CCP’s Walking Tour UPDATED to include the UBC FARM!

Our recent article highlighting our concerns regarding the “Wesbrook Place Self-Guided Walking Tour” brochure published recently by the Campus and Community Planning department, pointed out that, in the first version of the document, the UBC Farm was not labeled properly on the accompanying map.

Campus and Community Planning (CCP) answered quickly through Tracy Bains, who created the map and the tour. She posted a comment on our news article committing to change the map to reflect our concerns about the UBC Farm. I suggested that CCP should alter the map to properly label the 24 hectare UBC Farm, to include the Farm on the tour, and to add the Farm web address for reference.

Today, Tracy Bains posted another comment to a link to the newly updated version of the ‘walking-tour’ which now includes an explanation about the current situation of the UBC Farm, and a link to their web address <http://www.planning.ubc.ca/news_events/whats_new/articles234.php>.

We were very happy to see that CCP quickly recognize this issue as something important and made the proper changes. We applaud their efforts, and thank Tracy for keeping an eye out for student concerns.

The new map labels the UBC Farm site as “a 24 ha area”, and explains that this area:

“includes the UBC Farm and is subject to approval of academic plan (underway through a separate process). No market housing to be pursued as long as the university’s housing, community development and endowment goals can be met through transferring density to other parts of campus. Current land uses remain until academic plan is complete and a decision has been reached on density transfer” (update on the Wesbrook Place Self-Guided Walking Tour map).

I believe that students who benefit from the relationships and studies they have been fostering at the UBC Farm would really like to see the UBC Farm become as conspicuously labeled as the Wesbrook Village is, and also more accessible. Right now, access to the Farm is hindered by a curb that has been built in front of the road that leads to the Farm.

CCP should think of ways to update the signage leading to the UBC Farm, especially at the mouth of the Wesbrook development, by the high-rises. In addition, there should be signs indicating how to get to the UBC Farm at least as far as University boulevard and Wesbrook, and throughout Marine Drive, and also for people who are coming from the Dunbar area. Improving the signage is a first step that would make a lot of difference to people who use the Farm, with the (very strong) potential of eventually reestablishing their faith on CCP processes.

Mundell Park @ Wesbrook Place – UBC Campus and Community Planning’s “future” for the UBC Farm??

UBC Campus and Community Planning has issued a publication entitled “Wesbrook Place Walking Tour” that features this map (above). “Mundell Park”, which does not exist yet, is placed right next to the UBC Farm, hidden from the map. This park, which does not yet exist, is not, to be clear, pasted on top of the UBC Farm, but very close to it. The document pretends the UBC Farm does not exist, which is an offense to the community and the spirit of the Great Farm Trek.

In addition, the MBA house, which caters exclusively for Sauder Master of Business Administration students is defined in the map as general “student housing”. What is entitiled as “family housing” in the map refers to a minimum investment of 1.4 million dollars. The UBC Farm is ignored in this map, and the people who take a ’self-guided walking tour’ are expected to go see the ‘granite terrace’ at the Save-on Foods compound instead of visiting the UBC Farm. Somehow, this is part of the UBC ’sustainability strategy’ !? How will this attempt to erase the UBC Farm be received by the UBC community and the Metro Vancouver region?

The UBC Student Media Collective is preparing a number of articles on this issue. We will consider all contributions – in case you feel like contributing to this issue,  write a comment with your email and we will contact you. We believe that now it is a very important time for people to express their opinions on this matter and to make them as visible as possible.

STUDENT RESISTANCE, the UBC FARM MOVEMENT and the UNDERGROUND BUS-LOOP FIASCO

In this article, I examine the failure of the underground bus-loop development project at UBC. This project was going to cost UBC around 40 million CAD, at a time that the university is being deeply affected by funding cuts to Arts students, the lack of childcare, and impending threats to the spatial integrity of the UBC Farm. According to the TREK 2010 principles, UBC should be striving to preserve green spaces, build childcare facilities and affordable housing. The current UBC administration, however, has been set on building high rise luxury market housing condos (see Frankish 2009), housing that caters strictly and exclusively for Master of Business Administration students in Sauder, parking lots, and hoping to get going with the underground bus-loop project, considered ‘wasteful and unnecessary’ by students, including the AMS council.

TransLink, which was UBC’s partner on the underground bus loop project, has recently announced that they cannot help UBC fund it. Jung (2009b), writing for the Ubyssey, quotes a TransLink media-relations representative, Ken Hardie, who stated that TransLink “will not be in a position to fund a share of that project”. The university blames TransLink and the Mayors council for this failure, not the mistake of carrying forward a project that was rejected by students as a terrible waste of money.

There is a wide range of opinions expressed on whether the student resistance has had any effect in the failure of the underground bus loop project. This article examines two opposite opinions expressed in this public debate – 1. ‘The student resistance has nothing to do with the failure of the underground bus loop’ (e.g., McElroy 2009, and Knight 2009); and 2. ‘If it were not for the student resistance, the underground bus loop would be under construction” (e.g., Morgan and Frederick). I present you an analysis of both sides in order to generate more discussion on this issue.

Anyone who researched the published opinions regarding the underground bus loop project would realize that it has been marked by sustained student resistance from its inception. In my experience, for instance, students were already resisting the underground bus loop project during the Spring of 2007, when I became involved in student politics as an Anthropology rep at the Graduate Student Society (GSS) council, as GSS rep at AMS Council, and later as a member of the Vancouver Campus Plan Steering Committee (chaired by Nancy Knight). At that time, students were circulating a petition that eventually brought to an end the shopping mall project that the Board of Governors and CCP had ‘envisioned’ for the University boulevard.

According to the Alma Mater Society president, Blake Frederick, UBC has “turned down [his] request for information so far” regarding the actual detailed expenses the project entailed (Jung 2008b). The lack of transparency and accountability, especially in the context of ’shady’ consultation and development projects (e.g., the underground bus-loop and the Wesbrook place), is a trademark of the current UBC administration. Blake Frederick’s position is that “a single dollar spent on the proposed underground bus loop was too much” because the whole thing had been “flawed from the beginning” (Jung 2008b). Nancy Knight, Campus and Community Planning (CCP) Vice-President, claims that UBC spent ‘only’ 400,000 CAD with this project. I wonder how many students per year we can fund with this kind of money.

Justin McElroy, writing for the Ubyssey (Oct., 29 2009), argues that student resistance to meaningless development has nothing to do with the extinction of the project, even though he is glad that it is not happening. For him, students are powerless, their resistance is futile, and the victory over the bus loop is simply ’symbolic’. McElroy (2009) argued, for instance, that

“before we pat ourselves too much on the back for [the failure of the bus loop project], let’s keep in mind that the project has been scrapped because TransLink doesn’t have the $10 million needed after a recession, and that changed governance and funding structures have made life difficult for them—not because anyone really cared what students thought” (McElroy 2009).

This opinion basically mirrors and legitimizes the administration’s position (i.e., Knight 2009), and is aimed at making sure students ‘realize’ they are powerless. Nancy Knight traces the cause for the failure of the bus loop project strictly to a decision made by the city Mayors Council “not to provide funding for capital projects”, and to their inability to “meet their side of the partnership” (Jung 2009b). This argument assumes that there is nothing particularly wrong with the underground bus loop. The bus loop, according to this view, just got sucked into the constrictions of a funding cut. Now, Nancy Knight explained “[w]e’ll have to go back and take a look at our options for completely [surface level] facilities” (Jung 2008b). In Knight’s view, there seems to be no reason to believe anything students ever said made a difference, which is the same as McElroy (2009) argued.

