Joneses. Oh, and as a place for the GSS to have their own pub, I guess (as one money sinkhole of a pub is not enough).
As we fight for lower tuition fees, we should also demand that our student societies tighten their belts and work to reduce their mandatory membership fees. If the experience of other universities is any example, a SUB will result in increased society fees levied on the student body for years to come (see: UBC, U of Manitoba, U of New Brunswick, and Dalhousie, to name a few). The question of building a SUB will surely be put to the student body in the form of a referendum at some point in the future. I hope when that day comes we students strongly reject any such initiative.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The Neighborhood Conglomerate: Building Community
Although the community has won a number of sustainability and design awards, UniverCity still lacks two crucial elements in any sustainable community: a (primary) school and a place to buy food. Well, the missing pieces are finally beginning to fall into place for UniverCity, the new residential community beside SFU on Burnaby Mountain. Plans for both amenities have been confirmed in the past few months. A supermarket is scheduled to open in 2009 and an elementary school in 2010.
With the introduction of a supermarket, it's a shame that SFU Community Trust's original vision of a small town butchershop and market won't be realized. I give them credit for trying though. An independent butchershop opened in the Cornerstone Building a couple years ago, but it didn't have much of a chance without enough residents and the support of complementary retailers, like a bakery and a full produce market.
Now Nesters Market will be moving to the Mountain. It's a compromise between having an independent village grocer and a big box chain supermarket. Nesters fits the Trust’s penchant for locally-grown retailers (Nesters started in Whistler). With only eight locations, Nesters is a relatively unknown name, adding to its neighborhood appeal. Nevertheless, while Nesters isn’t a goliath like Safeway or Superstore, its parent company Buy-Low Foods is part of the Pattison Group of companies. Needless to say, the Pattison Group is no small fish.
Assuming Nesters’ isolated Burnaby Mountain location and home-grown image can overshadow its conglomerate ownership, UniverCity will have the little neighborhood grocer it always wanted. Maybe then, just maybe, SFU and Burnaby Mountain will feel like a full-fledged community.
Image: "UniverCity town square" by *MandyJ*; Creative Commons license.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Thoughts on the VFM Contest
With the SFU Voter Funded Media contest finished until September, I thought I'd offer some of my thoughts about the contest.
I'll start by noting the VFM contest was the motivation for Patrick and I to create this blog in the first place. We figured it'd be fun to do, and the almost certain promise of cash winnings at the end of every month certainly didn't hurt either. Perhaps Mark Latham can hold up Instant Blog as a success story in some small way.
However, as Patrick discussed, the contest ultimately rewarded those who could get the vote out, rather than who had the best content. Clearly, a critical mass of voters needs to be reached before the vote is any true reflection of the quality of the content. But given how few people are interested in student politics -- if SFU voter turnout patterns are any indication, it's usually 5-8% of the student population -- it's going to be difficult threshold to reach. And until that threshold is reached, it will be difficult to find contestants willing to take the VFM game seriously.
Beyond the problem of participation is the issue of voting. The voting procedure for the SFU VFM contest is too complicated, and needs to be drastically simplified to encourage people to vote. How simple? I need to be able to cast a vote with at most three clicks, period. If we want to encourage people to vote for content they find interesting, then we must make the process so simple that it's not seen as a chore. I would also suggest ditching the 1-10 ranking scale for perhaps a 5-star rating.
Finally, I think a Voter Funder Media portal should be created in order to help promote all the contestants. I'm thinking something akin to Liblogs or Blogging Tories, where blog posts can be aggregated and contestant profiles can be featured. That way, we could promote VoterMedia.org as a brand, just like Liblogs and Blogging Tories. Having a slick, one-stop web site would be a great way for new readers to get acquainted with the system, and the contestants.
I'll start by noting the VFM contest was the motivation for Patrick and I to create this blog in the first place. We figured it'd be fun to do, and the almost certain promise of cash winnings at the end of every month certainly didn't hurt either. Perhaps Mark Latham can hold up Instant Blog as a success story in some small way.
However, as Patrick discussed, the contest ultimately rewarded those who could get the vote out, rather than who had the best content. Clearly, a critical mass of voters needs to be reached before the vote is any true reflection of the quality of the content. But given how few people are interested in student politics -- if SFU voter turnout patterns are any indication, it's usually 5-8% of the student population -- it's going to be difficult threshold to reach. And until that threshold is reached, it will be difficult to find contestants willing to take the VFM game seriously.
Beyond the problem of participation is the issue of voting. The voting procedure for the SFU VFM contest is too complicated, and needs to be drastically simplified to encourage people to vote. How simple? I need to be able to cast a vote with at most three clicks, period. If we want to encourage people to vote for content they find interesting, then we must make the process so simple that it's not seen as a chore. I would also suggest ditching the 1-10 ranking scale for perhaps a 5-star rating.
Finally, I think a Voter Funder Media portal should be created in order to help promote all the contestants. I'm thinking something akin to Liblogs or Blogging Tories, where blog posts can be aggregated and contestant profiles can be featured. That way, we could promote VoterMedia.org as a brand, just like Liblogs and Blogging Tories. Having a slick, one-stop web site would be a great way for new readers to get acquainted with the system, and the contestants.
2nd Place in March VFM Contest
We won 2nd place in the March VFM Contest! Here are the final standings. To everyone who voted - thank you!
We've been told that there isn't going to be another contest until September. However, Instant Blog is still going to be around in the meantime.
Photo credits: original photo by Luis Miguel Munoz-Najar and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license. Remixed by Patrick.
Monday, March 31, 2008
A clear democratic mandate
From last week's Peak:
The following pie chart roughly estimates how the vote was split on the CFS question:
While I'm happy 2,969 people turned out to vote for defederation, this is about as far away from a "clear democratic mandate" as you can get before you hit Cuba.
This isn't a knock against all the people who worked really hard to make the turnout as big as it was. Student elections normally achieve less than 10% voter turnout. The above graph was made with a generous 20% turnout(I've asked the Chief Commissioner of the IEC for the official turnout rate, and will update this post when I hear back from him) (UPDATE: According to the CC of the IEC, 4,541 students voted, so estimating about 24,000 students in total makes the turnout to be around 19%). By my estimations, the voter turnout was around 17-18%, which is absolutely fantastic for a student election
But let's not kid ourselves. Upwards of 80% of students said they could care less about what happens with the SFSS. If there's any sort of mandate to draw from the results of the election, it's that our newly elected members have a lot of work in front of them to make themselves relevant to the average student.
“This is a clear democratic mandate. There is no way to read these results as anything but a clear indication that SFU wants to leave the Federation.”
- Derrick Harder, SFSS President
The following pie chart roughly estimates how the vote was split on the CFS question:
While I'm happy 2,969 people turned out to vote for defederation, this is about as far away from a "clear democratic mandate" as you can get before you hit Cuba.This isn't a knock against all the people who worked really hard to make the turnout as big as it was. Student elections normally achieve less than 10% voter turnout. The above graph was made with a generous 20% turnout
But let's not kid ourselves. Upwards of 80% of students said they could care less about what happens with the SFSS. If there's any sort of mandate to draw from the results of the election, it's that our newly elected members have a lot of work in front of them to make themselves relevant to the average student.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Responses to Johnny and Amanda
Ok, so Johnny outlined why he's against the Society Development Fund. Last week, I indicated that I'm in favour of the Fund. Here's why: I want to see what the SFSS can do with all that extra money.
Now, I understand the apprehension Johnny may have over dumping $430,000 into a largely undefined "fund". However, I don't think we should have the SFSS continually coming back to the electorate to approve funds for important projects. There are projects, like the renovations to student spaces on campus, that the SFSS is already working on and that should be completed as soon as possible. I'd rather give the SFSS the money and let them do what students elected them to do. I'm willing to give them a chance to impress me.
