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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)