Others, like Andrea Morgan, Friends of the UBC Farm President, argue that if it were not for students, the project would still be moving along. For her, students were able to delay the project just enough to contribute for its failure (personal interview, Nov., 4 2009).

One factor that has been overlooked by those who believe that the student resistance made no difference is UBC’s reputation at the Metro Vancouver Council – a “developer” that causes “consternation” – to quote the words used by the councilor Cadman in 2008 (personal video). He referred to UBC as a ‘developer’ when supporters of the UBC Farm approached the Metro Vancouver Council to ask for a letter of support to preserve the UBC Farm in its “current size and location”. The Friends of the UBC Farm delegation received the city’s unanimous support. CCP director Joe Stott, present in the occasion, was invited to address the Metro Vancouver Council, and chose to remain silent.

It would be also reasonable to suggest that the failure of the underground bus loop is also connected to the consciousness raising effect of the Great Farm Trek (April 7th 2009), and to the amount of media coverage of the struggle to save the UBC Farm from a developer-dominated administration. It would have been indeed surprising if the Metro Vancouver city council, pressured by food security and climate change concerns, would fund a construction intensive project that sought to bring carbon-emitting diesel buses into an underground facility at the heart of campus. UBC’s sustainability strategy commits to reducing carbon emissions, not concentrating them.

President Toope, on a Board of Governors meeting I attended in the Spring of 2007, in order to justify his support for the underground bus loop project, referred to students as a “transient non-expert population”, and told the Board and those present that we should be relying in ‘experts’ instead, referring to the consultants favoring the project. Toope made this comment after the Board had been faced with the detailed objections brought to their attention by student representative Darren Peets (PhD). Peets has been one of the most prolific writers on issues like the underground bus loop development and the consultation process for the campus plan (e.g., Peets 2008a, Peets 2008b, Peets 2009). One factor was overlooked by the UBC president – still then telling the same story of how he got lost when he first arrived in his car and could not find the entrance of campus – it was simply that students are experts in being students! There were people on campus who had been around for much longer than Toope (e.g., Darren Peets, Frankish), and who perceived the contradictions between the Trek 2010 doctrine and UBC’s development practices through their first-hand experience, critical participation in public debate, and knowledge of community and development needs, campus life, being on campus, being a commuter, and on how the Trek 2010 ideology translates or not into practice. In addition, students would have been the main users of a facility they disapproved of and did not want to see. It is time to give students more credit for their ideas, so they can become catalysts for positive change, with more decision-making power on development issues.

REFERENCES

Frankish, Jim
2009    UBC Plans for the Affluent? In The Ubyssey, online, Oct. 15 2009.
http://ubyssey.ca/ideas/?p=8874
Jung, Samantha
2009 No underground bus loop? Flailing TransLink can’t meet financial                 requirements of partnership with UBC. In The Ubyssey, online, Oct. 29 2009             http://ubyssey.ca/news/?p=10705
Knight, Nancy
2009    Open Letter to the UBC Vancouver Community, Oct. 27.
McElroy, Justin
2009 Bus loop: a symbolic victory for students. In The Ubyssey, online, Oct. 29             2009. http://ubyssey.ca/news/?p=10710
Peets, Darren
2009    Planning the Unplannable. Alex Lougheed, ed.  In UBC Insiders, online,            Oct. 14, 2009. http://blogs.ubc.ca/ubcinsiders/2009/10/14/planning-the-unplannable/
2008a UBC Bus Terminal: Unresolved Problems. Aug. 1st 2008. Facebook note.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=21270402898
2008b Vancouver Campus Plan. October 17th 2008. Facebook note.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/note.php?note_id=31157542898

Anthropology Learning Community Series – Lecture Abstract

Rodrigo Ferrari Nunes, Master Student, Department of Anthropology, UBC
Friday, October 16th 2009 3:30-4:30pm, ANSO 205

PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND STUDENT DIRECTED SEMINARS: RE-CLAIMING EDUCATION AS A SPACE FOR ACTION

The Participatory Action paradigm for social justice based research calls for the inversion of ‘epistemic privilege’. The hierarchization of academic experience and achievement, and the division of students and scholars into different social ranks is based on a meritocratic notion of epistemic privilege. I consider how the principle of ‘epistemic privilege inversion’ can be practiced in the realm of higher education. I will be speaking about my personal experiences with activism at UBC, and the creation of an ongoing student directed seminar that looks at the university as a site of community building, local and global action. Anthropologists in training are embedded in ‘ranked’ hierarchical relations with other students (undergrads, master and PhD grads) and other scholars (PhD holders, post-docs, full professors, etc). They are also usually engaged with a single community, study area, and technical practice, and are largely alienated from the notion that the university itself is a community and a social system worth studying – this is highly contradictory. It either assumes scholars are working in a vacuum devoid of power relations or it is based on a strategic decision to turn off the critical mind when one’s ‘rank’ is at stake. We shall consider some of our own exceptions to this norm. We shall also explore the implications of an alternative approach to the current ‘do-as-told by your superior’ pedagogy that should allow students to engage  intellectually and directly with their own community and to claim their own education as a space for social justice action.

A BRIEF CRITIQUE OF THE UBC FARM MISSION STATEMENT

My objective in this commentary is to assess critically and analyze the UBC Farm Mission Statement proposed in the South Campus Academic Plan . This official development plan starts out already assuming that there is some single body of theory out there, that determines “sustainability theory and its applications” and that can be immediately operationalized at the Farm. We should question what they mean by “The UBC Farm and its surrounding areas on south campus” as examples of applications and explorations of such ‘ideology’. If we were to accept this statement, we would have to agree that the Wesbrook village development is an example of sustainability in action. It is a commercial centre with luxury high rises, that includes a ‘residence’ designed for Master of Business Administration (MBA) students specifically. This happens while the line-up for childcare on campus is over 3 years. Again, unpacking the vision of sustainability, and defining it with precision is the key for understanding how development works on campus. Luxury market housing development should not be taking precedence over development in other important areas such as childcare, student housing, and public sports facilities.

Another interesting feature of the UBC Farm Mission Statement text is how recruitment and industrial application are important ideological directives. The Farm is good because it ‘promotes’ UBC’s commitment to sustainability. There are well-funded programs that are on the other side of the spectrum, and that are left alone to flourish, such as mining engineering and wood materials processing. The Farm could become the type of laboratory that comes out with new patents, products and techniques that can be marketed by industries and thus help to change the world, at home and abroad.

The UBC Farm is given the general utopian task of ‘regenerating’ individuals, communities, forests and ecosystems, healthy soils and foods. Maybe the idea here is that the UBC Farm could become mobile, moving throughout the land and transforming landscapes according to sustainability principles as it goes, regenerating everything along the way. The wording here is, at the very least quite awkward, unless we can figure out how a place could be able to ‘regenerate healthy individuals and communities’. It sounds like the Farm is like a hospital where people go to be cured – metaphorically, it is already working. The UBC Farm has made a life changing effect in the lives of many individual students and community members along the years, precisely because it allows them to experience a place that is removed from the most common constrictions or urbanized areas. The only issue now is that Wesbrook village was erected right at the entrance of the Farm, to the disgust of pretty much every student who has ever worked at the UBC Farm.

