The Coalition for Student Loan Fairness hits the lobbying sweet spot

There's been a few new posts recently. Don't forget to scroll down.

What makes for great lobbying? What gets you in the news? Why do student governments agonize and student lobbies button up, while a comparatively small group rockets into national media coverage and affects actual national party policy?

The lively example of the nascent Coalition for Student Loan Fairness (CSLF) brought these questions to my mind. The coalition was formed in April by Julian Benedict and Mark O'Meara, to give a political voice to a group of 990 000 graduates that still owe student loans. The SFU and UBC graduates (respectively), neither of whom had ever had anything to do with campus politics or goverance, got together and decided to do something about the disturbing prospect of paying their loans back to a broken system. Since its formation in April, I've heard about the CSLF on the CBC multiple times, and seen more than a few stories in mainstream newsprint and new sires (example: today's MacLean's Magazine article) . At first I was puzzled and a little miffed that it wasn't CASA or CFS, (the two federal Canadian student lobbies) that were constantly in the news about such a crucial topic. How is it possible that the large umbrella orginizations, and even our own student societies have been either ineffectual or silent where a small group of graduates completely unconnected to student government of any sort were making waves?

I called up Julian Benedict, the coalition's communications manager and co-founder to find out just exactly who the coalition was, and how they had made their quick ascent to political currency and newsworthiness. "I truly believe that if you have a good story, it will get out there," said Benedict. Benedict is an SFU history honours graduate. After he graduated, he and CSLF co-founder Mark O'Meara (a UBC student) realized that there are 990 000 thousand borrowers in a gray area with no political representation. These borrowers are a little stranded - they are no longer represented by student government, but are dealing with the fallout of funding their post-secondary education in a student aid system that's often dysfunctional, confused, and abusive.

Through discussion on O'Meara's CanadaStudentDebt.ca website, Benedict began to feel the magnitude of the issue. "In the begining, I spent a lot of time asking myself if this was a real issue," he recounted. The more he spoke to other borrowers, the more he was convinced that it was. Benedict soon started filling access to information requests, talking to administrators, and synthesizing statistics. The information and knowledge amassed in this research process, and the collection of stories from borrowers form the base for the coalition's report, containing an 8-point plan, which provides "solutions to improve public confidence and operational effectiveness" of the Canada Student Loans program. The plan asks for a reduction in interest rates for student loans . It asks for a student loan Ombudsperson office to investigate and redress mistakes and abuses in the system. Other points include providing borrowers with up to date and accurate statements (which, astonishingly, are very difficult to get now), consolidating all loan repayments into one account, enforcing directives to abusive collection agencies, and providing access to grants and debt reduction.

For a novelty song, and tips on media-whoring, check out the rest behind the jump.

The basic premise of the lobby group is fairness. "Our name was deliberately chosen" said Benedict. "Fairness is something all Canadians feel strongly on." The CSLF believes that government shouldn't be making money off student loans; that it's a social service like any other. That isn't happening now. Government charges borrowers rates from 8 to 11 % while it only pays 4 to 5 % interest itself. The margin is far more than what it takes to run the program. In fact, the government made 315 million dollars in 05/06 from loan interest, and is projected to make over half a billion in the year 09/10. According to Benedict, data shows that interest rates themselves are the reason many students default on their debts. Further, there are serious economic repercussions for us as a society when so many educated young people are significantly burdened with debt, or having their credit ruined due to defaults.

Using the often disturbing stories from borrowers of abusive collection agencies, lack of transparency, and severe financial hardship as hooks, the coalition launched their website and started sending out news releases with Canadian News Wire. This can get pricey - getting your story sent out nationally with a news release agency costs at least $130 a pop. Other than investing some money, the key to lobbying success, said Benedict, is knowing a lot, being focused, and remaining so. A tactic he mentioned that appealed to me was turning something into a news story as opposed to an educational piece. "Targeted, relevant, accurate" he chanted over the phone, as I scribbled.

