Please accept my apologies in advance to those who find copy and paste posts offensive.
I was recently introduced to CanLII, a site that archives court decisions. After a brief search for "UBC", I found this one which was too funny not to pass along.
"The plaintiff says that U.B.C. should not have left a goal upright on McInnes Field at night. I reject the suggestion that the goal as it stood was an allurement or trap to the plaintiff, an adult male, to use as a kind of jungle gym."
An excerpt, condensed and edited to remove extraneous information:
The plaintiff claims damages for injuries suffered when, after clambering onto the crossbar of a portable soccer goal at the University of British Columbia, the goal tipped forward, the plaintiff fell and the crossbar hit his face.
The plaintiff, aged 33 years, is an unemployed mill worker living in Prince George. On Friday, 10 March 1990 he was staying with a friend in Vancouver. He went out with his friend early in the evening for Chinese food. He drank two bottles of beer. After returning to his friend's apartment he left to go out for the evening with another friend, Brian Saarela. They went to a cabaret for an hour or so where the plaintiff said he had one bottle of beer. After waiting in a line-up to get into the Kitsilano Pub, the two friends decided instead to drive to the Pit, a drinking establishment for students at U.B.C. They arrived there shortly after 11 p.m. and stayed for an hour and a half or so. The plaintiff said that while there he drank three or four pints of beer.
The plaintiff had not visited the U.B.C. campus before. He was taken there in Brian Saarela's truck. Saarela parked his truck in a parking lot at the side of McInnes Field, a large grassed sports field adjacent to the Student Union Building which houses the Pit. The plaintiff and Saarela walked across McInnes Field to get to the Student Union Building. There were portable goals on and around the field (perhaps four in total).
The two friends emerged from the Pit at about 12:30 a.m. and began retracing their steps across McInnes field to get to their vehicle. The two men approached a portable goal which was standing upright on the field. The plaintiff began to walk across the front of the goal. Saarela saw his friend put his right hand on the goal's left upright post. He saw nothing more until a few seconds later he heard a thump and saw his friend lying face up on the ground with the goal's crossbar across his chest. Saarela's attention had been diverted when he was fumbling in his pocket for his watch and then dropped it.
The plaintiff says that he jumped up and grabbed the crossbar with both hands. He was facing along the line of the crossbar. He pulled himself up to the bar and then threw his right leg up and around it. Then says the plaintiff, "I think I felt it let go - something give...it happened so fast, I didn't have time to do anything...I was on the ground...with the crossbar on my face".
Brian Saarela assisted the plaintiff back to his truck and drove him to the nearby emergency ward of the U.B.C. Hospital. The plaintiff was found to have suffered severe facial injuries. It was the view of both the emergency ward doctor, and the plastic surgeon intern who saw him later that night at the Vancouver General Hospital, that the plaintiff had been drinking heavily.
The plaintiff says that U.B.C. should not have left a goal upright on McInnes Field at night. I reject the suggestion that the goal as it stood was an allurement or trap to the plaintiff, an adult male, to use as a kind of jungle gym.
Even if it can be said that U.B.C. should have reasonably anticipated that the occasional nighttime visitor, inebriated or not, might try to do chin-ups on an encounter with the portable goal while crossing McInnes Field, that I find is not what happened in this case.
I regret the plaintiff's serious injury, but must conclude that he was the author of his own misfortune.
The plaintiff's claim must be dismissed with costs on scale 3.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
From the Archives
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
AUS Election Results
The AUS Elections happened quite recently, and the results are posted below. I'm a little bit saddened, in general, by elections of both the AUS and SUS- a fair number of the positions this year were uncontested or were yes/no votes. In fact, the UBC Debate Society's election was more contested than either election (only 2 yes/no votes), just to use an example that I'm familiar with. I don't know much about the candidates in this race, but I do recognize some of the names of the AMS reps- Matt Naylor will be continuing on in student politics, and I'm pleased to see Mike Silley there as well. Kristian Arciaga will be taking on the VP Fin job, which he should also be fantastic for given his enthusiasm about student governance this year. I'd just like to see more names and fewer yes/no votes next year!