We should also take issue with the idea that the Farm “advances sustainability literature in students, leaders, and decision makers”. Not only does this statement make an unnecessary distinction between students, leaders, and decision-makers, but it is also signals the existence of a highly hierarchical system that must be served by the UBC Farm. The statement leaves future student generations, local children, and the Musqueam out of the picture. We also see no mention of how the UBC Farm will engage with biotechnology, whether it will help in the production of transgenics or not. Will this live laboratory be promoting the type of sustainability that conforms to “agricultural neoliberalism” and free-trade agreements (Otero and Pechlaner 2008:1)? UBC’s new branding strategy does not mention that students came together in 1997 to oppose the APEC meeting that happened at the Museum of Anthropology, where heads of state met to set up neoliberal policies in Asia. The statement should also clarify whether the Farm will be used for the creation of new organisms for the sake of selling patents, and how much selling patents relates to the particular theory of sustainability they are promoting?

If the process of consultations continues as it has in the past, there will be a small window of opportunity available for public consultations. Whatever people say on those occasions is not automatically taken into consideration, but becomes bulk feedback that is later selected. One should wonder how much are they trying to promote consultations into this plan. All information should be made available to the UBC community, including working drafts. Transparency and accountability should be the most important directives of any consultation that leads to development on campus.

“The South Campus Academic Planning Committee will prepare an Academic Plan for South Campus focused upon the 24-ha area currently under the stewardship of the Centre for Sustainable Food Systems”

How are students involved in such a project and how much of the data gathered through the UBC Farm Vision, attended by students, community members, administrators and politicians, is being used as input on the plan being prepared? How transparent are the proceedings of this committee and what is its composition? It is important to note that the Farm, through this wording, does not deserve its own plan, but it is an internal issue of a larger and more important plan, focusing on South campus. It seems like campus is divided into zones simply for development purposes. They make it clear that the ‘area’ in question is “currently under the stewardship of the Centre for Sustainable Food Systems”. This is a key distinction. The wording makes the place an “area” that is currently managed by the Centre for Sustainable Food Systems, and not the Centre itself, also known as the UBC Farm. So, the 24 ha area is not the “UBC Farm”, it is just being managed by the Centre for Sustainable Food Systems, currently. Currently means this is certainly up for change. It would not be surprising if the administration found a large donor and named the place after that person once they develop a bunch of expensive structures in the area. Everyone would be in favor of infrastructural changes, and the UBC Farm Design Workshops were the perfect example of just that. We will see in the future how much of that vision will be realized in the future developments that will be falling over the UBC Farm.

Systemic Oppression in the AMS Council: the AMS Equity Program’s Struggle for Existence

During the last AMS council meeting, two weeks ago, funding for an assistant position in the equity office was denied. This caused an influx of equity supporters to attend the council meeting tonight, and to speak in favor of the program. They faced the surprisingly ill-informed objections raised by Mr. Bijan Ahmahdian, in his position of the ‘eyes-and-ears’ of the administration as BoG rep at the AMS Council. Bijan complained that he has not seen any reports with data and numbers showing how the equity program has progressed in the last year, and that is something he expected to see.

This new program, he argued, should be measuring the extent to which it has affected students in order to prove its existence, in a ‘time of recession’. Tim Chu, AMS VP External, disagreed and pointed out that the AMS has 7 million dollars that have not been used. The position for equity assistant will cost the AMS about 22k per year. After much debate, and a failed attempt by a courageous Arts rep to make the position permanent and to direct the Code and Policy committee to amend the code accordingly, the AMS Council allowed the position to exist. The president of the Engineering Students Society explained that she was against the program because, among her constituents ‘equity’ has become a bad word, something that is made fun of by engineers, and the equity program is to blame. Stef Ratjen, the previous VP External in whose term the equity program was created, corrected her claim that AMS clubs were all forced to have equity representatives.

Bijan seemed to have no idea what systemic barriers are, and asked for examples of what they might be. Being a multi-millionaire prevents him from being targeted by systemic discrimination. It seems like the main issue we are facing is the lack of education on the nature of systemic discrimination that seems to be widespread among more reactionary types like Bijan Ahmadian, Tom Dvorak, and Matthew Naylor – students who are already privileged enough to have apparently never faced discrimination based on race, gender, class, and other stereotypes to care much about it.

At one point during a discussion about the validity of the AMS equity program and its ability to effect positive change, Bijan asserted that students who faced issues of discrimination should sue UBC and the AMS and wait for a judge to decide. This idea was quickly countered by a guest representing the Women’s Centre, who argued that one of the purposes of the equity program is to prevent the escalation of such issues to the point of legal action. In any case, anyone is free to approach the legal system and to sue others. Another mandate of the equity program is to educate students on issues of systemic discrimination.

Anyone who is versed on the principles laid out by the Road to Global Citizenship handbook published by the UBC administration, would know that the equity program sets up in practice those principles. The fact that it is a student funded program is something that AMS should be proud of. To have the courage to speak on behalf of others who face discrimination is expected of UBC Global Citizens. The equity program is an example of ‘action learning’, ‘community service learning’, ‘feminist pedagogy’ in action, and so on, all of which are considered by the Road to Global Citizenship publication to be “pedagogical approaches that give power and authority to students” (63). For Margo Fryer, an Assistant Professor at the School of Community and Regional Planning, and Founding Director of the UBC Learning Exchange program, “global citizenship is not a theoretical imperative. It’s very much about critical thinking, appreciation for diversity, analysis of the systemic underpinnings of whatever you are seeing on the surface – but if you see all that and you’re not doing anything, it’s not global citizenship” (62). Student saw that systemic discrimination was affecting them in different ways, and the result is the creation of the AMS equity program.

This program may not be perfect at this point (not very many things are perfect in this world, we think), and some of the concerns raised during the council meeting should be taken into consideration in order to make the program more effective to students. Nevertheless, it is not by cutting funding from the program that will make it better, or help it keep track of every effect it has on the UBC community. In addition, there is more than enough evidence that the program is not only necessary, but that it should be expanded. After one year that the program has been operating, student interest and participation are steadily increasing. The coordinator of the program, Emma, who has been working incessantly to keep the program running, was applauded by the crowd of students at several occasions, and presented a letter in support of the equity program signed by all of the AMS Resource Groups – The Student Environment Centre, the Women’s Centre, Pride UBC, Color Connected Against Racism, and the Social Justice Centre.

The letter also demanded that the program be expanded. We should recognize that new students are coming to UBC every year at the thousands, and that others graduate and move away. For this obvious reason, the structural problems that stem from systemic discrimination that exist in society outside of UBC will be reproduced on campus. The best we can hope is that those students who come to UBC fresh will learn about race, gender, class, and other forms of discrimination, and would be able to instruct their peers and to avoid being agents of discrimination. Because oppressive behaviors of a systemic nature are largely unconscious and automatized whenever they come out, a product of ideologies that are exclusivist, elitist, classist, homophobic, misogynist, and so on, they will affect people sometimes in unpredictable ways. To suffer discrimination is traumatic, and it will affect someone’s life and studies negatively and deeply. There is no way of screening new students on how conscious they are of the effects of discrimination in the world. That is precisely why the AMS, as an organization composed of people who are looking forward to become global citizens, should fund more initiatives like the equity program, and that deal directly with issues of social justice.

Credit/D/Fail GRADING System Coming to UBC!

The Student Senate caucus has been working for an initiative to create the opportunity for students to explore disciplines beyond their major without worrying about how a lower grade may affect their GPA. The motion passed the UBC Senate and it will become enshrined in policy. We fully support this move, and think that it is coming late, but it is, nevertheless, finally in the horizon, and it will become a reality, just like the UBC Farm will retain its 24 hectare site.