Benedict works full time, but he and 10 other full-time volunteers pour many hours into research and media relations. Their efforts seem to have payed off. Since April, they've had half a million hits on the CSLF website, and countless media exposures. They've received endorsements form several MP's and scores of student organizations including the SFSS, CFS, and CASA (the AMS is notably absent). Most importantly, no federal political party had a policy on student loan interest rates before April. Due to the CSLF's approaches and advocacy, several now do. I asked Bendict why he thought his group has made a significant impact in a short time, while the student movement had not. He essentially reiterated that effective advocacy can only take place when you collect an immense amount o f detailed meachnistic knowledge, and have a narrow focus which you don't waver from. Large organizations in the student movement, he obseved, are run by alot of well meaning people with a finite amount of time to devote to any one thing.

Check out the CSLF's website for Access to Information documents, polling results, news story links, and the coalition's 8-point plan in detail at http://www.studentloanfairness.ca/while you rock out to Mark O'Meara's student debt song at here .

Read More...

Summary only...

AMS council kills Musqueam support motion

At last Wednesday's AMS council meeting (the last one of the summer), the embattled external motion regarding the Musqueam native band finally came to its demise. This policy, which has been tabled repeatedly in past meetings, has gone through a few iterations and adjustments. AMS president Jeff Friedrich took on the task of rewriting it. In the end though, it wasn't good enough. The motion failed the two-thirds vote.

The idea of creating an AMS policy expressing support for the Musqueam nation, on whose traditional territory UBC is situated, has been around for a while. The Musqueam have been in the treaty process with government regarding their claims for years. Last February, Mariana Payet, then the executive coordinator of student services of the AMS, brought forward a motion that acknowledged the Musqueam's title over UBC, reading

Whereas the UBC Point Grey Campus is located on unceded Musqueam Territory; and

Whereas the AMS is housed in the Student Union Building located on the UBC Point GreyCampus; and

Whereas the Musqueam people have lived on this land since time immemorial;

Be it resolved that the Alma Mater Society officially recognize the Musqueam
people’s title over this land

This motion was tabled (neither passed nor failed): people weren't comfortable with the legal ambiguities of students supporting the ceding UBC land to a private body. Some people simply didn't see the point of creating a policy that had no action associated with it. Others disagreed with the intent of supporting Musqueam claims. The AMS president, Jeff Friedrich, asked that the motion be tabled so that consultation with campus aboriginal groups could be conducted, and so that wording could be adjusted to make it less controversial. [As a side note, he also said it was a "difficulty" that the motion came from the floor (as opposed to coming from the executive); I've heard Jeff make comments along those lines again, and am confused about them. What is "difficult", or (another favorite word) "tricky" about motions from the floor? On the contrary, the executive drives the agenda of council far too much, to the exclusion of motions from committees, caucuses, or god forbid, individual councilors.] But anyway, that's what happened. Jeff consulted with the Aboriginal students' association and another campus first nation group from the UBC First Nations House of Learning (the longhouse). He asked David Wells, the AMS policy analyst to help redraft the motion. Here's what they came up with:

Whereas the UBC Point Grey Campus is located in the Musqueam people’s
traditional territory that was never ceded to the Crown; and

Whereas historical information provided by University information sources
indicates that this land was traditionally used by the Musqueam for
educational and defensive purposes; and

Whereas the Musqueam are currently engaged with the province in a
treaty negotiation process regarding the territory in question; and

Whereas recent court rulings suggest that the Musqueam have a strong
prima facie case for Aboriginal Title; and

Whereas it is acknowledged that any settlement resulting from the
current treaty negotiation process will likely not result in the loss of use
of this territory to the University of British Columbia for the purposes of
providing post-secondary education,

Therefore, be it resolved that the Alma Mater Society officially
recognize the Musqueam people’s legitimate claim to this territory; and

Be it further resolved that the AMS support a negotiated resolution
that will enable the territory in question to continue being a source of
learning and knowledge, both formal and informal, modern and traditional, UBC
and Musqueam,” and

Be it further resolved that the AMS support a negotiated settlement
regarding the disposition of the University Golf Course, which has been
acknowledged as being located on traditional Musqueam territory.