What if they don't impress? If the SFSS doesn't do well, students only have to wait a year to kick them out. Or depending on the circumstances, students can impeach the whole lot of them. I think recent history has shown that SFU students can effectively hold their student society representatives accountable.
Having said all that, I should mention that I'm no longer a student, so none of that $430,000 will actually be coming out of my wallet. Nevertheless, if I was a student, I'd still support establishing the Fund.
On an entirely unrelated note, I must also respectfully disagree with Amanda Sung's assertion that if this had been a municipal, provincial, or federal election, Xenia would have been labeled indecisive because she is a woman. Yes, I agree that she would have been portrayed as being indecisive. However, she'd be portrayed that way not because she's a woman, but because she in fact reversed her decision about running. She announced that she wasn't running and then changed her mind and entered the race.
I doubt the media would treat Joe Paling any differently if he had done that instead of Xenia. His opponents certainly wouldn't have thought twice about calling him indecisive. If that's what his opponents are focusing on, the media isn't going to overlook it because Joe is a man. Paul Martin and Stephane Dion immediately come to mind as examples. When the federal Conservatives accused Paul Martin of dithering, the media picked it up. More recently, the media has reported on Stephane Dion's seeming indecision over when to bring down the government. I simply can't see the media linking gender with decisive/indecisiveness.
Now, I understand the apprehension Johnny may have over dumping $430,000 into a largely undefined "fund". However, I don't think we should have the SFSS continually coming back to the electorate to approve funds for important projects. There are projects, like the renovations to student spaces on campus, that the SFSS is already working on and that should be completed as soon as possible. I'd rather give the SFSS the money and let them do what students elected them to do. I'm willing to give them a chance to impress me.
What if they don't impress? If the SFSS doesn't do well, students only have to wait a year to kick them out. Or depending on the circumstances, students can impeach the whole lot of them. I think recent history has shown that SFU students can effectively hold their student society representatives accountable.
Having said all that, I should mention that I'm no longer a student, so none of that $430,000 will actually be coming out of my wallet. Nevertheless, if I was a student, I'd still support establishing the Fund.
On an entirely unrelated note, I must also respectfully disagree with Amanda Sung's assertion that if this had been a municipal, provincial, or federal election, Xenia would have been labeled indecisive because she is a woman. Yes, I agree that she would have been portrayed as being indecisive. However, she'd be portrayed that way not because she's a woman, but because she in fact reversed her decision about running. She announced that she wasn't running and then changed her mind and entered the race.
I doubt the media would treat Joe Paling any differently if he had done that instead of Xenia. His opponents certainly wouldn't have thought twice about calling him indecisive. If that's what his opponents are focusing on, the media isn't going to overlook it because Joe is a man. Paul Martin and Stephane Dion immediately come to mind as examples. When the federal Conservatives accused Paul Martin of dithering, the media picked it up. More recently, the media has reported on Stephane Dion's seeming indecision over when to bring down the government. I simply can't see the media linking gender with decisive/indecisiveness.
Friday, March 28, 2008
-1
The results from the other four referendums are in, and all passed with comfortable margins:
On Question #3 of ending acclamations, it felt good to vote for it, but it will probably be rare that a "yes/no" candidate ever fails to get elected. It would take some sort of huge public relations disaster to motivate enough people to vote "no" against you (and I mean huge -- like, three or four Joe Palings worth).
The Question #4 on membership in student organizations is apparently to prevent the SFSS from joining another CFS again. It reminds me of a bad computer science joke which goes, "if you strive to make a program fool-proof, the universe will just make a bigger fool." Hmm... "if you strive to make running a student society fool-proof, the universe will just make a bigger fool." Hey, it still works!
The last question on a health/dental plan for undergrads is interesting because it won by the largest margin of any of the other referendums. I personally wouldn't have thought undergrads were that interested in a health/dental plan. We'll see how thrilled they are when they learn it will run them an extra hundred bucks a semester.
- Question #2: Society Development Fund
Yes: 3,010 (73%)
No: 1,123 (27%) - Question #3: Ending Acclamations
Yes: 3,125 (79%)
No: 848 (21%) - Question #4: Membership in student organizations
Yes: 2,497 (69%)
No: 1,140 (31%) - Question #5: Undergraduate health plan
Yes: 3,559 (83%)
No: 751 (17%)
On Question #3 of ending acclamations, it felt good to vote for it, but it will probably be rare that a "yes/no" candidate ever fails to get elected. It would take some sort of huge public relations disaster to motivate enough people to vote "no" against you (and I mean huge -- like, three or four Joe Palings worth).
The Question #4 on membership in student organizations is apparently to prevent the SFSS from joining another CFS again. It reminds me of a bad computer science joke which goes, "if you strive to make a program fool-proof, the universe will just make a bigger fool." Hmm... "if you strive to make running a student society fool-proof, the universe will just make a bigger fool." Hey, it still works!
The last question on a health/dental plan for undergrads is interesting because it won by the largest margin of any of the other referendums. I personally wouldn't have thought undergrads were that interested in a health/dental plan. We'll see how thrilled they are when they learn it will run them an extra hundred bucks a semester.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
VFM Networking Party
I've been meaning to write something about the Voter-Funded Media Networking Party that was held two weekends ago, but I haven't had a chance to with all the election/referendum activity. Since that's somewhat behind us now, I'll offer my impressions of the party. For anyone who missed it, here's a time-lapse of part of the party.
I was surprised that there weren't more SFU VFM contestants in attendance. In hindsight, I shouldn't have been surprised since it was in the middle of the midterm/finals period.
I was surprised by the political enthusiasm of a lot of the guests. In hindsight, I shouldn't have been surprised since VFM is intended to cover political happenings and the party invitation clearly said that student politicians would be attending. Don't get me wrong, political enthusiasm is great. I think I was surprised because I don't get that same sense of political enthusiasm (and political insider-ness) from reading SFU VFM blogs.
The assortment of food and refreshments was very good.
About a week after the party, I found out that Brad Coleman had attended the party as well. In hindsight, I think I was standing right beside him near the end of the party and didn't realize it. I'm pretty sure it must have been him since I met everyone else at the party. It's too bad I didn't get to meet him since I had been poking fun at him for not posting any content on his blog. I chatted with his friends though and they're very nice people. For the record, Brad has content now.
Speaking of VFM...there are just a few days left to rate the media in this month's VFM contest. If you've got an SFU computing ID and you like Instant Blog, please take a second to vote:
If you've voted in previous months, click here.
If you've never voted before, click here.
I was surprised that there weren't more SFU VFM contestants in attendance. In hindsight, I shouldn't have been surprised since it was in the middle of the midterm/finals period.
I was surprised by the political enthusiasm of a lot of the guests. In hindsight, I shouldn't have been surprised since VFM is intended to cover political happenings and the party invitation clearly said that student politicians would be attending. Don't get me wrong, political enthusiasm is great. I think I was surprised because I don't get that same sense of political enthusiasm (and political insider-ness) from reading SFU VFM blogs.
The assortment of food and refreshments was very good.
About a week after the party, I found out that Brad Coleman had attended the party as well. In hindsight, I think I was standing right beside him near the end of the party and didn't realize it. I'm pretty sure it must have been him since I met everyone else at the party. It's too bad I didn't get to meet him since I had been poking fun at him for not posting any content on his blog. I chatted with his friends though and they're very nice people. For the record, Brad has content now.
Speaking of VFM...there are just a few days left to rate the media in this month's VFM contest. If you've got an SFU computing ID and you like Instant Blog, please take a second to vote:
If you've voted in previous months, click here.
If you've never voted before, click here.
Final Results
Looks like the recounts are finished. The final election results and referendum results are in.
Johnny already offered some witty commentary on the results. Hopefully I'll find time to add my own comments soon, especially since Johnny and I are apparently on opposite sides of the Development Fund referendum question.