UBC Students, in the future, will be able to take up to 12 credits in the new “Credit/D/Fail” system. You will either PASS, get a “D” or FAIL, and your GPA will not be affected. More conservative students at the AMS meeting in which the motion for the support of the Senate Caucus initiative was being debated, argued that this system will make students work less and be lazy. If they have to struggle for their grades, it was argued, they will be going for those A(s) instead of settling for a not-so-excellent performance.

Indeed, most students already do not get A(s) because of the detestable practice of BELL CURVING that dominates so many disciplines at UBC in their approach to grading. We now understand that grading in itself reinforces the hierarchization of the student body, and directly contradicts the principles highlighed in the Road to Global Citizenship toolbook. The same goes for 2 hour exams on material accumulated over 4 months that are worth most of your grade (some argue that is plain torture, and that students do not learn more or better by going through such testing ordeals).

AMS meeting tonight: Committee Reform

The AMS debated tonight code changes that will affect the structure of the current committees. One of the problems that the people working on this issue were not able to address, which was brought up by Mike Duncan, was necessary changes to the selection process of committee chairs. Another problem is that there has not been enough consultation on this committee report project.

Motions from the floor are proposed to be eliminated, which is a mechanism that currently allows at-large students to speak straight to the council. The proposed changes create larger committees that could become strongly hierarchical and end up easily stonewalling important issues brought up by non-hacks. To bring something from the floor is something very important, and a right that is held valuable by many councilors. This particular no-from-floor-motions element is highly unlikely to be ultimately approved by the AMS Council.

The changes proposed include that the new committee chairs should get paid just like an AVP. AVPs are hired through an internal process of the AMS, and even though the pay and the workload should be similar, committee chairs would ideally be elected to their position with due process. In the current practice, there is a lot of room for preventing individuals from becoming committee chairs, especially non-hacks. In addition, the solutions that the people proposing the changes have come up with puts a lot of pressure on councilors to participate on several committees, which sounds like a demand that cannot be realistically met given the workloads of students. Unless, if course, they are not working towards their degrees full-time, like AMS executives.

The most feasible solution to this issue would be to conduct elections online, through the voting system that the AMS has in place independently from UBC, according to Alex Lougheed’s remarks on his final meeting as AMS VP Academic last month.

The proposed changes would allow for up to four members-at-large to be members of any committee, and this is not considered to be enough. Members-at-large will not be allowed to become chairs of committees, and this is also something that is considered to be unacceptable by some. This provision is something that can potentially prevent students from becoming engaged, and it would filter a lot of fresh talent out of the political process for apparently no good reason.

AMS VP Finance Tom Dvorak argued that the proposed package would actually discourage students and councilors to get involved with committee work, and not the other way around. He pointed out that people should be taking up committee work out of a sense of personal interest and drive rather than out of mere sense of council duty. Rory (Arts) disagreed with this point saying that she did get involved because nobody else did. She says that she could pick the ones that she really cared for. Well, since Rory is an insider, it is easier for her to pick a committee to be inserted into it. Naylor, who chairs the Committee Reform committee argued for Council to give him the mandate to continue working on this issue by approving in principle the changes brought forward. The motion was overwhelmingly disapproved by the executive, but it barely passed on account of several abstentions. So the committee will be working more on this issue and bringing forward the actual code changes that will be necessary to change the current committee system to a new one.

Believing that members-at-large are anything less or more, or different than councilors or executives in their political rights as students, is to inflict on them a misguided hierarchical division. The executives and the council’s major concern should indeed be the member-at-large, and not the other way around. The intention of the changes is to make council more powerful than it is as a driver of the agendas. Some would disagree with this vision and believe that the changes should instead address the issue of low political engagement among members-at-large, and try to solve the question of how to have the members-at-large drive the agenda through the council and the executive who are supposed to represent them.

AMS Council, February 26th 2009: Blake Elected! Exec Farewells.

TUUM EST!

The Elections Administrator delivered her report today, highlighting the details of the elections and upholding Blake Frederick’s Election to the disputed position of AMS President. The student court ruled that Frederick was disqualified unfairly.

The report was well presented and well timed, and the EA made some critical points regarding the feasibility of paper voting: it is an expensive and time consuming system to organize, and the turnout is probably not high enough to justify keeping it.

Only around 500 of the 6500 or so votes from this year were cast on paper ballots. Condorcet seems to have worked out fine for the first trial, and the EA urged the AMS to do a better job at promoting the elections ahead of time so that students may know what’s going down and how important it is.

There were recommendations about what strategy would be best regarding the debates. Our own recommendations would be for the institution of a new position or committee that deals specifically with the design of the political debates. This could be something linked to the Academic and the External VP portfolios from the AMS. People from the debate society could probably be very helpful with this project. This new committee or office would set up political debates pertaining issues that affect students directly throughout the year (not just before or during elections) and with the participation and promotion of AMS executives and councilors.

Such debates could be brought to residences, publicized and organized thematically (e.g., campus development, housing, childcare, NCAA2, funding, tuition), and be focused on fostering dialogue between possible candidates. When time for the elections comes up, the debates should bring candidates from different platforms together, and the committee, which would have documented the history of debates throughout the year, will bring forward the issues that seem more pressing at the moment for students. This will certainly help deal with the lack of promotion and student interest. One obvious event that we need is a political dialogue series that happens during the first week, to engage incoming students and help them understand the political climate and possibilities for action at UBC.

We have already made here the comment that we believe there should be a first week of classes package with some sort of standardized power point presentation or something similar that professors should go over with students sometime during the first week. This would include a full description of the structure of power at UBC, and details on ho to get involved, when and why.

Execs made humorous final remarks as a prelude to the shift into the new team. Each exec pretended to be another exec, and Tristan drew the most amount of laughs, with his impression of Chris Diplock, who signs thousands of checks and contracts everyday while jogging, pumping iron, going on hikes and climbing mountains, all on the same day.

Two new water fountains will be installed in the SUB basement, and goosenecks for water fountains with filters will be installed in the 3 floors for students to more easily fill up their bottles.

Rory (Arts) and Clare (Law) both received the prize of councilors of the year and received standing ovations from the rest of council.

Executive members gave exceptional final remarks to close the year, especially Tristan, who made the room fall in absolute silence. Both the Board of Governor student reps, Bijan and Tim, were not present for this historical AMS meeting. Also missing was Alex Monegro. The Ubyssey was around, like they always are, and there are more Ubyssey students than GSS reps in general. This is something that students should make an issue for the new executive.

The outgoing AMS VP Academic Alex Lougheed mentioned tonight that there an issue to be solved between graduate students, undergraduates and the AMS. The fact that we have a large graduate student body at UBC is enough to make the AMS the largest student society in Canada. But there have been no graduate students in the AMS executive, Lougheed mentioned when he thanked the graduates for their critical feedback. This is something that has bothered me for the last couple of years I have been an AMS Councilor. Indeed, there have been no graduate student executive ever since I came around, and the GSS councilors saw a decrease in participation, with recently just one or two councilors showing up even if our constituency is entitled to 5 seats.

With Frederick now elected and in place, we think there are many reasons to look forward to the future of student political engagement at UBC inc. We have to value the first year students, their backgrounds and expectations, and welcome them in our campus in order to allow them to engage with the political and social campus life as participants and sources of positive institutional transformation.