So basically, the AMS should recognize a claim that obviously (and legally) exists, and support a negotiation process that's already well underway. In other news, the sun rose this morning. Not exactly radical - in fact, barely meaningful. The motion is so watered down, that it's basically just a list of the government processes now underway with "we support" stuck before them. Opposition in council came from two directions. There were those people that were still uneasy about supporting the Musqueam claims. On the other hand, there were those that would not support a motion that, to paraphrase science councilor Tahara Bhate, merely supplied nice-sounding sound bites, but really only payed lip service to aboriginal issues - essentially the same thing government has done for hundreds of years with disasterous results.

There was fairly strong support for this motion though. In fact, more than half of council voted for it, but less than the two-thirds required. Darren Peets (B0G) spoke favorably of the motion as a goodwill gesture, arts councilor Nathan Crompton said that this motion didn't prevent a true radical stance to be taken in the future, and Jeff Friedrich said that all the groups he consulted said the motion would be meaningful and welcome.

This particular failed effort highlights the difficulty of passing political external policies in the AMS. In this case, it went something like this: some people think some issue is important - they represent a particular side in a motion. Others think it's irrelevant; others simply take a different political position. The motion is tabled since it clearly would have failed. It is revised to a less strident position to garner more council support; all meaning is lost. The motion fails anyway.

For background on Musqueam and its recent dealings with UBC, check out previous posts:
News item from the Globe and Mail
context and analysis by Tim

Read More...

Summary only...

Student Aid report from administrators

Student loan administrators have turned into activists! This article from this morning's Globe and Mail.

More need-based student aid urged
Universal programs outpacing funding for those who need help, says a study by financial aid administrators

ELIZABETH CHURCH
From Monday's Globe and Mail
August 27, 2007 at 4:37 AM EDT

An increasing proportion of financial aid for postsecondary education is going to all students, rather than to those who need it most, says a new study from university and college administrators that calls for a reversal of the trend.

Over the past decade, federal and provincial governments of all political stripes have spent more on student support overall. But the report finds that most of that new spending has been for measures such as tax credits and tuition freezes that benefit everyone, and are not targeted at those who face financial obstacles in postsecondary education.

Universal aid programs now get about three dollars for every dollar spent on needs-based grants and loans, says the report, to be released today.

"Governments get captured by the ability to score political points by adjusting tuition levels or raising tax credits," said Sean Junor, one of the authors of the report. "Student aid has never been a big vote getter."

If the aim of financial aid programs is to encourage more students to go to college and university, then the current trend must be corrected, he said. Programs must be directed to qualified students who would otherwise be deterred because of costs, which was the original intention of student-aid programs when they were established 40 years ago, Mr. Junor said.

The report finds that beginning in the late 1990s, the steady expansion of measures such as monthly education tax credits "fundamentally altered the nature of student aid in Canada."

The study, entitled The End of Need-Based Student Aid in Canada?, was commissioned by the Canadian Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. Its argument - especially its opposition to blanket tuition freezes - is likely to meet with stiff opposition from student groups, who continue to pressure governments to hold the line on fees or reduce them. The study's call for more targeted funding relief is one that is frequently made by university and college leaders frustrated by government limits on their ability to raise funds through tuition.

Mr. Junor, who is with the Educational Policy Institute, an independent research group based in Toronto, said the study documents how the financial aid system has strayed from its original intentions during the past 10 years.

It examines spending at all levels of government on student aid and the recipients of those funds, and finds that most new spending has not been based on need.

In the past four years, all levels of government and the federally supported Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation have increased aid spending by more than $1.4-billion. About 60 per cent of that went to non-need based expenditures, the study found.

