A clear democratic mandate

From last week's Peak:

“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 (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.

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.

-1

The results from the other four referendums are in, and all passed with comfortable margins:

• 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%)

I've already talked about Question #2 (disappointed, but the people have spoken, or at least the ones who like giving money away did). I'm "whatever"s about the other three passing.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

Fed Wars

"I am CFS-- Celebrity Style" is the best anti-CFS group on Facebook. Check out their Fed Wars video.

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.

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.

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

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

Second Round of Candidate Debates

All the candidate debates are online now.

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).

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

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:

"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 tuition chocolate. From his Facebook group:

"8. Reduce the price of chocolate bars and other food in vending machines
a. Establish SFSS vending machines at reduced prices
i. Preferably with ‘healthy’ options: ie. granola bars, etc."

*sigh*

Two thoughts:

1. Is it the role of a student society to supply the student body with cheap snacks?
   
2. Should we trust the student society with yet another business venture?

Perhaps chocolate bar profits could help subsidize the cost of running the student pub?

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!

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

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.

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