KJ360

I am doing some interview with candidates this evening, and I want to give some of them a chance to state their case before I endorse anyone in their races.

As a Social Science student, I have a stake in who is selected to sit on BOA for us. This year there are 15 people vying for 6 seats.

Since there are so many people running I am going to do this a little differently. I am not going to go over each candidate, but rather discuss how I am going to make my decision and tell you who I will be supporting. That way, even if you are not in Social Sciences you can find this helpful.

Step 1: Look at the names you know. Why do you know them? Think hard, is it for good reasons or bad reasons? Do you like these people?

Step 2: What are the “politics” of these candidates. You want to select students who are going to be representing YOU and not some party line.

Step 3: The BOA is a formal board. It is the highest administrative body of the SFUO. It is like the Congress. Who do you think would do a good job in that environment?

Step 4: You only vote for people you want to. You have between 1 and 6 votes. If you only want to vote for 3, go ahead.

So who do I support?

Peter Flynn has done a good job representing fiscal responsibility this year on the board. He also represents director accountability. He has attempted to reverse legislation that allows the power of adjournment to fall into a few hands (the time-saver motion) and also attempted to join the university is their popular “Project Hero”. Peter is approachable, friendly, and knowledgeable about the board and the SFUO. He is also the current VP-Finance for PIDSSA and cares about student life and students in general. Peter Flynn will most definitely be getting one of my votes.

Amanda Marachko (or Amanda BarachkObama) is currently VP-Social Anglo for PIDSSA and has had the opportunity to proxy on the BOA. I met Amanda last year at the CSA debates, she approached me and apologized for how boring the PIDSSA debates were, and that she was a reader. So of course I support readers! As well she comes with good ideas of how the Board should run and I know that she cares deeply about our Federation and student life.

Amanda Iarusso: I met Amanda at this year’s Model Parliament (I don’t do a lot of stuff with PIDSSA so unfortunately I don’t meet a lot of people sooner). She has a fiery spirit and a capable attitude to get the job done.  She comes to the table with knowledge of procedure and with a non-partisan attitude.  Very approachable and friendly, Amanda would be open to speaking with students who have problems or questions, and I have no doubt will represent the social science student body well at BOA.

Sameena Topan is one of the people who I met during the campaign. She is very nice and easy to start a conversation with. It is important to feel that the people representing you on BOA are open to having a chat with you, even if your politics don’t line up. I feel she will do an excellent job representing the needs or student who fall into the left-wing on campus. We also had a conversation about who she should represent and how to do that in the grand scheme of things. Which shows she cares about represent students properly.

So now we go back to my 4 steps. For me, there are no other names that stand out and pass the three tests. So I, at this point, will only be casting 4 votes.

So KJ360 is endorsing Peter Flynn, Amanda Marochko, Amanda Iarusso, and Sameena Topan for Social Sciences BOA.

(Originally posted on http://www.kj360.ca)
Amy Hammett

Amy Hammett has been involved in the SFUO at various levels for quite some time, so she know the system well. However, while her platform does bring forth some good and interesting ideas, it is not without serious issue. Promoting events is expensive no doubt, but how, by absorbing that cost into the SFUO system, while still giving clubs subsidies, can we manage to stretch student dollars further? It’s an unreconcilable point: If you spend money, you will have to spend more money!

Her inclusive campus community is a novel idea, but dig further into her bullet points and you find out that while it may be inclusive, it’s not very active in growing such a community. If we create a clubs office that is an interactive spaces for students to make friends, share experiences, study, or just hang out, wouldn’t that mean the clubs system is merely just performing the task of a specific club? And in the long run, how will that create a more inclusive campus community? Won’t it be the very same people participating now? Where is the movement to expand said community? How will this get the average uninvolved student active?

But when she talks about Chrtwells is where she stumbles greatly. Why would Chartwells, a company, whose sole purpose it is to make money, by throwing away “good packaged food”? Presumably, “good packaged food” is product that they can sell! Instead, what they are throwing away is product they cannot sell, likely because it is going bad. As well, the discussion on KJ360 earlier, stemming from he answer to a question during the debates. The Food Donation legislation in Ontario does not formally remove liability from Corporations themselves that donate food.

Nicole Tishler

Much like Amy Hammett, Nicole wants to create an inclusive and involved campus community. But unlike Amy, Nicole’s concrete ideas are ones that have actual potential for grabbing uninvolved students and bring them into the highly cliquish world that is the SFUO. She wants to work with the VP-Comm to create and keep active a fully interactive online calendar that clearly shows as many SFUO/Service/Clubs events as possible. This would show the student body how amazingly vibrant our campus is.

Nicole brings up RGN Campus quite a bit, which I think is very important. I do not have any classes there, but a couple of times a year I go there for BOA meetings.  It is pretty far out there, and because of this, the potential (and actual) disconnect from the SFUO (which they pay the same amount to be a member as) is very high.