The one exception at the provincial level is Ontario which, following a report by former premier Bob Rae, has targeted the majority of its aid to need-based programs, as has the millennium scholarship foundation. The foundation provides more than one-third of all grants to students, but its funding is set to run out in less than two years.

The student aid programs certainly need reform. It's absurd that people use the cash from student loans to buy cars, and don't work in the summer, while others can't even qualify because their parents have a certain income, even if the parents are not supporting their son/daughter through university. In a way, the issue comes down across a fairly clear line: should there be more needs-based student aid to help those people that otherwise wouldn't attend, or should we as a society simply spend much more on education to make it universally more accessible?

Read More...

Summary only...

I quite enjoy "Inside Higher Ed"

First, read this article. Short version: How University administrators co-opt their student representatives. An interesting reflection on a position into which almost all student "representatives" are placed.

Then, read its follow-up: It's about the importance of Presidential leadership when it comes to the student experience at a University.

Then go back to enjoying the long weekend.

Read More...

Summary only...

Junk food junked?

by student BoG rep Darren Peets

About a month ago, UBC was informed of a new provincial policy on the sale of food and drinks from vending machines. In essence, this policy expands the junk food restrictions already in place in schools to all hospitals, universities, colleges, Crown Agencies, provincial government buildings, and so on. Food is sorted by its nutritional value into four categories, helpfully named Not Recommended, Choose Least, Choose Sometimes, and Choose Most. At least 50% of all food and beverage choices from any bank of vending machines must be Choose Most, while Not Recommended and Choose Least are forbidden. The intent is to steer people toward healthier food.

My understanding is that this takes effect August 1, 2007, and that UBC has already been asked for conformance reports. At this point, it's not backed up by legislation, but as with many provincial directives, it will be if necessary -- noncompliance would only result in a few months of freedom and a needless fight with the Province.

There is one noteworthy exemption to the policy: student residence. Through a form of logic that escapes me, the Province has decided that students living in residence either eat healthier food than those who don't, or simply don't matter as much. The fate of vending machines in the SUB is unclear, as the SUB seems to be described by both the exemptions and inclusions sections of the policy.

For example, candies and chocolates are categorized as follows: Almost everything is Not Recommended, Choose Least includes some very small packages of candies, chocolates or dessert gelatines, Choose Sometimes includes sugar-free gum, mints or cough drops and diabetic candies, and Choose Most need not apply. A handful of energy bars pass muster (some even make the top category), but low-carb, low-protein and just plain large energy bars, and any with sugar as the first ingredient or added fats aren't allowed.

The full policy is available from http://www.lcs.gov.bc.ca/HealthierChoices/

My initial feeling was indignation that we were being treated like children, but given that doctors and nurses are too, I'm a bit less annoyed about it now, and I doubt it's worth UBC fighting. I'm curious what everyone else thinks, though.

Read More...

Summary only...

Financial bullying in Commerce Faculty, or, what becomes of a bad precedent.

Dan Muzyka, Dean of the faculty of Commerce, is in the market for a sugar momma. The only reason he hasn't posted on Craigslist yet is because he thinks he's got a lead. Except this time she's younger than he is, and considerably poorer - the Commerce Undergraduate Society. The affectionately self-dubbed "Dean Dan" has approached the CUS to contribute $150 000 to next years' faculty budget. It all started last year, when UBC had the nasty surprise of finding out it was running a 36 million dollar deficit.

The UBC board of governors has begun a long process to cut its budgets through the SCAPP committee (which just completed their first report, found HERE). Sullen deans and department heads everywhere are being asked to prioritize, efficiency-ify, and strip down their program offerings to their most Trek 2010-friendly activities. The government is stingy, and tuition can only be increased by a measly 2% a year. GPOF funding is no bottomless pit. "Hard decisions" are about to be made. But Commerce? Well, why would commerce tighten its belt when there's the untapped cash cow of student money to be had?

