AMS Council: July 29, 2009

Highlights from AMS Council tonight:

• Art Gallery gets $23,000
  
• New pricing policy for Whistler Lodge in February 2010
  

Long overdue, you can now get the agenda and documentation on the AMS's own website!

Geoff Costeloe wants everyone to know he is hot and sweaty. But I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it in the fun boy-girl way.

Art Gallery Renovations

Jeremy Jaud gave an in camera presentation

We were let back in just in time to learn about humidity control... oh the intrigue and secrecy of the AMS Art Gallery. Motion to allocate $23,000 to the Art Gallery for reasons unknown passes unanimously.

Budget Increases

Due to a miscommunication, Speakeasy training budget was only set to $5,000. This was upped to $10,732.50.

Voter Funded Media budget was set this year to $3,500, but code specifies the budget should be $8,000. Full budget restored! YAAAAY!

Blake's Broadcast

Looking at plans to use UBCcard at food outlets, will be looked at more in depth by Business Operations Committee; Working with code and policy re: electoral code changes; Visit from UBCSUO (UBC-O student union); Met with Anne Dewolfe and Alnoor Aziz about McInnes Field issues, later spoke to Brian Sullivan who said that UBC will open up the field to student bookings, still waiting on specifics; Working on SUB, HR

Johannes's Jargon

Went to Montreal for 22nd annual Conference on First Year Experience; Met with Anna Kindler re: First Year Seminar Program; Met with Andrew Parr about housing; UBC Bookstore in the past has been closed the Sunday before classes start, now they will be open; Progress on liquor issues; Internationalization report generated

Crystal's Chat

SUB Renew coordinator working with faculty deans about integrating SUB into classrooms; All president's dinner; FirstWeek; Renos at art gallery “as we heard about” (um... we didn't); Creating more club offices in IFPO/copyright space.

Tom's Tirade

Interviewed for HR Director; Got pulled over by Washington State Patrol but talked his way out of it; Met with Simon Fraser Student Society, hosted by health plan reps; Business Operations Committee still doing marketing and promotions; Spent some days in catering kitchen to see how things work and see what can be improved

Pavani's prose

Putting together professional development workshop for coordinators and assistant coordinators; Shinerama team got started; Tutoring working on training tutors, putting together exam database and updating LEAD website; Speakeasy working on training; Food Bank recruiting volunteers

Tim's talk

On July 23, BC Gov't cut $16M in PSE funding: BC Gov never released info, only found out when people tried to apply for newly non-existent programs, external policy committee will look at it their next meeting; Creating Transportation-Olympics committee to suggest things for Translink to look at when considering Olympics reroutes; 40th anniversary of UBC childcare – attended block party; Simplifying U-Pass exemption application; Working on Imagine day, will have U-Pass costume walking around; Working with UBC Pride for pride parade entry this Sunday

Catering Motion

Ever since UBC Food merged with UBC Housing and Conferences, staff in the department have been instructed to recommend only Wescadia (the university's catering company), and not present AMS Catering as an available option. They would like to pressure them to at least present AMS Catering as an option and have AMS council endorse these efforts.

Tom Dvorak made the point that the AMS uses catering income to pay for services that the university should provide, but doesn't. He has addressed this issue with both Brian Sullivan and Stephen Toope. B.Sul was decidedly on UBC's side, while Toope was much more sympathetic to the AMS, but the end result was "we'll look into it." The motion was passed unanimously and now the exec can go back to them with a council motion in hand.

Noise By-law

Johannes sits on a campus development committee where a lot of stakeholder groups on campus come together to talk about development issues. At a recent meeting David Grigg (with C&CP) presented a proposed noise rule for campus. This would require any group booking space on campus through Classroom Services or UBC Athletics to pay a deposit to make a booking which would be refunded only if there were no noise issues with the event. Where it gets worse is that they wanted to impose a limit of 55 decibels between 7:30 am and 7:30 pm, which is the level of a noisy office, and a level which council certainly exceeded at certain points tonight (mostly when Dave cracks jokes). In addition it would limit overnight noise to 35 decibels, which is the volume of a bird chirping.

This would have made for a ridiculous rule for a number of reasons (one is that nobody on campus even has equipment to measure decibel levels) and Johannes put a motion on the agenda for AMS council to oppose it. In the meantime, David Grigg and Anne DeWolfe quickly back tracked, saying that they will review it further, and also saying that it was intended to apply to "outside" groups like film crews, but not to students. (I have read the draft, and nowhere in the proposed rules is that distinction made.)