Referendum
Yes 157
No 224
President (1)
Guillaume Houle 150
Ryan Trasolini 147
VP Finance (1)
Kristian Arciaga
Yes 232
No 47
VP Internal (1)
Tracy Leung
Yes 199
No 24
VP External (1)
Kyle Warwick
Yes 194
No 26
VP Academic (1)
Regina Tay
Yes 187
No 15
VP Administration (1)
Cheryl Kornder
Yes 196
No 19
Social Coordinator (1)
Uncontested
Promotions Coordinator (1)
Katie Fedosenko
Yes 175
No 17
Student Services Coordinator (1)
Laura Manyari
Yes 182
No 21
MASS Coordinator (1)
Alina Kwan
Yes 179
No 24
AMS Representatives (5)
Kyle Warwick 182
Mike Silley 152
Matthew Naylor 141
Carolee Changfoot 137
Jeremy McElroy 132
Jeremy Wood 126
General Officers (2)
Sarah Bihis
Yes 178
No 40
Kelsi Biring
Yes 187
No 32
Social Officer (1)
Richa Sharma
Yes 169
No 22
Promotions Officer (1)
Uncontested
Student Services Officer (1)
Judy Yuen
Yes 173
No 19
MASS Officer (1)
Pelican Mann
Yes 197
No 40
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Introducing Neal Yonson
Hi everyone,
I would like to extend a warm welcome to Neal, who will be joining the Insiders team! Neal has already done some writing for us, as you all well know by know, and has been really passionate about some of the things going on at UBC, particularly those to do with the NCAA. He is a graduate student in chemistry who is familiar with the way the university works, and I'm really glad to have him on board!
Apologies for my lack of posting, by the way- my course load caught up with me and I'm now trying to catch up! I will resume writing once things have settled down a bit.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Stay Safe
Some of you may have heard the news today about a woman who was killed in Pacific Spirit Park on what appears to be a random attack while she was out for a run/walk around 41st and Camosun. I just wanted to make a quick post in relation to it, as I know that with upcoming exams, lots of people seek exercise as a form of stress relief. I would like to remind everyone to stay safe, to not go to places where you may be vulnerable, to not run with headphones if you are running in the woods or by yourself, and to stay alert and aware of your surroundings and preferably not go out on your own if you're going somewhere isolated. This incident has affected me personally, and I would hate to hear any more news about anyone getting hurt. So please- be aware, follow some of the suggestions laid out by the police: always jog or cycle with a companion, do not wear headphones, carry a whistle or personal alarm, wear visible clothing, and take a cell phone.
Link to the story: "http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tragedy+Ladner+family+park+murder+victim+identified/1462387/story.html
Please take care.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Collect $200 As You Pass Go
As a number of media sites have already reported, UBC lost its parking case at the BC Supreme Court. The court found that UBC has no authority to issue parking tickets or collect money for parking violations. I know what you're thinking...
Well, not necessarily.
The suit focused on UBC's ability to issue parking tickets and collect money for parking violations. And as it turns out, they can't. However, UBC's ability to regulate parking, charge for parking and enforce parking were not at issue. UBC can still legally do all these things.
What will be interesting to see is whether of not UBC comes up with a genuine, reasonable response to this. From the beginning, it never seemed like they were taking this lawsuit very seriously and were basically trying to bully their way out of it. It's never a good sign when you abandon your main defense right before the trial. And so far, after the decision, everything they've done has merely been posturing. They've already said they'll appeal. They also released a bulletin which I can't help but snicker at.
"Nothing to see here, folks... business as usual... here is some legalese to obscure what's really going on... continue overpaying us for parking... if you do not continue to pay us you will unleash a traffic Armageddon... and if we do have to tow you, please know we're only doing it for your own good."
The result of the ruling is that now, the only way UBC can enforce parking regulations is by either 1) asking everyone nicely to continue paying for parking, or 2) towing and impounding vehicles. I really hope UBC thinks long and hard before using option #2 given that heavy-handed application of parking rules is what got them into this mess in the first place. If they start towing cars left, right and centre, they are eventually going to end up with another lawsuit on their hands.