Dean Dan, apparently based on his close relationship with former CUS president Mike Woodward, broached the topic of increased CUS contributions last year. The $150 000 he asked for then is ostensibly to support the operations of the faculty's Business Career Centre (BCC) - one of those "prestige and profile" building programs that the Suader school takes pride in. The CUS already funds the BCC to the tune of $150 000 per year - about 15% of the $1.1 million annual CUS budget, and likewise 15% of the approximately $1 million BCC operating budget. The additional contribution would bring CUS support up to 30% for this academic service. maybe that's fair. Maybe students are willing to do that.

However, problems arise as soon and you get your number cruncher out. The BCC itself, according to its projected budget, is only asking for $60 000; the dean has now backtracked and asked for $100 000. This discrepancy is due to an alleged miscommunication between the two. Moreover, while the dean plans to pay $9000 less for the BCC next year, he has aked the CUS for far more than the balance ($91 000 more), giving the BCC a larger budget by far than previous years. This is in part accounted for because the BCC (bizarrely) budgeted for a 15-month period instead of the normal 12. But, even if you remove the three extra months' worth of costs, the BCC is still being allocated more than ever before as a result of the projected CUS contribution. To be exact, if the CUS contributes $60 000, or $100 000, the inflated amount (above last years' BCC budget) is $22 500, or $53 500, respectively. For all the details, please refer to the report prepared by CUS executives Jia Lei and Conor Topley on the topic HERE

The BCC has been unable to produce any plans for increased programming in the upcoming year. Since the student money now supporting the CUS goes throught the faculty, one might ponder about all the other faculty areas that, faced with the doleful prospect of GPOF cuts to their units (unless they become Goerge Mackie-accredited sustainable global citizens on the double), are parched for accountability-free student subsidization. On might reflect how well-pleased Dean Dan would be to benevolently water them. The truth is, we might well wonder where the extra money will end up: the dean, where approached with bald numbers, did not feel inclined to make his intentions public. More information may be provided at tomorrow's CUS council meeting, where the dean is going to present, but he has alluded to the fact that he doesn't want other faculties getting wind of the whole arrangement.

It may be far to late for that, however. The word on the street is that Dean of Arts Nancy Gallini has already approached the Arts Undergraduate society for some sort of bale-out. I'm not really supposed to know this, you see, so hush. Heaven forbid that we should have transparency at a public institution when there's 36 million dollars to come up with!

Anyway, Dean Dan has communicated to CUS president Conor Topley that if the CUS does not comply with his request (or shall we call it a demand?) two options are open:

a. Reduced services from the BCC.
b. A reduction in the number of undergraduate classes offered.

Considering that "hard decisions" are being made all over the university due to the current budget climate, these two options must and should be on the table anyway. The CUS and BCC in truth, have not a thing to do with it. The dean's request basically amounts to opportunism - the CUS has money, he needs it. There has been no honesty about the actual needs of the BCC's operations. There has been no honesty about where the excess in that budget would go. Increasing the BCC budget on students' dime at a time like this is preposterous. Using the excess in that budget at the dean's discretion, with no accountability, is insanity. While some block-headed CUS councilors have amiably suggested an increase in their tuition and student fees to cover the dean's whims, the rest of us would do well to recall that Sauder students already pay the highest student fees at the university at $266 (this was originally implemented during the 90's tuition freeze to do things like purchase computers and get the BCC started to begin with - check out a Ubyssey article (pg 4) on the topic). They also just approved an additional $500 per year building levy on their future students to finance the mortgage on a shiny new Angus building. Should they also be saddling a greater and greater portion of institutional spending?

This business - both the process and the intent - create an absurd precedent for the rest of the university. How ironic that the commerce faculty can't balance it's books without extorting students.

Read More...

Summary only...

Recognizing the Staff on Campus

It looks like the President's Service Award for Excellence is getting a facelift, or at the very least formalizing informal guidelines which were practiced for several years.