The Undergroung Bus Loop Tree Destruction Legacy

It will be very hard for you to notice, but the university has gone ahead and killed a number of trees that were standing on the way of the underground diesel bus loop. A UBC Student Media contributor was at the scene and has sent us these pictures showing one of the trees being destroyed by two men with a chainsaw:

Men with chainsaw begin working

This was done early in the morning in the Saturday, when students are less likely to be around, hung over around town or snuggly in their dorm rooms. One of the main tactics the university employs consistently is doing their dirty work when people are less likely to be around. Another example was the fact that the 2007 decision to go ahead with the underground diesel bus loop project was made by the Board of Governors in the Summer, before new clueless students come in, and after most of those that were pissed with development were out for the Summer.

tree being destroyed to give way to underground bus loop construction

By this point, this treee does not stand a chance. This place will not be a park or a no car zone ever. And trees do not have a place where concrete will protect our lovely big diesels, whose fumes will be peppering the local atmosphere.

Why would we need trees around anyway, if all they do is clean the air?

It is still early in the tree-cutting season at UBC, and soon we will see more of them being cut down to give way to a type of development people were not consulted about.

It is a very marking loss for the students of this university who participated in the anti-APEC demonstrations of 1997, now a generations artificially disconnected from the current student generation by the gap created with the stultifying ideology of ‘global citizenship’, which is applied in the university’s marketing rhetoric and only used for the sake of building the university’s image rather than to allow for institutional transformation to take shape from within, with power given to students to make their own decisions about the development that affects them.

tree down!

The university’s insistence in tramping over students and pushing their own design team and architects despite the fact that the student-led process found better architects, proves that they see students as ideally devoid of agency, passive, transitory, and irremediably child-like, who do not know any better and whose suggestions are obviously fundamentally flawed,  idealistic and unrealistic.

Why is there no aboriginal representative on the Board of Governors? Why doesn’t the government do something about this? The Metro Vancouver Board finds that UBC is irresposible with their development projects, and there was a comment made by one of the city councilors that UBC was itself the developer.

It is quite unfortunate that as teaching has been pushed to the bottom of the priority list in relation with the epic quest for funding and research, development of tasteless and outdated projects such as the Thunderbird “maximum security prison” Parkade, and the Wesbrook tower are going ahead in full speed.

The unavailability of childcare options and the lack of green spaces and coopertive student housing shows that students are seen as mere consumers of ‘education’ rather than meaningful long-term participants in the transformation of the institutional world they have become a part of.

If this university indeed had a sustainable financial strategy, part of the money that goes into our tuition should be converted in an alumni investment on the endowment that would render every student a partial owner of the university, and enhance their sense of place and identity.

We we shall be seeing now and in the future is the industrial and corporate hold on the university becoming ever stronger. Corporations today hold more power than entire governments and administer budgets that are larger than those of entire countries. They can fund the university, and the university id not afraid of taking their money. It seems that the university would never denied funding to make a political stance unless that is the official stance of the goverment. So if they can take money that are coming from companies that are helping develop arms manufactured in China and sold in Sudan, they will do so without a doubt.

New students must get ready to celebrate their happiest construction degree years at UBC, coming up with the underground diesel bus loop. Remember, this is one of the most sustainable universities in the world, the ratings say. We were supposed to be striving to become carbon-free, but instead, we are implanting diesel fumes and commercial development in the heart of our campus for the world to see. By the time the Olympics are in Vancouver, we will have a besieged campus: part of Wesbrook will be cut off from access, and the core of our campus, where the Student Union Building now lies, will be surrounded by a very noisy and dangerous construction pit for many months, in itself a source of toxic dust and fumes.

AMS Election Results: The Unexpected Strikes

NOSTRUM EST!

This year’s AMS election results were revealed last night at the Gallery pub in the Student Union Building at around 10pm.

The greatest surprise for most of the hacks was the election for VP Administration. Nobody believed that Tristan would not be winning, but that was the case as Crystal Hon, standing for the ’silent majority’, swooped the position completely unexpectedly.

We hope that Tristan is able to make an exemplar transition that will prevent the AMS from losing the grip in its negotiations for the SUB Renewal on behalf of the students. There are a lot of accusations for smear campaigning going on, but so far nobody has paid a close attention at the implications of the Ubyssey article entitled “Hardball” that cast Tristan in a bad light during the week of the elections.

It could be easily argued as well that some of our own articles regarding the elections, such as those on the Presidential race, our endorsement of Blake Frederick and poignant critique of Monegro’s platform, may have influenced the outcome of the elections. I guess that’s why people issue endorsements. As to the results:

Board of Governors: Mike Duncan + Bijan Ahmadian

-Nothing very hard to predict. As some of the coverage has remarked, the size of facebook group and friendship lists do result in votes. Mike and Bijan have pretty much a compatible number of facebook friends, and have been around for many years. The differences between both elected BoG reps are very strong though. Mike takes sides and champions student issues and feels he represents student interests, while Bijan tries to work within the system to please the administration, the Board, the community at large, shown by his devotion to the undergrouund bus loop and for pressuring the AMS to give in to the demands of the administration regarding this expensive and unecessary project (if you are not a developer).

AMS President: Blake Frederick

-Our top choice by far, and justice has been done. The platforms for the other options were not impressive at best, completely disconnected from the daily struggles of the average student. Blake’s personal history and passion for social justice are more than clear through his work as AVP External and his engagement at both the UBC Senate and the AMS Council. The 46 vote margin makes things sweeter. And the high turnout was a victory for students, while it can still get better in the future, if the AMS becomes proactive about supporting and promoting the elections.

VP Academic: Johannes Rebane

-We did not know Johannes before he came out of the Commerce Undergraduate Society and decided to sweep this position. He was indeed the only candidate with executive-type experience in a student society, along with Sonia Purewal (thanks anon for the revision). Johannes spoke strongly against irresponsible development on campus and remarked that this is a ‘higher learning institution and not a shopping mall’. We agree completely, and, compared to the rhetoric and actions that came out of this position last year, we think that Johannes will have no trouble doing a much better job.

VP External: Tim Chu

-Again, the logical choice. His opponent for this race came out too strongly as a nagger, complaining about the AMS with little basis, looking like an iPod product, and that blew off his chances with the hacks. Chu has been standing for issues of minority representation and equity and embodies the proactive spirit that will compel him to ask the hard questions and to take the right stances at the right time.

VP Administration: Crystal Hon

-Coming, it seemed, from out of nowhere, Crystal caused the most major upset of this year’s elections, beating Tristan almost inexplicably. Crystal’s debate performances did not consist of much preparation, and she was short, direct, and sometimes critically ironic. Knowing Tristan, and how much he was probably campaigning, we thought that she would not stand a chance, but she did it! Crystal’s achievement is major. A woman, standing for the ’silent majority’, she stood her ground and took the bounty. All the students running for elections are very talented (like all UBC students), and we know that Crystal must have campaigned very hard to win this position, so we hope that she and Tristan can have the merriest and most detailed transition possible and prepare a negotiating strategy for the SUB Renewal that does not relinquish control of the project to the administration and the developers who live from their pockets.

VP Finance: Tom Dvorak

-Tom was always firm in his debates, and seemed to know what he was up against. The same can be said of his opponent. It’s probably great to have the added aesthetic element of sharing a last name with a famous classical composer. This is the most operational position in the AMS, and the one that is less public and more technical. One of the positive things we noticed about Tom is his firmness and apparent confidence in his skills. He was a little bit too agressive and dismissive, however, but there’s no indication that he is not approachable. he will be working with a very strong team this year, and with Blake in the lead, and Tom’s devotion to initiative that work, we should hope to see positive changes in the availability of AMS funds for student initiatives.