Since it was taken back for further review, Johannes instead wanted the motion referred to the Campus and Community Development Committee (an AMS committe), rather than opposing something that was being revised anyways. And that is what happened.

Whistler Lodge During the Olympics

Ordinarily, to manage the demand for beds during the winter break and reading week, the AMS runs a lottery open only to UBC students. If you win the lottery, you can book up to six nights during these periods at $30/night. (No lottery system the rest of the year.)

The agenda has the full details but the basic idea is that during February 2010, only half of the lodge (21 beds) will be operated under the lottery system. The other half (also 21 beds) would be rented out on a first-come, first-served basis at market rates, between $150-$200 per night. Students who don't win the lottery will have first crack at these rooms at the market price, but if it still doesn't fill up, these bunks would be made available to the general public. The idea is to capitalize on the Olympics to bring in some extra cash.

For further background, in 2007 VANOC presented the AMS with a plan to rent the entire lodge for two months encompassing the Olympics and Paralympics for a sum between $128-224K. At the time, AMS council turned it down because they believed it would be better for students to have access to the lodge during that period. Now the proposal on the table is a hybrid: allow student access and make profit.

Tom compared the potential revenue under the status quo versus the proposed system. If the market price was $149, the expectation was an extra $61,000 and at $199 that would go up to $91,000.

So where would this extra cash go? There are some projects at the lodge that are worthwhile, but never deemed worthy of dipping into other funds or savings. Examples include: trimming some trees that are in violation of fire code, a new TV, and the installation of lighting and a camera in the hot tub area. (It's for security, how dare you suggest otherwise?! But, uh, chances of the live feed going directly into Tom's office are probably about 50/50.)

The extra income would be especially welcome this year since business is down about 30% because of swine flu. Apparently the lodge regularly welcomes groups of Mexicans over the summer months, and due to swine flu and the recent decision of the federal government to start enforcing visa rules more strictly for Mexicans, there have been a lot of cancellations.

Of all the questions I was not expecting to hear tonight, Colin Simkus wanted to know why we weren't planning on charging even more than $200/night as a market rate? Tom reminded everyone that what you get is a bunk in a communal lodge. BOC felt that over $200 would qualify as highway robbery. In the end, the motion passed as presented.

Conflict of Interest Motion

If you are a keen reader of UBC Insiders, you'll remember that a very similar motion came to council at the June 17 council meeting but it was tabled because Matt Naylor, who submitted the motion, was not there to motivate it. Matt's back and so is the motion, but this time it's coming from Code and Policy, outlining the exact changes they'd like to make to Code. Matt's underlying motivation for this is that it would protect the society from a legal perspective.

Dave took the opportunity to give us all a primer on Robert's Rules, which I won't go into here. His main point was to make people aware about what Robert's Rules already say about conflicts of interest and to point out that the proposed amendments go beyond what is prescribed in parliamentary procedure.

Bijan spoke next, pointing out that this would be problematic for BoG reps. (that was kinda the point...) He brought up Mike Duncan's situation as an example. Under the proposed changes, he would not be allowed to participate in any discussions about the New SUB project since those negotiations are between the AMS and UBC. As director of both UBC (as BoG rep) and the AMS (as councilor), Mike would be considered to be in a conflict of interest. But the silly part of this is that the AMS appointed Mike as a lifetime member of the New SUB committee.

For the record, Mike Duncan doesn't even come to council anymore. That's not meant as a dig; simply information. After sitting on council for a number of years, and being "Mr. AMS" 24/7 for his entire year as president, he has certainly put in his time and has earned a reprieve from council meetings.

Bijan also pointed out conflicts with Johannes being on the UNA board of directors and Tom being on the Alumni Association board.

Geoff Costeloe wanted clarity about what the definition of a "director" is. The answer from Matt Naylor is someone who has a fiduciary responsibility towards the group in question. Tahara got clarification that this policy would indeed apply to all motions, not just ones in camera.

Tom pointed out that one of the main reasons he is on the Alumni board is to act as a liaison. How can he possibly liaise if he is removed from the discussion? Colin Simkus wished that there was more flexibility in the wording to allow more discretion in determining what is and isn't a conflict of interest, and with that Andrew Carne motioned for it to be referred back to Code and Policy. And that's where it went.