Johnny already offered some witty commentary on the results. Hopefully I'll find time to add my own comments soon, especially since Johnny and I are apparently on opposite sides of the Development Fund referendum question.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
The Aftermath
While it seems a recount is still underway, Joe Paling has presumably won the title of SFSS president. In other news, the CFS defederation campaign was successful, claiming 66% support.
If I may offer some advice to the CFS: next time you're campaigning to keep a school in your clutches, perhaps you could allegedly sexually harass the "No" Campaign? Comment on the brightness of the "No" Campaign's pants? Make disgusting claims about "No" Campaign's back hair? Just saying -- it seems to be a winning strategy.
I'm happy to see the "No" side won out (although we have to see what the CFS's next move will be), so now I'm hoping the Development Fund referendum fails.
Let me explain.
It seems every candidate runs on promise of working to reduce tuition fees. A noble goal, perhaps, but one no SFSS candidate really has any control over. So long as they make the appearance of doing something that's enough to check the promise off on their list.
But student fees are something the SFSS has control over. And it seems only fair that if we are asking the government and the university to tighten its belt to make education more affordable for us that we do the same.
Now that the SFSS has a mandate from its members to defederate it certainly might require extra fees to fill in the gaps where the CFS used to be. However, a horrendously vague "Society Development Fund" is never going to get my vote. Show me the need you wish to fund and let me vote on it next year.
The "No" side and the SFSS campaigned on the idea that the CFS membership fees were not a good use of our student fees, after all. If that's true, then let's see some proof: show us we can get the same value for less and reduce our overall student fees.
If I may offer some advice to the CFS: next time you're campaigning to keep a school in your clutches, perhaps you could allegedly sexually harass the "No" Campaign? Comment on the brightness of the "No" Campaign's pants? Make disgusting claims about "No" Campaign's back hair? Just saying -- it seems to be a winning strategy.
I'm happy to see the "No" side won out (although we have to see what the CFS's next move will be), so now I'm hoping the Development Fund referendum fails.
Let me explain.
It seems every candidate runs on promise of working to reduce tuition fees. A noble goal, perhaps, but one no SFSS candidate really has any control over. So long as they make the appearance of doing something that's enough to check the promise off on their list.
But student fees are something the SFSS has control over. And it seems only fair that if we are asking the government and the university to tighten its belt to make education more affordable for us that we do the same.
Now that the SFSS has a mandate from its members to defederate it certainly might require extra fees to fill in the gaps where the CFS used to be. However, a horrendously vague "Society Development Fund" is never going to get my vote. Show me the need you wish to fund and let me vote on it next year.
The "No" side and the SFSS campaigned on the idea that the CFS membership fees were not a good use of our student fees, after all. If that's true, then let's see some proof: show us we can get the same value for less and reduce our overall student fees.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Preliminary SFSS Election Winners
With over 90% of votes counted, the Independent Electoral Commission has declared the following preliminary winners:
President: Joe Paling
Treasurer: Anna Belkine
External Relations: Natalie Bocking
Member Services: Earl Von Tapia
University Relations: Ali Godson
Internal Relations: Andrew Fergusson
Arts Rep: Ada Nadison
App Sci Rep: Result still to be announced
Business Rep: Henry Liu
Science Rep: Result still to be announced
Members at Large: Jonathan Brockman and Mona Law
Education Rep: Sara Olson (acclaimed)
Health Sci Rep: Tara Azimi (acclaimed)
President: Joe Paling
Treasurer: Anna Belkine
External Relations: Natalie Bocking
Member Services: Earl Von Tapia
University Relations: Ali Godson
Internal Relations: Andrew Fergusson
Arts Rep: Ada Nadison
App Sci Rep: Result still to be announced
Business Rep: Henry Liu
Science Rep: Result still to be announced
Members at Large: Jonathan Brockman and Mona Law
Education Rep: Sara Olson (acclaimed)
Health Sci Rep: Tara Azimi (acclaimed)
Friday, March 21, 2008
Preliminary CFS Membership Referendum Results by Day and Polling Station
Here are the unofficial day-by-day, poll-by-poll results published by Earl Tapia, President of the Philosophy Student Union and one of the candidates for Member Services Officer. These results (other than the overall NO 66% and YES 32%) have not yet been confirmed by the Independent Electoral Commission.
-------
Things to note:
- These numbers are only for the first referendum question, which was continuing membership in the CFS.
- I don't have the numbers for spoiled/blank ballots or the mail-in ballots (15 mail-in ballots I think was the total?) because I was in and out during the counting, but from what I remember hearing they were small and insignificant and/or they haven't come in yet.
- These are the unofficial results, and may change by a couple of numbers. The IEC will most likely release the official numbers sometime when all the referendum question results are released.
- I just did the math, and the numbers I'm getting now are off by about 10 - 20 for each side compared to some very early numbers that were released. Not enough to make any real difference, but should still be noted. This can most likely be attributed to my shoddy note taking and, in general, my frazzled state of mind.
- If you're not concerned about the individual polling stations, the totals are at the bottom.
- Forward to anyone and everyone.
MARCH 18
Surrey:
Y 52
N 149
Vancouver:
Y 53
N 50
Burnaby:
West Mall
Y 78
N 135
AQ
Y 226
N 406
Library
Y 138
N 295
MARCH 19
Surrey:
Y 24
N 61
Vancouver:
Y 18
N 43
Burnaby:
West Mall
Y 60
N 112
AQ
Y 216
N 470
Library
Y 115
N 276
MARCH 20
Surrey:
Y 36
N 78
Vancouver:
Y 30
N 46
Burnaby:
West Mall
Y 61
N 106
AQ
Y 220
N 450
Library
Y 135
N 251
TOTALS:
Surrey:
Y 112
N 288
Vancouver:
Y 101
N 139
Burnaby:
Y 1249
N 2501
ALL CAMPUSES
Y 1462
N 2928
I don't want to give the exact percentage, because I don't have the numbers for the spoiled/blank and mail-in ballots, but it's around 66%.
-------
Things to note:
- These numbers are only for the first referendum question, which was continuing membership in the CFS.
- I don't have the numbers for spoiled/blank ballots or the mail-in ballots (15 mail-in ballots I think was the total?) because I was in and out during the counting, but from what I remember hearing they were small and insignificant and/or they haven't come in yet.
- These are the unofficial results, and may change by a couple of numbers. The IEC will most likely release the official numbers sometime when all the referendum question results are released.
- I just did the math, and the numbers I'm getting now are off by about 10 - 20 for each side compared to some very early numbers that were released. Not enough to make any real difference, but should still be noted. This can most likely be attributed to my shoddy note taking and, in general, my frazzled state of mind.
- If you're not concerned about the individual polling stations, the totals are at the bottom.
- Forward to anyone and everyone.
MARCH 18
Surrey:
Y 52
N 149
Vancouver:
Y 53
N 50
Burnaby:
West Mall
Y 78
N 135
AQ
Y 226
N 406
Library
Y 138
N 295
MARCH 19
Surrey:
Y 24
N 61
Vancouver:
Y 18
N 43
Burnaby:
West Mall
Y 60
N 112
AQ
Y 216
N 470
Library
Y 115
N 276
MARCH 20
Surrey:
Y 36
N 78
Vancouver:
Y 30
N 46
Burnaby:
West Mall
Y 61
N 106
AQ
Y 220
N 450
Library
Y 135
N 251
TOTALS:
Surrey:
Y 112
N 288
Vancouver:
Y 101
N 139
Burnaby:
Y 1249
N 2501
ALL CAMPUSES
Y 1462
N 2928
I don't want to give the exact percentage, because I don't have the numbers for the spoiled/blank and mail-in ballots, but it's around 66%.
SFU Says NO to CFS (Again)
Early this morning, Amy Fox, External Relations Officer for the SFSS, announced that for a second year in a row SFU students have voted to leave the Canadian Federation of Students.