Electoral Committee Supports Johannes’ Innocence

In a short statement released at around 10:30 this morning, the AMS Elections Committee insists that since Johannes denied partaking in illegal activities and that the eyewitnesses possess “questionable biases”, that Johannes must be innocent. The lack of detail regarding such ‘biases’ and why they are found to be questionable is disappointing, since they are key for the committee in their full-on discrediting of the student eyewitnesses. The electoral committee argues that people were not going door-to-door simply because there is no wireless connection inside the residence buildings. There are many wired computers in every floor of the residences, which would make it easy for in-residence campaigners to go through every corridor distributing cookies and showing people how to vote on their own computers. Follows the statement by the Elections Committee:

“On Sunday evening, a campaigning irregularity complaint was submitted to the Elections Committee.  The complaint stated that VP Academic candidate Johannes Rebane and friends were in Vanier commons block and going door to door asking students to vote on their laptop, and giving cookies to students.  The committee was made aware of this from another candidate, who provided contact information for two apparent witnesses that reported this action to the candidate.

The committee followed up by discussing the allegations with the candidate in question, who denied partaking in such activities, and provided credible accounts of where he was at the times the infraction was alleged to occur.  To follow up, the committee contacted the eyewitnesses.  The eyewitnesses provided their accounts of what occurred at Vanier commons block.

It is the committee’s decision that at this time there is very little evidence supporting the claim that Johannes engaged in such behaviour.  As well, there are highly conflicting narratives of what actually occurred, questionable biases, and extremely vague descriptions of the time frames.  Specifically, the allegations that they went door to door are unfounded due to the lack of wireless internet access in the residence buildings.  In addition, upon contacting a number of different authorities at Vanier, there are no accounts of anyone working witnessing such activities.  The residence associations at the residence buildings across campus have been very active in ensuring campaigning follows strict rules within their jurisdiction, and thus the committee trusts that they would have been aware if such actions had taken place”

Signed,

Elections Committee

Exclusive: Eyewitness for ‘Laptop & Cookie’ Strategy Speaks Out!

skyrocketing in the hits meter

Last night, our post on the campaign irregularity that became known as the ‘laptop & cookie’ strategy received unprecedented attention, and several comments.

This morning, the eyewitness of the illegal ‘laptop & cookie’ strategy came out with a statement regarding his experiences. Apparently there were more than one team performing the illegal vote-grabbing strategy. Here is what the eyewitness has to say so far:

“I was approached by two people, one with a laptop and the other with a box of cookies and asked to vote at the Place Vanier commons block. I had already voted but my friend had not voted yet, so he went ahead thinking it was something to do with the AMS. As he voted though, they mentioned they were doing this for their friend Johannes Rebane, candidate for VP academic. They also mentioned that they had been going door to door around Vanier getting people to vote. There was at least one more team aside from those that approached us. Johannes was also there doing campaigning, so he must have been aware of what was going on. There are at least 1,370 residents in Vanier and depending how many people were going around and how much time they spent, they could have easily collected anywhere from 50 to 800 votes, specially because the first year residences are so unaware of the elections. I am in the process of going through the formal complaint process.”

Wladimiro Woyno
3rd Year BFA Theatre Design and Production

Where the "Laptop & Cookie" was discovered!

Blast From the Past: Campaign Irregularities in AMS Elections

Last year the VP Admin race was canceled due to campaign irregularities, what will happen this year?

The UBC Student Media has recently published a post on the “Laptop & Cookie” campaign irregularity which occurred yesterday, Monday February 2, 2008 at Place Vanier Residence.

In the 2008 AMS elections, Messoloras, a candidate for the position of VP Administrator, was ruled guilty of campaign irregularities which caused the entire elections for the VP Admin to be canceled and new elections to take place. On January 25, 2008 the Ubyssey reported that “Messoloras broke the rules when he asked people to vote on his laptop computer on the spot [...] the elections code specifies that candidates cannot pressure people into voting…”

The UBC Student Media urges that the person responsible for these irregularities comes forward to the elections administrator so this can be investigated and possibly reversed.

Extra: Laptop & Cookie Campaign Strategy Plagues AMS Elections

A resident of Place Vanier today filed a complaint after witnessing a campaign irregularity.

People were carrying laptops from door to door in dormitories, giving people cookies and asking them to vote for Johannes Rebane, a commerce student at Sauder and candidate for VP Academic.

..."cookie for your vote, please?"

The student who witnessed this believes anywhere from 100-800 votes were cast using the illegal laptop & cookie method.

Now it is up to the Election Administrator to investigate this complaint and to take action.

Blake Frederick: Presidential Platform Review

Blake Frederick, Platform Review:

Blake is critical of the high tuition prices in Canada and the disproportionate price international students have to pay. Canada should have enough resources to be able to pull off social and educational programs such as those available in Scandinavia and in Germany, where tuition is entirely subsidized, even for International students.

Blake has plans to take action for change through lobbying strategies. He shows that he has learned a lot by working through the UBC Senate and the AMS External office. Grants are very necessary for younger graduate scholars to get a chance of pursuing detailed and relevant research, and to participate in conferences, events and lectures. Accessibility is an issue that is very important for Blake, and he has made it clear on the debates that his greatest achievement in life is to have become a student at UBC, facing accessibility challenges such as disproportionately high and shamelessly non-subsidized tuition payments.

Blake has a deep grasp on the most concerning issues students are currently facing, especially when it comes to housing. Blake authored a report on student housing through his AMS position that is now being used by the administration to raise the number of student housing options available on campus. Blake does not support the administration’s devotion to market housing for profit, which is a main point of difference between Blake and Monegro, who supports market housing, but who has very little experience at the AMS compared to Blake.

Blake’s assertion that students should call a moratorium on market housing shows that his stance is similar to that of students who would like to see their elected Board of Governors reps with veto power. The latter would be a very fair, yet unpalatable option for the administration and the appointed corporate developers at the Board.

Blake also focuses on the lack of childcare on campus and the absurdity of the underground diesel bus loop. I think that if we were going in the right direction, we would see the creation of a Trek Park in central campus, and the creation of a no-car-zone in front of the bookstore parking lot that would be extended all the way to “Sustainability Street”.

The misguidance and irresponsibility of the underground diesel-bus-loop extends beyond just the fact that it will transform the landscape into an open hole with construction noise of another two years or so. The diesel-bus loop is irresponsible because it is for diesel buses and UBC apparently has a commitment to become ‘carbon-neutral’. The paradox between ecological responsibility and a hole from which diesel fumes will be expelled in the heart of campus is utterly bizarre.

If childcare were a priority at UBC, we would not be seeing the same kind of development coming up. Luxury market housing is justified as a marketing strategy to bring in an international and super rich clientele that is apparently coming with the Olympics. This would be conceived as a ‘positive’ Olympic impact in some circles. I believe that the level of community childcare available in a neighborhood reflects the degree of integration and intimacy that exists between inhabitants of the region.

The fact that we do not see many children around UBC is due to the fact that higher learning has been traditionally disconnected from the dynamic creation of curricular programs to improve childhood education and its development and evolution. There was nothing, in our eyes, preventing UBC from investing on facilities where children could play while their parents do research. To allow for children spaces and assistance near the working space is, in fact, a known corporate practice that is very attractive for parents and that result in more productivity and less stress and longing from part of the parent and the child.