I don't have a whole lot more to add, but was hoping to hear what people think about this in the comments because I think it's a very interesting development. No other campus blog has mentioned it and the Ubyssey won't have the story ready until next Tuesday.
Personally I am interested in learning that if this judgement is upheld on appeal, what are the broader implications? There must be other instances where UBC has granted themselves powers they are not legally entitled to under the University Act. Anybody know?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
NCAA Committee Results
After almost a year, the NCAA Division II Review Committee has finally released its final report regarding UBC-V’s potential application to NCAA Division II. At 588 pages including appendices it’s a monster, but unless you are an absolute nut for documents, the first 28 should suffice, along with the Consultation Summary Report which was posted online earlier this month (also included in the overall report).
So what exactly does it say?
I will mention at this point that I sit on the NCAA committee as a representative of the AMS (and by extension, students at large) and was involved in the whole process of arriving at this final document, so I hope you'll excuse me if I'm very careful in my analysis. I should also point out the obvious fact that I am speaking on behalf of myself only, not on behalf of the committee.
I would also like to say that at the beginning of this process, many people had fears that this would be a rubber-stamp, faux-consultation situation. I hope that after reading the report and consultation summary, no one continues to feel that way.
The first important thing to note in this report is what it doesn't say. While there are recommendations contained within, it does not take a stand on the whole underlying issue: should UBC join the NCAA Division II?
While the committee could not come up with a definitive answer, President Toope will have to (but not necessarily soon.) Publicly he has been very quiet on the subject of the NCAA and it's impossible to guess what the final outcome will be.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Do you agree or disagree that UBC Vancouver should proceed with an application for membership in the NCAA Division II?
Agree – 48%
Disagree – 52%
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
What is clear is that it will take a lot of leadership to simply make a decision - any decision. One of the recommendations contained in the report is that UBC complete its communications plan prior to announcing its decision. The cynical view of this recommendation is that UBC will be trying to use a PR campaign to push through an unpopular decision. Unfortunately for UBC and the cynics out there, any decision they make will be unpopular, which is why this recommendation is vital. If public opinion above is to be believed, the outcome is the same: you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Recommendation A: Should UBC Vancouver decide to proceed with an application for membership in the NCAA Division II, the committee recommends that the University, prior to making any application for membership, seek an exemption from the requirement of academic accreditation.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This is a BIG DEAL. NCAA bylaws require all member institutions to be accredited by a US accrediting agency. While some faculties like Sauder and Medicine already get US accreditation, most of the university doesn't. As mentioned in the report, the accreditation process would cost, at minimum, $500k-$1M every year. The university would be the one paying for this, diverting these funds from research and learning. Dealbreaker #1.
As well, many areas of the university would have to alter the way they develop curricula to suit the new accreditation requirements. You would need widespread buy-in from faculty to make this happen and that doesn't seem likely. Dealbreaker #2.
Seeking US accreditation simply so that our sports teams can play in the NCAA is absurd. It's possible that the NCAA could exempt UBC from this accreditation requirement, with the recognition that we already have Canadian accreditation and oh yeah, we're pretty reputable to boot. If that exemption comes, the door to the NCAA is still open. If not, that door is slammed shut.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
...members of Division II believe that a well-conducted intercollegiate athletics program, based on sound educational principles and practices, is a proper part of the educational mission of a university or college and that the educational well-being and academic success of the participating student-athlete is of primary concern.
-From NCAA Division II Philosophy Statement
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
One of the things that needs to be made clear is that Div II != Div I, and that's a good thing. Div II does have a strong commitment to academics and it appears this commitment isn't simply idle chatter. It was refreshing to learn that schools in Division II take this ethos seriously and practice it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The committee believes that were UBC Vancouver to join the NCAA Division II, there would be an inherent pressure to seek membership in Division I.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Of course, it's never that simple, right? UC-San Diego is a fascinating case study and the only academic comparator to UBC in Division II. Formerly a Division III school, they moved up to Division II because they were simply too large of a school to fit with other Division III schools. Despite moving up, they are now facing pressure to move up again, to Division I. Alarmingly, it is believed that if UBC were in Division II, we would also be under constant pressure to move up to Division I. For UBC, the thought of Division I should be absolutely out of the question for so many reasons that I don't have enough fingers and toes to count them.
