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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)