Blake has a proven record of standing up for social justice and responsibility, and for working hard behind student initiatives and causes. My suggestion is, read Blake’s platform, and VOTE, and if you missed the online voting period, bring your student card on February 4th 2009 and cast your paper ballot.

Board of Governors: Candidate Commentary

Impressions on Platforms, Candidates and Races:

This series is one of our final pitches regarding the people running for these year’s AMS elections before the end of the online voting period scheduled for tonight. This post can also be considered like our way of endorsing or not candidates, highlighting some of the reasons behind our own vote. Our first option for each race is at the top, following by the runner-ups. Unfortunately, because of recent incidents in the protests in France, our international correspondent is unlikely to return to his platform critique series, and so we are jumping in to get things done before you cast your ballot.

1. Tristan Markle:

Tristan Markle

Our first choice for many reasons. Able to communicate affectively across student groups, with a background in the sciences and well as the Arts, Tristan has been running the consultations for the SUB Renewal project in an ideal, collaborative and inclusive fashion. Along with Mike Duncan, Tristan has been able to negotiate effectively on behalf of students through complicated barriers created by the administration. The administration wants to control and use the student money coming to the new SUB project (about 180 million dollars) while most students, Tristan, and the AMS, want the students to have the final say on the design and on the project. Tristan is also quite poised, well behaved, but firm in the defense of student interests. With a wealth of experience as VP Admin for the past year, fulfilling his own platform promises regarding the SUB Consultations, Tristan’s motivation to run for the Board of Governors this year comes from the lack of communication by our current Board reps that disappointed students over and over, Mike Duncan referred to this phenomenon of miscommunication as “stonewalling”.

Tristan on the Board would be able to get the student voice straight into the Board’s alienated years. I will share an anecdote that highlights how disconnected the Board is from students: I attended the meeting in which Nobel Laureate Dr. Wieman told the Board that there were issues with teaching in the sciences taking a backseat to research. This seemed to surprise a lot of people in the Board, like Jacky Zehner, who said that she was surprised and shocked that at UBC the professors were more worried about their own research than with the students and their future. I’ve been a UBC student since 2003 and the fact that teaching has taken a backseat to research seems to me to have always been widely known. The fact that a Board member was surprised at this UBC fact is quite telling of how disconnected from students they are. Perhaps they have their own preconceived notions of how students are experiencing their high level education, that flow from blessed savant prophetic dreams.

2. Mike Duncan:

Mike Duncan

Mike has the energy to pressure the Board into action and to get things done for students, especially when working alongside Tristan, with whom Mike has been building a strong and positive relationship. His success in lowering Athletics fees came from his unwavering dedication to his own platform from last year as AMS President.

Mike’s been criticized for partying too much, but the critique fails to address the larger picture as we see it: Mike’s extreme sense of sociability and drive to be involved with other students regardless of their background makes him one of the best candidates this year. Students feel that Mike can be approached any time and without social barriers. Mike has lived on campus residences for the entirety of his time at UBC, a level of commitment and involvement that is stands unmatched in these elections.

3. Blake Frederick and Andrew Carne:

Blake Frederick

Andrew Carne

These guys are both excellent candidates as well, and I wouldn’t mind adding them to my condorcet ballot if this race were a condorcet race. Blake is trying to achieve what Jeff Friedrich did while elected to the Board and the AMS Presidency. I am a little bit concerned about the possibilities of performing both functions at the same time, although indeed the AMS President knows a lot about what is going on and could inform the Board directly without the “stonewall” effect that we had this past year with Bijan Ahmadian and Tim Blair, who seemed more interested in serving ‘fellow” Board members rather than the students. Now, Andrew Carne seems to be up on what the job entails, is familiar with Board procedures, and received ‘BoG lessons’ from Darren Peets, one of the most active and responsible student Board members of all time. Andrew is also committed to improving or establishing connections with students, and going through the docket documents of the Board through an Internet blog in which students could give all their feedback, participate and have a voice in Board procedures. I hope that whoever gets elected incorporates Andrew’s ideas for heightened student engagement.

Although Blake is more experienced in AMS matters, we feel that Andrew is also quite a competent candidate, and the level of his eloquence is quite advanced. We felt that in this regard, the ability to speak clearly, with respect to the audience, intelligibility, and clarity, that Andrew Carne beats at least Bijan and Blake. Andrew speaks as clearly as Tristan, but does not have the passion and urgency that characterizes Mike. Blake, however, having been deeply involved with student issues for a few years already, with experiences both at the UBC Senate and as AVP External for the AMS, has enough familiarity with the governing structures, agents, and students to lead perhaps the most academically driven and detailed research as a BoG member.

4. Bijan Ahmadian

Is not an evil person, he is just not willing to let anyone else become a Board member who deserves to be there before he is done with his own projects. Like many other students, we were deeply disappointed with his ‘contract’ approach with AMS Clubs and special interest groups. Bijan argues that people do not identify as students, but do as members of different clubs, and so his approach is to be there to cater for special interests if he is given an endorsement from them. We found that this was not impressive, and that, like everyone else, including those who did not come out trying to convince people to endorse them, Bijan should have come up saying that he would work on behalf of students and the UBC Farm regardless of any endorsement.

Bijan did not impress when, in the second debate for the Board, he complained that having a “24 hectare position” is not helpful. That is quite a bizarre statement, especially after over 16 thousand signatures were collected to support the UBC Farm in its current size and location, with 24 hectares and more. If Bijan had attended the Metro Vancouver Board meeting that ended up with the full support of the UBC Farm initiative at 24 hectares, perhaps he would have a position more student-focused. Tristan Markle delivered the AMS’ position to the Metro Vancouver Board, along with Friends of the UBC Farm President Andrea Morgan, and former GSS President Matt Filipiak, and the result was a unanimous resolution in support of the UBC Farm.

The UBC Senate Needs a Bi-Election!!

The following is a very important post that came up at the UBC Insider recently, written by Maria Jogova. The post followed with comments by Blake Frederick, Matthew Naylor, myself and Maria, and I encourage you to check out this source since we should see more comments about this. The issue is that there has been no elections for the UBC Senate this year, and the consequence is that whoever from last year who wants to stay can just stay, and the 2 people who have submitted nomination forms get seats automatically… the other options are: the AMS Council simply appoints people that come up through the usual speech-followed-by-paper-ballot-vote model used for committees, OR AMS Council declares a bi-election and initiates an awareness campaign about UBC political life, its importance to benefit students, and the opportunities available.

“While I’ve been busy blogging about most of the ongoing races, I sort of let it slip from my memory that there aren’t any people running for Senate this year. It turns out that only 2 people submitted nomination forms, and as a result they automatically get seats. Currently, the available seats are being offered to this year’s Senators. I’m quite frankly astonished by this practice- rather than opening up nominations again, they have decided to simply offer the seats to people who did not apply, and who could take the seats without actually going through an election. I’m sure there’s some sort of term for this practice, but I can’t quite remember what it is right now”(Maria Jogova, UBC Insider)

The fact that the student Senators themselves did not bring this issue forward at the last AMS Council meeting is disappointing. People talk a lot about connecting with students, and being a source for consultations, but they keep disappointing students. I find that the main issue here is student ignorance about the UBC Senate.

I hope that our next executive team can lobby for instituting a first day of class standard curriculum, which would be basically a 20 min or so lecture professors have to give to students in the first week about how the university works and how to get involved. It should include information about all the elections and seats available for students, and explanations about the AMS and political bodies (e.g., UBC Senate, BoG, GSS, AUS, SUS, CUS, EUS and so on).