Much of this pressure to move up is inherent in being an institution which is much larger than your peers. Based on my research, of the 282 Division II schools, only 6 have more than 20,000 students (UCSD is second most populous, at ~29,000). UBC would easily eclipse those schools in size. If UCSD were to move up to Division I, UBC would be left with no academic comparators in Division II, likely adding even more pressure for UBC to move up as well.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The student body at the University of California, San Diego, an academic comparator to UBC Vancouver, exhibits a level of campus interest in varsity athletics that is not dissimilar to that seen at UBC Vancouver. This is explained in part by the fact that students do not see the competing Division II member institutions as what can be termed “fraternal institutions”.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In the consultation discussion guide the only potential benefit listed for regular students is "enhancing school spirit and pride". The committee found that it is extremely unlikely that having the NCAA on campus will have any positive effect on fan support. In fact, it might even get worse since the Division II schools have zero name recognition. Getting people out to games requires marketing, plain and simple, and that can be done regardless of where UBC plays.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
These financial indicators suggest that Athletics and Recreation is in a sound financial position as evidenced by its seven-figure net income in each of the past two years.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The revelation that UBC Athletics is in a good financial situation should come as news to no one. Although Athletics has certain unrealistic financial expectations regarding joining the NCAA (such as >100% increase in gate revenues), in the short term joining the NCAA wouldn't change the budgets much.
What happens after the short term is the unanswered million-dollar question (or more likely a multi-million dollar question). UBC's varsity budget currently stands at about CAD$4.5M. The average varsity budget of a NCAA Division II school with football in the first quartile is around USD$9M (at current exchange rates, about CAD$11M.) As mentioned above, UBC would be by far the largest school in Division II. In the long term, would UBC Athletics be happy at current varsity funding levels? Or would they try to drastically increase their varsity budget to bring it in line with other large Division II schools?
So what about UCSD, who moved up from Div III? Well, in 2007 they passed a fee referendum that saw their athletics fee more than triple, going from $95 to $329 (!) This increase effectively doubled the budget of their athletic department, in order to put them in the same realm as other large Division II schools.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
UBC Vancouver’s consideration of application for membership in the NCAA Division II has proved a catalyst for opening discussions about changes to the CIS.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) is still a big question mark, in that they have been oddly silent. While there have been meetings between UBC and CIS officials, nothing particularly notable came out of them. CIS did release a document last October in an attempt to demonstrate their commitment to excellence but it isn't clear if action is following their words. While visiting Ottawa in February, I went into the CIS offices to ask if they had released anything else relevant since then. The answer was no.
Whether or not CIS intends on changing anything is still a mystery. Hopefully more will be revealed at the CIS AGM in early June. Bob Philip was asked about whether he would still want to be in the NCAA if CIS were to adopt NCAA-style financial aid rules and a higher calibre of play. The response was a non-committal. For athletics, it seems like the dislike of CIS goes deeper than just the rules on the surface.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The committee observed that the operations of UBC Athletics and Recreation were not well understood by the academic units of the university.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
And that brings us to the last recommendation: an advisory committee to facilitate communication between Athletics and the academic departments. UBC seems to be very committee-happy though that might be a symptom of any large organization. All I can say is that it's not a bad idea, but if a committee of this type is formed, it needs to have some real powers, not just talk about things. Being able to report directly to the president, as proposed in the report, would give this committee some much-needed clout.
I encourage you to read the report for the full story and to make up your own mind. I hope the Ubyssey has something upcoming on this report, since they (Justin McElroy in particular) have had lots of meaningful NCAA coverage this year.