As a person who dislikes the buzz word sustainable, the sustainable portion of her platform is not abhorrent to me, which may surprise some. The phrases she uses and the way she emphasizes what her plans are, are done in a way that shows she is open to suggestion of how to actually achieve these ideas. To me it shows she is willing to work with the rest of the organization to achieve what many people want.

Who will I select?

I think it is pretty obvious. I want someone who is coming in with the perspective that the job is important and that there are other people who can help. In the end, if Amy is elected and implements her ideas, more money WILL be spent.

However, if the opposite occurs, and Nicole is elected, there is greater potential for less money to be spent. If an online and updated and useful events calendar is created, and students use that as their source for SFUO knowledge it will achieve three major overarching goals: 1) more students will actually be involved in SFUO programming and 2) the SFUO will immediately be more sustainable, as less posters will have to be printed and posted since student won’t need a 100 posters telling them whats going on and 3) we won’t have to spend the money on those posters!

So sustainability, fiscal responsibility, and inclusiveness all in one point.

Nicole Tishler gets my endorsement for VP-Student Affairs.

(Originally posted on http://www.kj360.ca)
I was asked by a candidate for BOA if I was going to any interviews with BOA Candidates. Initially I said I would not have time to go through a bunch of BOA candidates. Later we came up with an arrangement and here it is. Two candidates in one. The prettiest interview I have ever done.

(Originally posted on http://www.kj360.ca)

(Originally posted on http://www.kj360.ca)

Hey all,

I just wanting to convey something I feel is very important. While student politics may be important in some respects, as it takes a lot of our money and does things in our name, we must never forget what’s really important: real life. Life outside of school and after school. Friendships, love, happiness are all things that are awesome and important, and all way more important than these races. In a couple, or few, years we may all be gone from uOttawa, but hopefully the connections we have made here will still be strong.

Just as I did during last year’s campaign, I went away this weekend on a retreat to restore and regroup. I think it’s important for everyone to remember that these elections are not the be all end all events for our lives and that no matter what happens on Thursday night: life will go on!

I want to wish all candidate good luck next week and I hope to see you all on Tuesday night for pie in the face. Which I might web-cast.

(Originally posted on http://www.kj360.ca)
Rancourt’s crew, remember that’s how I qualify Marc Kelly, have released a video of the Seamus Wolfe arrest. Big ups to the Fulcrum for posting the link! The fun part starts around the 3:11 mark where the pesky cameraman harasses a police officer. Then SFUO president Seamus Wolfe joins in. Remember the original Fulcrum article (the same link btw) where Mr. Wolfe said: “When leaving, I swore, saying, ‘Well, fuck this,’” said Wolfe.” Well, the video proves otherwise. When Seamus swears the first time the officer warns him not to swear or he will go to jail. Seamus scoffs that request, but instead of doing what he claims he did in the article, he instead refers to the officer as “fuck face”. Yeah, calling a police officer “fuck face” after he has asked you not to swear. Good move.

And the lies being spouted by the cameraman during the arrest are humorous as well, displaying the lopsided politics and tactics used by this consortium.

(Originally posted on http://www.kj360.ca)
A reader has brought up something interesting. Check out the similarities between these two posters.

The poster on the left is that of SFUO Presidential candidate Amalia Savva, on the right is Anna Goldfinch, running for a position at Concordia University. So, you may be asking, why the heck am I bringing up the similarities between Amalia’s poster and that of someone at Concordia. Well, Anna Goldfinch is the sister of Colin Goldfinch, the SFUO Health Plan Coordinator, and well, for lack of a better term: a CFS-er. Things are looking rough for Amalia. First the allegations that Roxanne Dubois (current VP-Finance for the SFUO and Treasurer-Elect for the CFS National) wrote some or all of her platform, then the current state of PIDSSA (of which Amalia is currently President), and the mutinous environment that exists there, and now this. Thoughts?

(Originally posted on http://www.kj360.ca)
I am going to talk about the debates (both sections). It is the day after, I am not going to review any tapes, so I might miss things, I guess you can call this my highlights. But I encourage you to add your own highlights to the comments. I also apologize for the length, but it is covering a lot.

The first debate was regarding the U-Pass. Since there was no “NO” campaign it was just Roxanne advocating. I will say this, I am pro-U-Pass, but Roxanne could not convince me to vote yes. I felt she came off as condescending, using the phrase “what you have to understand is” in response to a question. But I will still be voting yes.

Next up was the Environmental Referendum. Cam Gray and Michele Lamarche were reps for this one. Cam Gray also used the expression “what you have to understand is.” There were questions from the floor asking what specific they wanted to do with the money, very few solid answers. The main point was that this year the Executive made the environment and sustainability a priority so they ear-marked fund for it, but what happens if a future executive doesn’t? Well, I will answer that question: it is the prerogative of the executive what they will make their priorities, not the executive before it. The Environmental referendum is asking for quite a bit of money (approx $115000) without a lot of concrete plans that they can convey to us. I will be voting NO.