Every time students go away in bulk (end of terms, reading break) and at least 1 month before any elections, the AMS should come together with the other student organizations to put together a poster and media campaign about the coming elections. The material from the standard first year course on the political structure of the university should be widely shared. I think such an initiative could help us deal with phenomena such as what Maria reported on here.

I was wondering what happened with the Senate elections since there were no debates and nobody talking about anything, and I figured that maybe they take seats for three years, because I heard Bijan saying that he was in it for three years when he talked about his ‘need’ to remain in the Board of Governors for another year. Whose responsibility is it to inform everyone else when such a blunder occurs with an election? It is obviously not fair for students who do not know about it now to keep them in ignorance about what just happened with the Senate race.

They did call a bi-election last year for the VP-Admin race, so I don’t see why we should not have one this year – some of these reasons seem compelling enough to me:

1. we don’t have enough candidates, 2. students were not properly informed about what the position entailed, why it is now open for all students to run, and why it is important to get involved with the UBC Senate, 3. Council may be appointing people who self select arbitrarily or their own friends, 4. More publicity for the elections is needed (we can have more exciting election things happening [e.g., debates, jello-wrestling, VFMs, issues).

À propos de la dette moyenne des étudiants à UBC.

M. Monegro, les éditeurs d’UBC Student Media ne croient pas que tu te tiens au courant sur les enjeux que concernent les étudiants de notre université, on peut facilement en découvrir selon ta plate-forme elitiste. Donc, cette site-là a comme but informer tous les étudiants, comme (on crois) que tu es encore un étudiant à UBC, on va t’informer de la dette moyenne des étudiants; comme ça tu peux, peut-être, changer les reformes élitistes de ta plate-forme. Porquoi pas penser sur les étudiants que, évidemment pas comme toi, ONT BEAUCOUP GALÉRÉ à cause de leur manque d’argent.

LA DETTE MOYENNE DES ÉTUDIANTS EST DE $27,000!

LA DEUDA ESTUDIANTIL EN UBC ES, EN MEDIA, $27,000!

La dette moyenne d'un étudiant à UBC est $27,000, ça te fait rire?

On Bijan Ahmadian: Board of Governors Debate#2

We would like to share our thoughts regarding this video, and inform students on what is gong on here.

I would like to thank the Phantom editing team for another interesting take on a very important debate.

The video opens with statements from Bijan that are quite controversial. First he gives his own take on how he needed an endorsement from the Friends of the Farm AMS Club. Tristan’s reactions to the Bijan’s discourse are always quite interesting.

Board of Governors Debate #2: Commentary

Bijan’s second selected statement is terrifying. He claims it is not helpful for students to claim they need a 24 hectare UBC Farm.This contradicts everything that students have been saying, and shows how Bijan has not really represented students at the Board this past year.

I have footage of students confronting the Dean of Land and Food Systems, Murray Isman, at the Agora (McMillan), and students elaborate over and over on how they need 24 hectares and more. In addition, footage from the same day at the AMS Council meeting, during a presentation from Mike Duncan, Tristan Markle, and Matt Filipiak regarding the Great Farm Trek, indicates that the AMS Council indeed supports the 24 hectare and more idea.

The fact that Bijan did not bring that clear student demand to the Board of Governors, and actually critiques the 24 hectare demand, only shows that he does not have the best interests of students in mind, which makes us wonder who he has been representing in the first place. He has also voted in favor of the underground bus loop, claiming that students want it.

Ironically, most people who support the UBC Farm reject the underground bus loop, and a petition with thousands of student signatures was collected to try to convince the Board of Governors to halt this project.

Interestingly, Bijan is now an MBA student, and we all know that MBA students have been given the privilege of having a special and fancy residence developed at the Wesbrook place. Why other students are not blessed with such development is an unknown fact. This puts Bijan in a very awkward position vis à vis luxury market housing development at UBC. The Wesbrook development has been an extreme source of student disgust this year, and a motivating factor for people to get involved with the Campus Plan consultations, since, for the development of the Wesbrook luxury market housing complex, there were no consultations with students.

Mike Duncan does a great job asking this question to Bijan about his position at the Board. I think that Bijan’s answer proves that he does not represent students. Somehow he believes that, even being elected by students, he does not have to represent them. Does that make any sense to anyone? Students vote for you to get elected, and then you begin thinking less about the students, and more about the ‘campus community’??

The proof that Bijan represents the University Administration rather than the students comes at  the malicious question he asks both Tristan Markle and Mike Duncan. He tries to pressure the AMS to give in to the administrations’ demand to let Properties Trust Inc. manage the project and to hire university appointed architects to design the new Student Union Building. A problem with Bijan’s question, identified by both Tristan and Mike, is that he is bringing up in public closed-doors discussions. Bijan’s antagonism toward Tristan and Mike shows that he is both afraid of losing his position at the board, and that he is working against student wishes.

Both Mike and Tristan have a proven record of putting their entire lives on the line for students. Bijan poses as a mouthpiece for the university administration, and shamefully attacks the AMS’ “behavior”. Maybe if Bijan had been actually attending AMS meetings, which is his duty, he would have known better. The “negotiating tactic” Tristan mentions is being used by the university comes out of Bijan’s mouth here.

Mike Duncan nails the issue that should prevent everyone from voting for Bijan. The issue of lack of communication and disconnection between students and the Board, who does not know what the issues are with students. “We try and tell them, but it gets stonewalled”, Mike says. This is essentially the fault of this year’s BoG reps. Another telling moment that proves Bijan is not working for students, is when Mike says “we have to push hard”, and he begins shaking his head in disapproval. Bijan shot himself in the foot by asking this question.

The questions brought forward by the Devil’s Advocate regarding the Farm were key. Curiously, Bijan starts by massaging his own ego and claiming that the is enjoying this phase of heightened publicity. He tries to lie to himself by saying that the Friends of the UBC Farm have nothing to do with the recording that came out of their own meeting. He was told that his performance when he tried to push his ‘endorsement contract’ to the Friends of the UBC Farm made them not endorse others, but that is obviously something told to him so that he would be satisfied and leave people alone. All of the other candidates are better options and have better notions regarding what is the student position on the future of the Farm.

Bijan is utterly unconvincing regarding what exactly is this “specific project” he talks about. I hope that the people who have control of this recording release the previous context of his speech so that we can see if this is indeed the case. Bijan provides very little detail, claiming that the Friends of the UBC Farm tried to propose to him a project that goes “above and beyond” his “general commitment”. He claims it has something to do with the academic plan, but we have no idea what exactly this project is. This needs further clarification from the Friends of the UBC Farm.

Stephen McCarthy’s question elicits a horrifying response, and exposes the weakness of this year’s student BoG reps’ performance. Bijan states that he is against the 24 hectare demand of students, and community members around Vancouver (over 16 thousand people). I believe it was a very weak strategy to split the Board work between Bijan and Tim. One can claim that one issue is actually part of the other’s invented ‘portfolio’ and vice-versa. How is it that having a 24-hectare and more position is supposedly “not helpful” is completely unexplainable. According to this position, students should not have demands. It is incredible that such a position comes from a supposedly student representative at the Board of Governors.

Blake Frederick closes the video with a summary of the situation. And Bijan’s reaction when Frederick critiques the administration is telling of how Bijan is willing to defend the administration despite of what student demands are. Frederick says that the Board reps have a “duty to represent students” that “needs to be held higher than it currently is”.