Referendum Question:
Are you in favour of maintaining membership in the Canadian Federation of Students?
Results (as unofficially posted on Facebook):
NO 2948 (67%)
YES 1452 (33%)
[edit 3:35 am: at this hour, the Independent Electoral Commission is reporting NO (66%) and YES (32%) on their website.]
Voter Turnout: approx. 19%
Referendum Question:
Are you in favour of maintaining membership in the Canadian Federation of Students?
Results (as unofficially posted on Facebook):
NO 2948 (67%)
YES 1452 (33%)
[edit 3:35 am: at this hour, the Independent Electoral Commission is reporting NO (66%) and YES (32%) on their website.]
Voter Turnout: approx. 19%
UVIC Grad Students Vote NO to CFS
The Martlet, UVIC's student newspaper is reporting that UVIC's grad students have voted to leave the Canadian Federation of Students. Fifty-eight percent of voters voted against maintaining CFS membership.
[update 11:45 am: here's the breakdown...
No: 260
Yes: 192
Spoiled: 5
[update 11:45 am: here's the breakdown...
No: 260
Yes: 192
Spoiled: 5
(Quorum was 125 votes)]
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Record Turnout
I've heard that yesterday's voter turnout was a record for a non-upass referendum. You can still vote in both the referenda and elections today and tomorrow from 9:30 am to 7:30 pm.
Voting stations will be set up in the AQ, WMX, and Library as well as the lobbies of the Harbour Centre and Surrey campuses.
Both undergraduate and graduate students can vote. Remember to bring your student card.
Voting stations will be set up in the AQ, WMX, and Library as well as the lobbies of the Harbour Centre and Surrey campuses.
Both undergraduate and graduate students can vote. Remember to bring your student card.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Patrick's Picks
Unfortunately, I'm ineligible to vote because I'm not taking any courses at SFU this semester. However...here's how I'd vote if I could vote:
President: Xenia Menzies
Treasurer: Anna Belkine
Member Services Officer: Michael VandenAkker
External Relations Officer: Meagan Thomas
Internal Relations Officer: Haida Arsenault-Antolick
University Relations Officer: Ryan Daw
Members at Large: Jonathan Brockman, John Morrison III
Referendum Questions:
1. Are you in favour of maintaining membership in the Canadian Federation of Students? NO.
2. If the Simon Fraser Student Society ceases to be a member of the Canadian Federation of Students, do you agree that the former CFS membership fees of $7.64 per semester for full time students and $3.82 for part-time students should be redirected into a Society Development Fund which will result in no overall fee increase for students?” YES.
3. Do you support the amendment of By-Law 14 (17) as written?
By-Law 14 (17)
a. If only one valid nomination is received for a particular office, the Independent Electoral Commission will conduct an election in which the nominated candidate will face a “yes/no” election.
b. If a candidate fails to receive a majority of “yes” votes, then the contested position will remain vacant.
YES.
4. Do you support the creation of By-Law 22 as written and the corresponding changes to By-Law 17(3)? YES.
5. Are you in favour of the SFSS developing an extended health and dental plan for undergraduate students? YES.
President: Xenia Menzies
Treasurer: Anna Belkine
Member Services Officer: Michael VandenAkker
External Relations Officer: Meagan Thomas
Internal Relations Officer: Haida Arsenault-Antolick
University Relations Officer: Ryan Daw
Members at Large: Jonathan Brockman, John Morrison III
Referendum Questions:
1. Are you in favour of maintaining membership in the Canadian Federation of Students? NO.
2. If the Simon Fraser Student Society ceases to be a member of the Canadian Federation of Students, do you agree that the former CFS membership fees of $7.64 per semester for full time students and $3.82 for part-time students should be redirected into a Society Development Fund which will result in no overall fee increase for students?” YES.
3. Do you support the amendment of By-Law 14 (17) as written?
By-Law 14 (17)
a. If only one valid nomination is received for a particular office, the Independent Electoral Commission will conduct an election in which the nominated candidate will face a “yes/no” election.
b. If a candidate fails to receive a majority of “yes” votes, then the contested position will remain vacant.
YES.
4. Do you support the creation of By-Law 22 as written and the corresponding changes to By-Law 17(3)? YES.
5. Are you in favour of the SFSS developing an extended health and dental plan for undergraduate students? YES.
Vote!
It's time to vote!
Voting will take place on March 18, 19, and 20 from 9:30 am to 7:30 pm every day.
Voting stations will be set up in the AQ, WMX, and Library as well as the lobbies of the Harbour Centre and Surrey campuses.
Both undergraduate and graduate students can vote. Remember to bring your student card.
Voting will take place on March 18, 19, and 20 from 9:30 am to 7:30 pm every day.
Voting stations will be set up in the AQ, WMX, and Library as well as the lobbies of the Harbour Centre and Surrey campuses.
Both undergraduate and graduate students can vote. Remember to bring your student card.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Poor Judgment or Impaired Judgment?
Although Paling has now apparently taken full responsibility and apologized for his actions, it seems too little, too late. [for background, see Paling Assaults Menzies, Harasses Others]
His initial response during the presidential debate was glib and offensive, given the nature of his actions. The notion that his actions on March 7 occurred within the confines of his personal life is ridiculous. An altercation in a public place with his presidential rival in the middle of an election campaign most certainly falls within the public realm. I found it incredible that Paling apparently did not recognize that as a candidate or in fact, as the sitting SFSS Member Services Officer, he is under increased scrutiny and should expect to be held accountable for his actions even during his leisure time. As with any public figure, his actions on or off the campaign trail, on or off campus reflect on his judgment, values, and integrity.
I'm not suggesting that candidates should be expected to be perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, including myself. However, I find it disturbing that the March 7 incident does not seem to be an isolated occurrence. The Independent Electoral Commission ruling mentions "several instances" of inappropriate behaviour. Paling's apology letter implies that his actions in at least some of these incidents were due to his alcohol consumption. Paling's promise to abstain from alcohol and seek professional help is commendable. Nevertheless, whether his actions were due to poor judgment or impaired judgment, there are serious questions about his ability to fulfill the role of president.
--Patrick
His initial response during the presidential debate was glib and offensive, given the nature of his actions. The notion that his actions on March 7 occurred within the confines of his personal life is ridiculous. An altercation in a public place with his presidential rival in the middle of an election campaign most certainly falls within the public realm. I found it incredible that Paling apparently did not recognize that as a candidate or in fact, as the sitting SFSS Member Services Officer, he is under increased scrutiny and should expect to be held accountable for his actions even during his leisure time. As with any public figure, his actions on or off the campaign trail, on or off campus reflect on his judgment, values, and integrity.
I'm not suggesting that candidates should be expected to be perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, including myself. However, I find it disturbing that the March 7 incident does not seem to be an isolated occurrence. The Independent Electoral Commission ruling mentions "several instances" of inappropriate behaviour. Paling's apology letter implies that his actions in at least some of these incidents were due to his alcohol consumption. Paling's promise to abstain from alcohol and seek professional help is commendable. Nevertheless, whether his actions were due to poor judgment or impaired judgment, there are serious questions about his ability to fulfill the role of president.
--Patrick
Paling Assaults Menzies, Harasses Others
According to statements made by Xenia Menzies, Joe Paling, and the Chief Electoral Officer, SFSS presidential candidates Joe Paling and Xenia Menzies engaged in an argument at the SFU pub on Friday, March 7, 2008, in which Paling assaulted Menzies. Menzies has stated that Paling grabbed her and attempted to lift up her shirt.
When asked about the incident (by Menzies) during the Presidential debate, Paling accused Menzies of inciting the assault. Paling apparently regarded the incident as a personal matter and suggested that as such, he should not be held publicly accountable.
"I would like people to consider that if you're going to hold politicians accountable for everything they do in their personal lives, you would not have great leaders like Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Boris Yeltsin," Paling stated.