Currently, the PSAE is open to both faculty and staff, the recipients (up to five per year) receive a gold medal and a monetary award of $5000. Having sat on the selection committee this past year I gained some insight into the workings of the committee. I also learned about the tremendous individuals who work on this campus who I sadly will never get to meet. I refrain from gushing on for obvious confidentiality reasons. In any case, today I attended an ad-hoc meeting to look at some reforms which Stephen Toope proposed to us*.

One was to make this award staff-only. Another was to increase the types of awards given out to staff - especially given the addition of UBC Okanagan in 2005.

Lisa Castle, AVP Human Resources, was a guest at our meeting today where she came up with a proposal to increase the number of Staff awards in four specified areas: Service to the Community and Sustainability, Service to Enhance Student Experience, Service through exceptional Teamwork (given out to a team of staff, obviously), and Service to Creativity and Innovation. This would all come out of the Endowment, with a minimal increase in award spending (about 12 000$ per year for the extra awards).

It was agreed that service recognition to Faculty was going to be taken up by the new Provost, and that the PSAE as is would now focus on Staff. This is really not a drastic change from current practice - there has only been one Faculty member to receive the PSAE in the past seven years, and spelling out this informal preference is only transparent and fair. It further allows for the realization of separate service awards to Faculty members who serve their community, noting that of course, Emeritus Status and other designations already exist for them.

After the meeting I talked to Lisa about her projects, and she gave me insight into the four different generations of staff she was serving. Each of them had different needs of job satisfaction, and her challenge was to meet most of them and each of their unique needs. The PSAE is only one avenue out of many - younger staff would like to see their job have career openings rather than just recognition for their works.

Overall, I feel that this development was much needed on this large campus. Much like students, I get the sense that the staff can also feel like an anonymous number at times. While students, staff, and faculty all emalgamate to form the community which we find ourselves in, the immense contribution of our staff is often taken for granted and this is a small step towards fostering their growth as well.

*Speaking of which, I saw his wife outside of Shoppers Drugmart today, wearing a beautiful Art-nuveau inspired white and black patterned cocktail dress near her bicycle. I walked in and out of the Dentistry building three times, contemplating whether or not I should go up and introduce myself to chat her up(though we had met before), but in the end decided to give her the anonymity she still enjoys. Her hubby certainly would not have had this luxury!

Read More...

Summary only...

Reading Break 2010

On May 16, the Senate approved to extend the 2010 reading break from 5 days to 10 days, adding another week of jolly freedom to the schedule of an otherwise overworked undergraduate student. This, as you rightly predict, is a response to the VanOC which approached Academic Policy chair Paul Harrison with this proposal quite some time ago, and consultation to the student senate caucus was conducted during the turnover meeting (end of April) in an informal setting. To which extent the student senators consulted the rest of the student body thereafter is unbeknownst to me, due to a self-imposed temporary post-retirement retreat from anything and everything to do with this illustrious institution. Call it a refractory period.

In any case, the registrar's office came up with a schedule of least inconvencience to students, and it's linked here (link):

- total teaching days for term 2 will be reduced from 63 days to 62 days
- reading break will be held from February 15-26 instead of 15-19
- consequently, classes will end on April 15, instead of April 9
- exams will be held during the period of April 19-May 1, instead of April 14-28
- graduation dates will not be changed

At the caucus meeting, the following points were raised to Paul Harrison:
- there is a significant number of students living off-campus but not at home who will be affected by exams ending on May 1. Housing arrangements extend in most cases to the end of the month and there will be contractual implications for those individuals who wish to move, sublet, and otherwise make arrangements while they are still writing exam(s).
- there are several private on-campus residences (Fraser Hall, and the many more that are budding at the speed of light) which do not have to abide to the administrative orders like any residences under UBC Housing and Conferences do. We asked that the VP Students office and the UNA be approached by the Senate in order to communicate this concern.
- Transit services need to be increased on Saturday, May 1 in order to accommodate for the increased number of students who are commuting into campus

To give you some frame of reference, this is not the first time the exam period has extended into May. However, since my little project of looking into the exam schedule in 2003, it was informally agreed that spilling over into May should be avoided for reasons mentioned above. We saw the Olympics as extenuating circumstances.