Edit: (I had this but didn’t put it in the post for some reason). For the VP-Comm debate it was pretty unimpressive. Paige performed well but needed to better emphasize HOW she planned on being a good VP-Comm, which is a pretty tricky job, given the apparent apathy towards events on campus. Tristan was too aggressive in his attacks on Julie Seguin. While I agree at times that she does not do a good job as the current VP-Comm, but the campaign debates are not the place to express these beliefs.

The VP-University Affairs was next. Osama Berrada came off as not having a very deep platform. Stephanie Marentette lacked confidence in her answers but had a decent debate, although I would like to see her cadence improved if she is going to be the one to advocate on our behalf to the University Administration. Cadence=confidence sometimes. Ted Horton had a good debate, saying that they had worked to get International student co-op status for this summer. He spent a lot of time talking about the successes of this year. I did feel like Ted was taking a lot of credit for things though. 24 hour library has been kicking around for a while, the student age-cap for OC Transpo was a missed issue for months, and the movement was started by an ordinary student at Carleton, and a fall reading week has been an SFUO policy since 2006. While he may have worked on the projects, he did not do it alone.

Then we moved to last night. At its peak, 260 people were viewing the feed. Big thanks to La Rotonde who embedded the feed on their site.

EDS went first and were pretty unconvincing. I will be voting NO. And on a side note, I may be sitting down with reps from the EDS to talk about the referendum, so if you have any questions you want asked send ‘em to ken@kj360.ca or leave it in the comments.

For the VP-Social Debate, Alex Chaput is running unopposed. He spoke of continuing the things he is doing, as well as expanding on other programs he want to do. Here is my first candidate endorsement of the campaign: Vote YES for Chaput!

VP Student Affairs was an average debate. Amy Hammett has a lot of idea that cost money, yet she claims it won’t increase the budget? Giving clubs access to free printing and photocopying, while mentioning there are a ton of clubs, is not going to be cheap. Nicole Tishler had some issues in French, which she chalked up to nerves, since she does take classes in French. However, both came off as enthusiastic and knowledgeable about the services and clubs.

Finance came next. Last night I talked about how I was very impressed with Sidney Loko, but disregarded the “Campaign Volunteers” questions. It was a low point in the debate in my opinion and should not have been allowed. But more on that when the Presidential debates are discussed. Sarah Jayne King did not look comfortable in either language to be honest, but especially in French. I think it was because her speaking notes were too close to her body, so when she was speaking her head was tilted pretty low. Maureen looked confident in her ideas and what she wanted to accomplish next year.

The main event was the Presidential Debates. During the opening statements Sebastien St. Amour sang “Let’s Get it on” while walking the crowd, lots of cheering, really adding some fun to the process. Steeves spoke with confidence, as did Bruno Gelinas-Faucher, who I see as the dark horse of this race (very much in the position Tyler Steeves was in last year). Amalia looked awkward as some points but held herself well. Seb make a comment that he’d been trying to get Roxanne to help him with his speech but she won’t get back to him. Roxanne and Amalia looked uncomfortable after that. Guillaume Pelegrin attempted to ask Amalia about the authenticity of her platform and whether or not she wrote it all. The question was not allowed stating that only question relating to the platforms were allowed, even though Sidney Loko was asked a question that had nothing to do with his platform and he even challenged the question to no avail. I think this was a black mark on the debates. Student have a right to question their leaders. This is where I need to explain myself. I think that Sidney should have to answer questions of his campaigners actions, but when the rules are clearly expressed and those questions are off limits, they should be off limits for everyone, not just a one person.

Sometime Monday I will be releasing my endorsements. I will proceed in the same manner as last year. I will talk about each race separately, going over each candidate, heavily focusing on their platforms and ideas, talking debate performance into minor consideration. Then I will saw who I will be supporting. I do it in this way so I can openly explain and share how I came to my conclusions and that way you can see why I selected who I do.

I say Sidney Loko wins this debate, Maureen in second and Sarah Jayne in third.

Sidney was asked a question about his campaigners interrupting the Debates yesterday. He challenged whether the question was appropriate and that he shouldn’t have to answer it. The Moderators instructed him to and he did well.

I say this opens up questions for Amalia surrounding the Roxanne situation. Just sayin’

A drop fees question was asked, a ton of applause. Sidney Loko gave the first mention of the CFS, giving quite a strong jab. ANd pointed out we spent $80 000 this year on Drop Fees.

Shocking.

EDIT: I just wanted to clarify how I selected a “winner” of the debate. For those who watched the debates, of have seen an SFUO type debate, they are more of an event. I did not sit there with a score card, if I would have done so, Maureen would have dominated. What I did do was weigh my expectation of how people would do. And admittedly, I did not expect Sidney Loko do to well (which presumably matches the thinking of most people). I felt he held his own (until the volunteer question, which I felt was against the rules) thus he had the “highest” score based on a moving base score. What impressed my about Sidney is that he wasn’t afraid to say the harsh numbers that we are facing when it comes to the SFUO businesses. And, I will openly admit the question to Sidney re: his volunteers did not factor into my ranking. I am going to do a post today about the debates as a whole, and in that I will be taking it into consideration.

And again, if you go solely on who had the best debate overall, I would give it to Maureen.