However, since the debate, Paling has been issued a warning from the Independent Electoral Commission and ordered to issue a written apology to Menzies and three other female candidates, Stephanie Hendy, Natalie Bocking, and Aman Bains. Hendy, Bocking, and Bains officially filed complaints of sexual harassment against Paling regarding other incidents.
In his letter of apology, Paling does not dispute the allegations and now takes full responsibility for his actions. He also promises to abstain from social alcohol consumption for a year and to seek counseling and medical advice on giving up alcohol.
See also Poor Judgment or Impaired Judgment.
--Patrick
When asked about the incident (by Menzies) during the Presidential debate, Paling accused Menzies of inciting the assault. Paling apparently regarded the incident as a personal matter and suggested that as such, he should not be held publicly accountable.
"I would like people to consider that if you're going to hold politicians accountable for everything they do in their personal lives, you would not have great leaders like Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Boris Yeltsin," Paling stated.
However, since the debate, Paling has been issued a warning from the Independent Electoral Commission and ordered to issue a written apology to Menzies and three other female candidates, Stephanie Hendy, Natalie Bocking, and Aman Bains. Hendy, Bocking, and Bains officially filed complaints of sexual harassment against Paling regarding other incidents.
In his letter of apology, Paling does not dispute the allegations and now takes full responsibility for his actions. He also promises to abstain from social alcohol consumption for a year and to seek counseling and medical advice on giving up alcohol.
See also Poor Judgment or Impaired Judgment.
--Patrick
Thursday, March 13, 2008
SFU VFM So Far
Since Maayan from UBC Insiders reviewed the SFU VFM contest last week, I thought it was about time I offered my perspective as an SFU VFM contestant. For the record, I agree with Maayan's assessment of the contest at SFU. This post may also be timely given Mark Latham's recent proposal to turn UBC's VFM contest into a similar year-round, month-by-month design.
Instant Blog was created to be our entry into the SFU VFM contest. You may have noticed that although VFM is intended to better inform voters, there isn't a lot information being published by the SFU VFM blogs. This might be surprising to some people, especially since the SFSS elections are only five days away. From the perspective of a contestant though, it's not at all surprising.
For the most part, there is a lack of quality content being published. Why? It's simple - you don't need content to win. February's first place winner had one post for the entire month. sfuvfm.blogspot.com has never posted any content, yet has won a total of $70 over two months. What incentive is there to post content, when it has so little to do with reward outcomes?
Right now, rewards are based on ratings from voters, but these ratings (at the moment) are not a particularly good measure of performance. There are so few voters (perhaps because there is little content) that the voting process has been reduced to seeing which contestant can get more of their friends voting for them. As of February 23, 2008, there were only 66 registered voters. By my estimate, 47% of those registered voters are my friends. Without objective voters, ratings will likely not reflect the quality of contestants.
So far it seems that the contest has relied on contestants to promote their blogs and attract new voters. However, judging by the number of registered voters, I think most contestants feel it's more trouble than it's worth to promote beyond their circle of friends. Even within friends and classmates, it's difficult to get the vote out month after month. Despite personally knowing nearly half of all registered voters, I was unable to get enough of them to participate beyond a single month. This was partly because for the most part I didn't try to get them to vote again. I was basically unwilling to spam them with monthly requests to vote in the contest. At least in the short-term, I think the contest needs to move away from relying on contestants to bring in voters.
Overall, contestants are being rewarded for poor performance, there aren't enough voters to make the rating system effective, and contestants are either unable or unwilling to attract more voters. Without much content to attract new objective voters, I think there needs to be a separate incentive for voters. I suggest eliminating the fifth place prize (there are only four active contestants anyway) and redirecting that money towards a prize draw for voters. After rating the contestants, voters can be entered into a fabulous prize draw.
I know it's still early days for the contest, but I thought I should offer my two cents so far.
Instant Blog was created to be our entry into the SFU VFM contest. You may have noticed that although VFM is intended to better inform voters, there isn't a lot information being published by the SFU VFM blogs. This might be surprising to some people, especially since the SFSS elections are only five days away. From the perspective of a contestant though, it's not at all surprising.
For the most part, there is a lack of quality content being published. Why? It's simple - you don't need content to win. February's first place winner had one post for the entire month. sfuvfm.blogspot.com has never posted any content, yet has won a total of $70 over two months. What incentive is there to post content, when it has so little to do with reward outcomes?
Right now, rewards are based on ratings from voters, but these ratings (at the moment) are not a particularly good measure of performance. There are so few voters (perhaps because there is little content) that the voting process has been reduced to seeing which contestant can get more of their friends voting for them. As of February 23, 2008, there were only 66 registered voters. By my estimate, 47% of those registered voters are my friends. Without objective voters, ratings will likely not reflect the quality of contestants.
So far it seems that the contest has relied on contestants to promote their blogs and attract new voters. However, judging by the number of registered voters, I think most contestants feel it's more trouble than it's worth to promote beyond their circle of friends. Even within friends and classmates, it's difficult to get the vote out month after month. Despite personally knowing nearly half of all registered voters, I was unable to get enough of them to participate beyond a single month. This was partly because for the most part I didn't try to get them to vote again. I was basically unwilling to spam them with monthly requests to vote in the contest. At least in the short-term, I think the contest needs to move away from relying on contestants to bring in voters.
Overall, contestants are being rewarded for poor performance, there aren't enough voters to make the rating system effective, and contestants are either unable or unwilling to attract more voters. Without much content to attract new objective voters, I think there needs to be a separate incentive for voters. I suggest eliminating the fifth place prize (there are only four active contestants anyway) and redirecting that money towards a prize draw for voters. After rating the contestants, voters can be entered into a fabulous prize draw.
I know it's still early days for the contest, but I thought I should offer my two cents so far.
Monday, March 10, 2008
First Round of Candidate Debates
Video of the last week's debates between non-executive candidates can be watched here. Candidates running for executive positions will be debating tomorrow at 11 am at the Atrium Cafeteria in the Maggie Benston Centre (MBC).
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Candidates
The candidates running in the SFSS election are listed on the Independent Electoral Commission's website. Many of the candidates have profiles on the website as well.
Patrick
Patrick
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Fairly Coherent, Fairly Intelligent
It's come to my attention that people are actually reading this blog. In fact, two whole people have even taken time to comment on a couple of our blog entries. This is indeed exciting news as it confirms that we have at least five readers! Amy and Maayan, thanks for your comments.
I think we can all agree that Instant Blog has had remarkable success for a blog that was created in 30 seconds. Even our competitors have high praise for Instant Blog:
Nevertheless, the real proof is in how VFM voters have cast their ballots. Instant Blog finished in first place in January and now has won a very solid second place in February's contest. Thank you to all our supporters!!! We love you!
Congratulations to all the other winners and competitors.
And in case you were wondering...yes, we're competing again in March's contest.
Patrick
PS. Although I think Johnny may be accurately described as a "number geek", I'm much much more of a Star Trek geek than any other breed of geek.
I think we can all agree that Instant Blog has had remarkable success for a blog that was created in 30 seconds. Even our competitors have high praise for Instant Blog:
"Kudos for the Instant Blog in getting up and running and having some good content right away"
says Xenia Menzies of SFU Politics (also SFSS Presidential candidate)
says Xenia Menzies of SFU Politics (also SFSS Presidential candidate)
Elise Ikoma of SFU: Food for Thought exclaims,
"a fairly coherent and promising blog...run by what seem to be two fairly intelligent number geeks"
"a fairly coherent and promising blog...run by what seem to be two fairly intelligent number geeks"
Nevertheless, the real proof is in how VFM voters have cast their ballots. Instant Blog finished in first place in January and now has won a very solid second place in February's contest. Thank you to all our supporters!!! We love you!
Congratulations to all the other winners and competitors.