This, of course, beckons considerations beyond these logistical matters, on whether or not we should accommodate to, and thereby support the principles of the Olympics, of the Olympics in this city, and of the Olympics in this city in the way it has unfolded thus far. It is well known that despite of the grand principles which infused the realization of the Olympics at the cusp of the twentieth century (the celebration of human performance, sportsmanship, friendship, "global citizenship" etc), processes leading up to the events may not necessarily have lived up to these ideals in several cities.

A prime example is VanOC's pledge to social sustainability, in particular housing. It has been reported that already hundreds of evictions have taken place in low rent housing in the inner city, despite of a promise that this would not happen. Given this neglect, it is doubtful on whether 30% of housing built for the Olympics will be converted to social housing after (another key promise).

I have been in contact with the founder (Rob Van Wynsberghe) of the IOCC (link) (an independent community coalition which has been tracking the development of the 2010 Van Olympics from the social perspective of housing, transit, environment, social accountability, safety and civil liberty (I may have missed some). In any case, the IOCC has been giving the VanOc committee some pretty grave grades (D- in a recent 24 Hrs article) so far.

He and I both agreed that there is a certain duty of citizenship on our part to respect and foster the City's wish to host the Olympics. While a refusal to accomodate to the Olympics through congesting traffic during those five days in February would stiffle the experience of both student and winter sport enthusiast, the degree of inconvenience may or may not have been a constructive or effective way to show concern around the development of the Olympics in this city.

Nor am I certain whether it is in the best interest of the University's already esoteric reputation to out-right refuse to collaborate and make concessions for the community at large that it finds itself embedded in.

However, if citizenship were a virtue, I would challenge this position further. It would be complacent of us to dwell simply on cooperation - cooperation for the blind leading the blind towards detriment to already marginalized parts of the City. We have a responsibility to use our cooperation with VanOC as a leverage to raise concerns about the way in which social issues such as housing in the DTES have been utterly neglected. This is a bargaining chip with great stakes. Members of the senate and individuals on AMS council should take this to heart and act, and they need to do it now.


http://www.students.ubc.ca/senate/

Read More...

Summary only...

Stephen Owen appointed VP External and Community Relations of UBC

So, I'm still in a little bit of an awe at this, hopefully some of you sages can provide insight and calm my nerves. Stephen Owen's website confirms that "Stephen Owen, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra, announced today that he will be resigning his seat effective July 27, 2007 to join the University of British Columbia as Vice President, External and Community Relations." (link)

While I would like to think that propriety calls for our university administrators to remain at arms' length with federal/provincial political parties, this recent development compounds to paint the following picture:
- Stephen Toope is a founder and former chair of the Pierre Trudeau Foundation. While "non-partisan", it's Pierre Trudeau, Mr. Liberal posterchild from the glory days and perhaps a major reason why some individuals still support the party.
- Stephen Owen quits his Liberal MP post to join the UBC administration.

Is it just me, or is our University too close for comfort in arms with the Liberals? We have a conservative federal government, making my point that perhaps we, as a public autonomous institution, should remain appropriately outside of the realm of blatant partylines. I expect Matthew Naylor to post with vigorous defense.

Full media release from the UBC Website behind the jump:

Media Release | Jul. 5, 2007

Stephen Owen Appointed Vice President, External and Community Relations

The University of British Columbia Board of Governors today approved the appointment of Stephen Owen as Vice President, External and Community Relations.

Owen, a UBC alumnus who is the Member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra, the Vancouver constituency that includes UBC, will resign his seat July 27 before assuming his new UBC position August 15.