Monday, March 16, 2009
ACF Cancelled
This just in as a press release from the AUS:
UBC BUREAUCRACY AND RCMP CANCEL ACF REVIVAL
March 16, 2009 – Despite months of planning and organization, Arts County Fair will not be not be revived in 2009. Approval for the Arts Undergraduate Society’s (AUS) April 3, 2009 event has been denied by the UBC Classroom Services and the RCMP. This event, a revival of the largest student run event in Canada which was forced to be cancelled due to logistical difficulties in 2007, was to be held on Main Mall between the Flag Pole Plaza and Neil Wyman Plaza. Preparations and early promotions were already underway, in the assumption that an agreement in good faith could be reached with all relevant parties. During the process, the AUS consistently approached concerns with nothing but good faith and a willingness to compromise in order to ensure that this event could take place. Through such a process,Capt. Bill Douglas of Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services and the AUS were able to modify the event plans appropriately, gaining the approval of the VFRS. Similar meeting took place with the RCMP’s Sgt. Dan Wendland. Classroom Services denied the AUS' request to book the Main Mall venue on February 26, 2009, citing “concerns raised by internal parties at UBC.” AUS requests for more information, including suggestions on how to change the event plan to gain approval were not answered. The AUS began an appeal of Classroom Services' decision, finally being granted a meeting with Classroom Services staff. On March 13th, the AUS was notified by Classroom Services that the RCMP's University Detachment has was refusing to entertain any request for the Main Mall venue, despite verbal agreements to the contrary. “I was shocked at the decision,” said event organizer Mike Kushnir, “I had expected that the good word and the handshake of Sgt. Wendland would hold our agreement in principle until other logistical difficulties could be dealt with.”
The AUS and RCMP had tentatively negotiated a capacity of 2,500 patrons, on the clearly stated understanding of the AUS that, in order to ensure sufficient supplementary police resources would be available, the AUS may be expected to cover some of those costs. The AUS is disappointed by the lack of willingness to negotiate and collaborate in good faith on the part of Classroom Services. The inability to secure meetings to engage in a dialogue regarding existing concerns was a significant problem - only after speaking with senior administrators in the VP Students office was a request to meet with Justin Marples, head of Classroom Services, granted. During the meeting Marples was adversarial and disrespectful, displaying the lack of good faith that has characterized this process.
The AUS had been willing to make significant changes to event plans and specifically meet with and address concerns of campus stakeholders. “It seems to me as if we were the only ones in this process with any willingness to come to the table,” said AUS President Avneet ‘AJ’ Johal.
Thoughts on the matter? I'm always slightly skeptical when I do hear only one side of the story, and it seems that a statement such as this won't do the AUS too many favours if they would like to hold the ACF in future years (calling someone adversarial and disrespectful is a touch antagonistic, no?). It seems that the only way to really be able to have the ACF again is to demonstrate that the AUS is capable of hosting a big event that does not result in the problems of previous years. It's too bad that Classroom Services was not willing to uphold the verbal agreement, however, as that doesn't do much to strengthen the relationship between students and the university- really, both sides need to demonstrate a degree of trust. And maybe a written agreement would be better next time, given that verbal statements can be interpreted differently by different parties.
Friday, March 13, 2009
SUS Elections
Results are as follows:
President
Jimmy Yan
VP Internal
Amandeep Sehra
VP External
Sumedha Sharma
Director of Administration
Jennifer Fong
Director of Finance
Justin Yang
Director of Sports
Soroush Liaghat
Public Relations Officer
Annie Yun
Senator
Bryan Tomlinson
Social Coordinator
Eugene Wong
AMS Representatives
Tahara Bhate
Maria Cirstea
Justin Yang
Aaron Sihota
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
SUS Elections- Turnout and Endorsements
It would seem that SUS elections are facing a record-low turnout this year. So far, voter turnout is only about 1/3 of what it was last year. Granted, elections haven't really been promoted all that much- there have been reminders on the Science-wide email, as well as through other mailing lists. I would thus highly encourage everyone who has not yet voted to vote before noon tomorrow, where the voting period officially ends. So for everyone sitting at home and reading this- you have about 14 hours to match last year's turnout! So go to WebCT and vote- it will seriously take no more than about 1 minute of your time.