And in case you were wondering...yes, we're competing again in March's contest.
Patrick
PS. Although I think Johnny may be accurately described as a "number geek", I'm much much more of a Star Trek geek than any other breed of geek.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Honk if you love chocolate
While browsing the official Facebook Group for Jono Brockman, Member at Large candidate in the upcoming SFSS election, I came upon this choice paragraph:
The price of chocolate bars has become an issue? Granted, it was last in a series of election promises, but, come on, chocolate bars? Seriously?
And it's not just Brockman that's concerned about the rising price of campus confectioneries. Jason Town, SFSS presidential candidate, has also made a promise to put an end to the rising cost oftuition chocolate. From his Facebook group:
Two thoughts:
p.s. It's the second-to-last day to vote for us in the VFM contest, so please vote if you haven't already!
"And finally, to address the concerns of the chocolate lovers out there, I feel your pain when I see those bars go up to $1.50 a piece, outrageous! As your Member at Large I will ensure that the SFSS explores the possibility of buying chocolate in bulk and selling it ourselves at a reduced rate, forcing those vending machines to drop their prices or go out of business!"Whaaaaaaa!?
The price of chocolate bars has become an issue? Granted, it was last in a series of election promises, but, come on, chocolate bars? Seriously?
And it's not just Brockman that's concerned about the rising price of campus confectioneries. Jason Town, SFSS presidential candidate, has also made a promise to put an end to the rising cost of
"8. Reduce the price of chocolate bars and other food in vending machines*sigh*
a. Establish SFSS vending machines at reduced prices
i. Preferably with ‘healthy’ options: ie. granola bars, etc."
Two thoughts:
- Is it the role of a student society to supply the student body with cheap snacks?
- Should we trust the student society with yet another business venture?
p.s. It's the second-to-last day to vote for us in the VFM contest, so please vote if you haven't already!
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Third Time The Charm? Menzies In The Race
Well I didn't say it Thursday night, but it's now official so here's the news: Xenia Menzies will be running for SFSS President.
On her campaign blog called "Xenia Menzies for President", Xenia explains that although she had decided last week not to run, she has now changed her mind. On the blog, she answers several questions about her reasons for running, her platform, and her qualifications. Throughout her answers, Xenia reiterates that her love for SFU is her strongest motivation for running. Having run unsuccessfully for the presidency twice before, this will be her third attempt at winning the office.
For now, I'll let you take a look at her campaign blog yourself.
Patrick
On her campaign blog called "Xenia Menzies for President", Xenia explains that although she had decided last week not to run, she has now changed her mind. On the blog, she answers several questions about her reasons for running, her platform, and her qualifications. Throughout her answers, Xenia reiterates that her love for SFU is her strongest motivation for running. Having run unsuccessfully for the presidency twice before, this will be her third attempt at winning the office.
For now, I'll let you take a look at her campaign blog yourself.
Patrick
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Privacy Concerns Killed This Blog Entry
Last week, I reported that Xenia Menzies had decided not to run in the upcoming SFSS elections. That post was based on information posted by Xenia herself in a Facebook group open to anyone on the Simon Fraser network, including students, staff, faculty, and alumni. I used that information because I considered it public information. Furthermore, I felt that the intent of Xenia's post was that of a public announcement.
A quick Google search reveals a number of articles, including one from UBC, on privacy issues surrounding journalists using Facebook for information. Where is the line drawn between public and private information on Facebook? There's no simple answer, we're all making up the rules as we go along.
A few minutes ago, I was going to write another post based on other information I recently obtained through Facebook. However, this time the information was published as someone's status. Public? Private? To maintain the person's privacy, I've decided against publishing the information here. It would have been a great blog entry though.
Patrick
P.S. please vote for us in the VFM contest.
Photos:
"Construction Sign" by BitBoy
used under Creative Commons Attribution license.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Semester in Dialogue Deadline & Event
I heart Semester in Dialogue. As such, I alert you to the following (1) approaching deadline and (2) upcoming event:
1. Are you an undergraduate at SFU looking for an exciting and innovative way to learn? Are you interested in learning with students in departments outside your own? Apply now for the fall 2008 semester.:
Full-time, 15 Credits (DIAL 390W, 391W, 392W)
Application Deadline: 29 February 2008
Canadians identify health care as a core value, but the practical realities of delivering care are overwhelming our compassion. This course will consider the nature of health itself, and will explore the complexities of a health care system that corresponds with our values and ethics while being effective and financially stable. Three related themes will serve as a substrate for the semester: the nature of health, delivery of health care, and populations at risk. Issues such as how health and illness are defined, the roles of preventative and curative approaches, and the impacts and ethics of new technologies will be addressed. We will compare public and private models, focus on community health care as a developing new paradigm, and examine the particular challenges of marginalized and vulnerable communities.
For further information visit our web site www.sfu.ca/dialogue/undergrad
1. Are you an undergraduate at SFU looking for an exciting and innovative way to learn? Are you interested in learning with students in departments outside your own? Apply now for the fall 2008 semester.:
Health, Issues and Ethics Fall 2008
Full-time, 15 Credits (DIAL 390W, 391W, 392W)
Application Deadline: 29 February 2008
Canadians identify health care as a core value, but the practical realities of delivering care are overwhelming our compassion. This course will consider the nature of health itself, and will explore the complexities of a health care system that corresponds with our values and ethics while being effective and financially stable. Three related themes will serve as a substrate for the semester: the nature of health, delivery of health care, and populations at risk. Issues such as how health and illness are defined, the roles of preventative and curative approaches, and the impacts and ethics of new technologies will be addressed. We will compare public and private models, focus on community health care as a developing new paradigm, and examine the particular challenges of marginalized and vulnerable communities.
For further information visit our web site www.sfu.ca/dialogue/undergrad
Or contact Mark Winston, Semester in Dialogue (778 782 7894, winston@sfu.ca)
2. imagi-Nation - click image to enlarge. More info/register: http://www.sfu.ca/dialogue/undergrad/imagi-nation.htm
Registration deadline is Friday, February 22. If you miss the deadline and are still interested in attending, I recommend calling the event number on the poster below to see whether they can squeeze you in.
2. imagi-Nation - click image to enlarge. More info/register: http://www.sfu.ca/dialogue/undergrad/imagi-nation.htm
Registration deadline is Friday, February 22. If you miss the deadline and are still interested in attending, I recommend calling the event number on the poster below to see whether they can squeeze you in.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Xenia Menzies Not Running
Sixteen days after launching her SFSS Presidential Exploratory Committee to gather feedback from friends and colleagues, Xenia Menzies announced that she would not be running in this year's SFSS elections.
Xenia made the announcement on Facebook on Monday, February 11. Gradually, news of her decision spread around the globe as her friends and supporters checked for new status updates. Yes, SFU politics are dramatic like that.
Xenia's decision apparently came after much thought and discussion with those around her. I must admit, I was surprised when Xenia asked me for my opinion on the matter a couple weeks ago. Although we've been in the same class and we seem to run into each other with increasing frequency at events around town, we don't know each other well. Maybe she was looking for an objective opinion. At any rate, I noted that she did quite well last year considering she was out of the country on exchange during the campaign. My advice was for her to take a Trudeau-esque "long walk in the snow" to sort things out.
It snowed. Did she take that walk? I don't know. But I do know that according to her message to the Exploratory Committee, she's ready to move on (after previously serving as Business Rep and twice unsuccessfully running for President) and feels that she can give just as much back to the SFU community as an alumnus as she could if she were in student government.
Although she feels the SFSS should be more efficient, less bureaucratic, and more transparent, she believes other candidates could do just as well as she could in bringing about those changes. In her announcement, Xenia was critical of the past two SFSS Presidents for being too far removed from the average student. Apparently concerned that further extending her time at SFU would too remove her from the average student, she decided against running again.