“Stephen Owen brings to UBC uniquely broad insight and experience developed through a distinguished career of public service that has been a hallmark of integrity,” said UBC President Stephen Toope. “His decision to join our university underscores the paramount importance we place on effective relations with our communities as UBC, already one of the world’s 40 best universities, prepares to enter its second century of service to British Columbia, Canada and beyond.”

The position description for Owen’s responsibilities states: “The External and Community Relations Portfolio is responsible for guiding and enhancing engagement with government at all levels -- municipal, provincial, national and international. It develops community relationships with civil society, neighbourhood associations and social movements; enhances cultural aspects of university life related to staff, faculty and students studying, living and working together; and builds a sense of belonging to form a vibrant and cohesive community.”

“I am thrilled to return to my alma mater as a member of Prof. Toope’s executive team,” Owen said. “UBC’s strategic plan, Trek 2010, lays out an ambitious plan for the university to become one of the world’s very best. I am thankful for the opportunity to lead the communication effort around the truly compelling story of teaching and research excellence that UBC has created in the last 100 years.”

UBC units Owen will oversee include: Ceremonies and Events, Community Affairs, Government Relations, the Learning Exchange, Public Affairs, University Counsel (legal office), and university operations at UBC Robson Square.

Owen, 58, was born in Vancouver. He and his wife, Diane, a UBC alumna and a UBC online instructor in intercultural communication, have two sons. Owen received his Law degree from UBC in 1972, his Master of Law from the University of London and his MBA from the University of Geneva.

Owen’s career has taken him from legal advocacy work in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, through a variety of high-profile senior provincial positions such as Ombudsman and Deputy Attorney General, and forward to the national and international stages.

Following election as MP for Quadra in 2000, he served as Secretary of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and Minister of Western Economic Development. From 1997-2000, he was David Lam Professor of Law at the University of Victoria, and he has consulted internationally on a variety of human rights issues.

A complete CV is available at:
www.stephenowen.ca/Content/Default.aspx?pg=1004.

Owen succeeds Dennis Pavlich, who resigned in June to take on the presidency of the Great Northern Way Campus, a consortium of BCIT, Simon Fraser University, the Emily Carr Institute of Art + Design and UBC. The new institution has a focus on arts and culture, urban sustainability and digital media.

Read More...

Summary only...

U-Blvd re-consultation kickoff

The wonders of free food.

Yesterday, if you were ambling by the south side for the SUB, you may have noticed a crush of people scribbling on questionnaires, brandishing barbecue vouchers, and collecting delicious AMS catering fare. Yesterday marked the first event in the renewed push for re-imagining the much loathed University Boulevard development project - also known as the U-Blvd neighborhood plan and University square.

About three hundred people filled out the lengthy survey in three hours yesterday afternoon. Just to compare, only 170 students filled out the hugely advertised "Campus Plan" survey online several months ago, which was available for a week. Yesterday's survey, (which can be found here, and can still be submitted till Friday) comprised of open-ended questions. A detailed vision statement generated by the Board's consultation working group was supplied. The questions mostly regarded how people use the space now, and what they envisioned for it in the future.

This consultation, and another round that will happen in September, are broadly expected to lead to a fundamental re-design of the development plan. How fundamental, nobody is quite sure. The basic question is whether the university's architecture firm will be asked to modify existing drawings (which the university has already payed several million dollars to create over the years), or go back to the drawing board. This process is the result of a student petition and AMS policy that opposed the existing development plan. Both were brought to the Board of Governors' attention in May.

If you missed the free burgers, don't fret, you still have a chance to pitch in. Workshops taking place this week are:

• July 5 - SUB Concourse

• 11 am – 4 pm: Open House Drop In

• July 6 - SUB Room 42T (Where the arcade used to be, next to the Delly)
• 11 am – 12 pm: Mini-workshop on the Vision
• 1 – 2 pm: Mini-workshop on Mapping the Square
• 3 – 4 pm: Mini-workshop on connecting to the SUB

Read More...

Summary only...