I do have some conjectures as to why voter turnout is so low, however. Despite the push for election advertising this year, many candidates are running unopposed, which reduces the incentive to really promote one's candidacy. Sadly, even with yes/no votes, it is highly unlikely that enough people will vote No to keep a candidate out of office, no matter how unqualified. Candidates who do have competition I feel are relying on popularity, to some degree, although there are some candidates who are definitely pushing to advertise elections and do classroom announcements- Jimmy Yan, Andrew Hurlburt, and Tagh Sira are among the candidates who have done so. The problem is that 3 people telling others to vote is not enough- you definitely need a critical mass of people promoting the elections to see a shift in attitude. When many students don't even bother to read emails that come from UBC/their faculty, promotion becomes much more important, and I'm not sure that enough is being done. I haven't seen the same level of posterage as in the past years. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that voting should also happen on paper, as it's much easier to get people walking by Ladha to vote right then and there than to get them to go get their laptops and then log in to do so.
Now, in terms of endorsements... I know some of the candidates too well personally to say definitively who I prefer, but I can do some analysis.
President
This one is tough- it's a hard choice between Tagh and Jimmy. Tagh has the advantage of having been on a variety of committees, he knows how the university works, he's a good team player, and he'll have lots of time on his hands next year (he's delaying graduating in order to run for the position, and last I heard he's intending to take 1 course next year, leaving him lots of time to do SUS stuff). He has been IT Manager this year, but that's also about all the SUS experience he has. Jimmy, on the other hand, has more SUS experience, having been VPI for 2 years, but is also going to be taking a full (or more than full) course load next year and will be writing an Honours thesis (before you all get suspicious of how I know this- we're in the same program, and I'll be in the same boat), which I feel would limit his time. He also has a more aggressive leadership style. That's about as much as I can say- the rest is up to voters, and I'd encourage you all to check out their platforms.
For all the unopposed positions, I am voting Yes. I know all of the candidates personally, and feel they would do a fine job in their positions.
Senate
I would vote for Bryan Tomlinson. I have had the pleasure of working with him in the past, and he is a very dedicated individual, and really does things on time. While Aaron has served on Council for longer, there have been rumblings of unhappiness about the job he has done as Director of Finance this year, and the budget for the 2008-2009 year was only passed at the end of November. He will also have his hands full with SLFS, which I feel would detract from the Senate job should be win that as well.
Director of Sports
Andrew Hurlburt is my pick- he's shown great enthusiasm, which is hugely important in this position, and he's had lots of experience with running similar events. He's also been involved with Council for a while, and knows the ropes, so to speak. He would definitely be my pick.
AMS Rep
This one is hard in the sense that I find it difficult to choose 4 candidates. So I only chose 2. My picks were Tahara, who has had a lot of experience, although I wished she would come to more meetings this year and let people know what's going on with the AMS. My other pick would be Justin, who has shown enthusiasm, dedication, but most importantly a genuine care for students, which I feel is a rare quality among people who run for the position. I know that's a bit harsh, but I think I'd like to see some effort to help the student community from a lot of the candidates, or at least some commitment to coming to Council meetings, getting to know the system, and actually being transparent about what goes on in the AMS. The AMS should not be used as a chance to launch a career in politics, it shouldn't be used as an opportunity to fill your resume up with impressive-sounding committee names, nor should it be joined for the purposes of hanging out with people you might know. The job entails representing students' interests- which can't really be done unless people actually talk to students, or at least attend Council meetings and talk to people there. This isn't a general seat- this is a seat for Science students, and as such, it is Science students' interests that must be represented. I'm slightly disenchanted with some of the other candidates, so please don't make me pick.
That concludes tonight's verbose discussion of more politics. Stay tuned for results!
Monday, March 9, 2009
SUS Elections
I have been incredibly busy the past few weeks, but I do want to remind people to vote in the SUS elections. Voting is taking place on WebCT- so be sure to vote this week! I encourage you all to go to the SUS website and check out the candidates, what they have to say, and what their plans are for the next year. I would also encourage you to visit both the Spectator and the RBT to see their thoughts on the election. I will be posting more once my month of ridiculous busy-ness is over!
Also, I am currently looking for bloggers. I can't do it all by myself with 7 courses on my plate (pardon the pun), so if any of our readers are interested, please send me an email!
Posts