In my experience, Xenia is a great person. I like her. However, in the spirit of competition, I must point out that thanks to our crackerjack team of reporters, Instant Blog is the first VFM blog to break this story, even before Xenia's own VFM blog. Nevertheless, now that she's decided not to run, I have no doubt we'll be reading her take on the elections soon enough.
Patrick
Photos:
"No Running With Fish" by Tristram Brelstaff
"Footsteps" by John Haslam
Both photos used under Creative Commons Attribution license.
------------------
If you're from SFU and found the info on Instant Blog helpful, please take a minute to vote for us.
Xenia made the announcement on Facebook on Monday, February 11. Gradually, news of her decision spread around the globe as her friends and supporters checked for new status updates. Yes, SFU politics are dramatic like that.
Xenia's decision apparently came after much thought and discussion with those around her. I must admit, I was surprised when Xenia asked me for my opinion on the matter a couple weeks ago. Although we've been in the same class and we seem to run into each other with increasing frequency at events around town, we don't know each other well. Maybe she was looking for an objective opinion. At any rate, I noted that she did quite well last year considering she was out of the country on exchange during the campaign. My advice was for her to take a Trudeau-esque "long walk in the snow" to sort things out.
It snowed. Did she take that walk? I don't know. But I do know that according to her message to the Exploratory Committee, she's ready to move on (after previously serving as Business Rep and twice unsuccessfully running for President) and feels that she can give just as much back to the SFU community as an alumnus as she could if she were in student government.
Although she feels the SFSS should be more efficient, less bureaucratic, and more transparent, she believes other candidates could do just as well as she could in bringing about those changes. In her announcement, Xenia was critical of the past two SFSS Presidents for being too far removed from the average student. Apparently concerned that further extending her time at SFU would too remove her from the average student, she decided against running again.
In my experience, Xenia is a great person. I like her. However, in the spirit of competition, I must point out that thanks to our crackerjack team of reporters, Instant Blog is the first VFM blog to break this story, even before Xenia's own VFM blog. Nevertheless, now that she's decided not to run, I have no doubt we'll be reading her take on the elections soon enough.
Patrick
Photos:
"No Running With Fish" by Tristram Brelstaff
"Footsteps" by John Haslam
Both photos used under Creative Commons Attribution license.
------------------
If you're from SFU and found the info on Instant Blog helpful, please take a minute to vote for us.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Thank You!
We did it! Instant Blog claimed first place in January's Voter-Funded Media Contest. To all our supporters - thank you! We couldn't have done it without you...all 33 of you. Hmm...I suppose it's actually 31 when you subtract me and Johnny... at any rate, thanks and we hope you'll rate us well in February's contest.
Congrats also to our competitors in January's contest. CJSF claimed 2nd place, SFU Politics took 3rd, and SFU VFM came in 4th. I think Bradley of SFU VFM deserves special congratulations for winning the 4th prize, considering he had absolutely no blog entries on his blog. That's an impressive ROI if I ever did see one.
Special thanks also to Mark Latham for organizing these monthly VFM contests.
Patrick
Congrats also to our competitors in January's contest. CJSF claimed 2nd place, SFU Politics took 3rd, and SFU VFM came in 4th. I think Bradley of SFU VFM deserves special congratulations for winning the 4th prize, considering he had absolutely no blog entries on his blog. That's an impressive ROI if I ever did see one.
Special thanks also to Mark Latham for organizing these monthly VFM contests.
Patrick
Friday, January 25, 2008
Hidden Gem: Semester in Dialogue
The Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue is truly one of the jewels amongst SFU's undergrad course offerings. Unfortunately, I believe it's also one of SFU's best kept secrets."The Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue addresses what we believe is the principal challenge for contemporary education: to inspire students with a sense of civic responsibility, encourage their passion to improve Canadian society, and develop innovative intellectual tools for effective problem solving. Each semester we develop an original and intensive learning experience that uses dialogue to focus student education on public issues." [excerpt from the Semester in Dialogue website]
I participated in the Semester in Dialogue one year ago in Spring 2007 and it was one of the highlights of my undergraduate experience. The Semester in Dialogue is exactly that - an experience. In a nutshell, the Semester in Dialogue brings together about twenty students from multiple faculties and departments, puts them in a room with community leaders, and unleashes them to explore broad public issues together.
The experience is not unlike a reality TV series. Take twenty strangers thrown together in one room for six hours a day, five days a week over thirteen weeks. Mix in a few unconventional individual and team challenges (assignments), some emotional personal reflections, and a few tears (I'm not kidding) and you've got the Semester in Dialogue. It is certainly an intense experience.
Each semester there is a central topic that is studied for the entire semester (the Semester in Dialogue is 10-15 credits, so students don't take any other courses while in the program). The semester I took it, the topic was the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Accordingly, we took field trips to various 2010 venues and host communities, including Whistler, Cypress Mountain, Richmond, and False Creek. Our assignments were grounded in real world applications, from organizing and facilitating a community dialogue to writing op-eds for newspapers.The Semester in Dialogue is amazing and is something that is better lived than explained in words. I felt that by connecting my schoolwork to the community, the program reconnected me to my reason for learning. The program succeeds because it gives students the freedom to be creative and inquisitive. It engages them as citizens rather than as students. It challenges them to exceed expectations.
The application deadline for the next two Semesters in Dialogue are coming up:
Summer 2008: "Being About Action: Housing"
Summer Institute in Dialogue, 10 credits (DIAL 390W, 391W)
Application deadline: 15 February, 2008
Fall 2008: "Health, Issues and Ethics"
Full-time, 15 Credits (DIAL 390W, 391W, 392W)
Application deadline: 29 February 2008
For more information, visit the Undergraduate Semester in Dialogue website. I highly recommend it!
Patrick
------------------
If you're from SFU and found the info on Instant Blog helpful, please take a minute to vote for us.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Is the new GSS part of the CFS?
As you probably know, the graduate students have opted to leave the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS) to form their own Graduate Student Society (GSS). The new GSS will be fully operational this May.
On a possible related note, the Spring's SFSS elections will (hopefully) determine whether or not the SFSS is granted a divorce from the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS). I'll discuss the CFS in detail some point in the near future, but for now the latest required reading on the matter may be found here.
There's one big question I have for the GSS: what legal baggage do you carry over from the SFSS? In particular, is the GSS legally a member of the CFS?
There doesn't seem to be anyone speaking about it (at least, my Google searches have not dug up anything) which is strange given the importance of the matter. I've e-mailed for the GSS and the CFS to see if I can get some comment on the matter, and will report back as soon as I get answers. Look ma, mild investigative journalism!
p.s. I'm the other guy running this blog, John LaRusic. I'm a graduate student at SFU Surrey working towards an MSc in Mathematics. My favourite thing to do is watch results during an election night, and my biggest pet peeve is people who crack their knuckles. Hi!
p.p.s. As Patrick likes to remind you, vote for us!
On a possible related note, the Spring's SFSS elections will (hopefully) determine whether or not the SFSS is granted a divorce from the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS). I'll discuss the CFS in detail some point in the near future, but for now the latest required reading on the matter may be found here.
There's one big question I have for the GSS: what legal baggage do you carry over from the SFSS? In particular, is the GSS legally a member of the CFS?
There doesn't seem to be anyone speaking about it (at least, my Google searches have not dug up anything) which is strange given the importance of the matter. I've e-mailed for the GSS and the CFS to see if I can get some comment on the matter, and will report back as soon as I get answers. Look ma, mild investigative journalism!
p.s. I'm the other guy running this blog, John LaRusic. I'm a graduate student at SFU Surrey working towards an MSc in Mathematics. My favourite thing to do is watch results during an election night, and my biggest pet peeve is people who crack their knuckles. Hi!
p.p.s. As Patrick likes to remind you, vote for us!
Consultations on Student Space Renovations
Does the dirty, old carpet in the Rotunda make you cringe?
Do you lament the lack of electrical outlets for laptops around campus?
Have you ever walked through the Atrium Cafeteria and thought, "This place could use a little touch of fabulous?"
Well now you can have your say at three open consultations organized by the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS). The SFSS plans to renovate Forum Chambers (downstairs from Higher Grounds in MBC), the Atrium Cafeteria (in MBC), and the Rotunda (the seating/locker area between Out On Campus and the Women's Centre). Students are invited to attend the consultations to share what they want the renovated spaces to look like. Students may drop-in anytime during the three-hour meetings.
Consultations:
Forum Chambers (off of Convo Mall, under Higher Grounds, next to The Peak.)
between 12-3pm, Thursday January 24th
with Free Food for participants.
Atrium Cafeteria (2nd floor of the MBC, past The Ladle and Mr Sub)
between 12-3pm, Thursday January 31st
with Free Food for participants.
The Rotunda (in the middle of P!RG, Out On Campus, the Women's Centre,
and above CJSF)
between 12-3pm, Thursday February 7th
with free Food for participants.
Patrick
------------------
If you're from SFU and found the info on Instant Blog helpful, please take a minute to vote for us. We're competing with other blogs in the Voter-Funded Media Contest. The contest aims to better inform the SFU community, particularly about issues being decided by vote.
Do you lament the lack of electrical outlets for laptops around campus?
Have you ever walked through the Atrium Cafeteria and thought, "This place could use a little touch of fabulous?"
Well now you can have your say at three open consultations organized by the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS). The SFSS plans to renovate Forum Chambers (downstairs from Higher Grounds in MBC), the Atrium Cafeteria (in MBC), and the Rotunda (the seating/locker area between Out On Campus and the Women's Centre). Students are invited to attend the consultations to share what they want the renovated spaces to look like. Students may drop-in anytime during the three-hour meetings.
Consultations:
Forum Chambers (off of Convo Mall, under Higher Grounds, next to The Peak.)
between 12-3pm, Thursday January 24th
with Free Food for participants.
Atrium Cafeteria (2nd floor of the MBC, past The Ladle and Mr Sub)
between 12-3pm, Thursday January 31st
with Free Food for participants.
The Rotunda (in the middle of P!RG, Out On Campus, the Women's Centre,
and above CJSF)
between 12-3pm, Thursday February 7th
with free Food for participants.
Patrick
------------------
If you're from SFU and found the info on Instant Blog helpful, please take a minute to vote for us. We're competing with other blogs in the Voter-Funded Media Contest. The contest aims to better inform the SFU community, particularly about issues being decided by vote.
Business Admin Student Society Elections
The nomination process for the Business Administration Student Society (BASS) elections has now started up. Candidate applications are due at 11:55 pm on Monday, February 4, 2008. The elections will be held during the week of February 11 to 15, 2008.
The following positions are open:
1. President
2. VP Internal
3. VP External
4. VP Finance
5. VP Events
6. VP Communications
7. VP Administration
8. VP Student Issues
Unfortunately, I can't upload the candidate application form here. However, if you're interested in running for a position or simply learning more about the BASS elections, you may email Jennifer Jiang at yjj3 [at] sfu.ca.
Patrick
------------------
If you're from SFU and found the info on Instant Blog helpful, please take a minute to vote for us. We're competing with other blogs in the Voter-Funded Media Contest. The contest aims to better inform the SFU community, particularly about issues being decided by vote.
The following positions are open:
1. President
2. VP Internal
3. VP External
4. VP Finance
5. VP Events
6. VP Communications
7. VP Administration
8. VP Student Issues
Unfortunately, I can't upload the candidate application form here. However, if you're interested in running for a position or simply learning more about the BASS elections, you may email Jennifer Jiang at yjj3 [at] sfu.ca.
Patrick
------------------
If you're from SFU and found the info on Instant Blog helpful, please take a minute to vote for us. We're competing with other blogs in the Voter-Funded Media Contest. The contest aims to better inform the SFU community, particularly about issues being decided by vote.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
2008 SFSS Elections Announced
Yes, it's that time of year again. Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS) elections are less than two months away. SFU undergrads (or more realistically, about 5% of them) will be heading to the polls on March 18, 19, and 20.
Students will be electing six executive officers (President, External Relations Officer, Internal Relations Officer, Treasurer, University Relations Officer, and Member Services Officer) and eight representatives to the Board of Directors (six faculty reps and two members-at-large).
The campaign period runs from February 27 to March 17.
If you're interested in running in the election, nomination forms will be available starting February 11 and must be submitted by February 25. For details on how to run, see the Election FAQ put out by the SFSS Independent Electoral Commission.
Now that SFU's graduate students have separated from the SFSS and have formed their own Graduate Student Society (GSS), they hold their own elections. Elections for GSS President, Treasurer, and Secretary are expected to be held in March, although no details have been released on the GSS website yet.
Patrick
Students will be electing six executive officers (President, External Relations Officer, Internal Relations Officer, Treasurer, University Relations Officer, and Member Services Officer) and eight representatives to the Board of Directors (six faculty reps and two members-at-large).
The campaign period runs from February 27 to March 17.
If you're interested in running in the election, nomination forms will be available starting February 11 and must be submitted by February 25. For details on how to run, see the Election FAQ put out by the SFSS Independent Electoral Commission.
Now that SFU's graduate students have separated from the SFSS and have formed their own Graduate Student Society (GSS), they hold their own elections. Elections for GSS President, Treasurer, and Secretary are expected to be held in March, although no details have been released on the GSS website yet.
Patrick
Voter-Funded Media (VFM) Contest
We have officially entered the Voter-Funded Media (VFM) Contest at SFU for this month!
What does that mean? That means we are competing with three other blogs to provide information to the SFU community.
How does it work? Anyone with an SFU computing ID and password can rate each of the contestants on a scale of 0 (worst) to 10 (best). Raters may score the blogs according to any judging criteria they choose. The votes are tallied at the end of the month and prizes are awarded to the top 5 competitors.
So if you like Instant Blog, please take a moment to register as a voter and rate us!
For more information on the contest, click here.
Thanks for your support!
Patrick
What does that mean? That means we are competing with three other blogs to provide information to the SFU community.
How does it work? Anyone with an SFU computing ID and password can rate each of the contestants on a scale of 0 (worst) to 10 (best). Raters may score the blogs according to any judging criteria they choose. The votes are tallied at the end of the month and prizes are awarded to the top 5 competitors.
So if you like Instant Blog, please take a moment to register as a voter and rate us!
For more information on the contest, click here.
Thanks for your support!
Patrick
Monday, January 14, 2008
An Instant Blog for an Instant University
Welcome to our blog of SFU-related writings!
Hopefully you'll find what we have to say to be helpful, informative, and possibly entertaining. We're attempting to enter this blog into the Voter-Funded Media Contest at SFU. I'll give more details about the contest if we're accepted.
In the meantime, I'll briefly introduce myself. My name is Patrick Lee. I recently graduated from SFU with a Bachelor of Business Administration degree and a Certificate in Liberal Arts. My interests include sustainability and entrepreneurship, particularly where the two intersect. I enjoy karaoke, holding hands, and listening to Rufus Wainwright songs, though not necessarily simultaneously.
Patrick
Hopefully you'll find what we have to say to be helpful, informative, and possibly entertaining. We're attempting to enter this blog into the Voter-Funded Media Contest at SFU. I'll give more details about the contest if we're accepted.
In the meantime, I'll briefly introduce myself. My name is Patrick Lee. I recently graduated from SFU with a Bachelor of Business Administration degree and a Certificate in Liberal Arts. My interests include sustainability and entrepreneurship, particularly where the two intersect. I enjoy karaoke, holding hands, and listening to Rufus Wainwright songs, though not necessarily simultaneously.
Patrick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)