Electoral Code Changes Consultation

Code and Policy is currently doing consultations about Electoral Code. They have even set up a wiki where you can give your thoughts about electoral code.


AMS Engagement Levy

I haven't looked at the proposal for this, but from what I understood, the idea was to introduce a $5 fee that students could opt out in one of two ways. One would be to apply for an opt-out in the normal opt-out period at the beginning of the school year and the other way would be to vote in AMS elections. If a student did neither of those, the money would be put back into projects meant to stimulate engagement with the AMS. This plan was not up for any decision tonight. The motion was merely to refer this to an ad hoc committee to look at it and report back which they will do in October.

Of course, the obligatory Lougheed joke was made that for him the levy will be $35. And no Alex, we're clearly not ready to drop it yet... until you come up with another equally fertile source of AMS council humour.

Ad Hoc Representation Engagement and Reform Committee

Since the AMS Engagement Levy was referred to this committee, it suddenly became necessary to actually have people on the committee. The membership appointed was:

Matt Naylor
Will Davis
Maria Cirstea
Ekatrina Dovjenko
Jeremy McElroy
Tim Chu
Geoff Costeloe
Colin Simkus (at large)

Read More...

Summary only...

AMS Council: July 8, 2009

Big party tonight! Highlights:

• Olympics, Olympics, Olympics!
  
• We support Iran... being referred to committee
  
• 2009-2010 budget
  

There was a very full house tonight, 90-100 people for the hour-long Olympics presentation by Michelle Aucoin, UBC 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Secretariat, Kristen Harvey, PR person for VANOC (and former AMS president!) and Manon Chouinard, PR for the Integrated Security Unit. Although those were the speakers, the delegation was much larger including two RCMP officers, three ISU members and other Olympics Secreteriat staff.

Olympics Presentation

Michelle Aucoin and Kristen Harvey started off with some facts about the arena and spoke about the fields that will be paved over starting next week. There were questions asked about the impacts the paving/unpaving processes will have (not really answered), the arrangement to put grass back on the fields (Athletics is doing it, VANOC's paying). I asked why they were being handed over 5 months before the date specified in the venue agreement (because paving has to be done while the ground is dry).

They also gave a daily schedule of when games would start/end in terms of higher traffic around the arena and gave wishy-washy answers about how they would handle the crowds.

At this point, Kyle Warwick asked Michelle when the AMS was first contacted about these things and what input they had. Her answer was that she had extended an invitation to Blake and Tim to sit in on the sessions, provided they sign a confidentiality agreement; they refused. Kyle explained to her why they refused: they are acting on behalf of the AMS and must be able to communicate with the rest of the society. They also receive direction from council, which is impossible if council has no information. Michelle's response: "I understand that is your perspective." In the end, the answer (inferred but not stated) was that the AMS was not involved up to this point, nor was an offer extended for them to be. The point is that involving two execs as individuals (which is the effect of the confidentiality) is completely different than involving the AMS, or "students".

It should be noted at this point that Michelle Aucoin is a former executive coordinator in the VP Students office (the position Anne DeWolfe now holds). She described herself as having always been an advocate for students, while also letting us know "This is not a stakeholder process and this is not a consultation process. Tough decisions had to be made," later adding "To expect major changes to these plans, you will be disappointed." Disappointed only scratches the surface for this presentation.

They discussed the road closures for the period of Feb 4-12, which includes Wesbrook Mall between Thunderbird Road and 16th, the northbound portion of East Mall for the same stretch, and Thunderbird Road from Wesbrook to East Mall. The areas will all be open to pedestrians, but not vehicles. Access to the UBC Hospital, and emergency vehicles at the RCMP and Fire Hall will remain intact.

They described alternate parking arrangements for Fraser Hall and the Frats/Panhel will be provided at the Thunderbird parkade, saying that these stakeholders are pleased with this arrangement. Kellan Higgins, who was there on behalf of one of the fraternities, later stood up to clarify that the fraternities are actually not pleased with the arrangement.

Colin Simkus wanted to know whether environmental assessments had been done, as required by law. Kristen answered that they had been working with Joe Stott on the permit process. Oi.

Adrienne Smith (who, it must be noted, was "unimpressed with the mention of herself in the May 6th Meeting minutes") is going to mentioned here anyways because she wanted to know about the impacts to Acadia Park residents. Michelle said they will always be able to get in an out of Acadia Park. They might not be able to use their normal route, but access will always be maintained.

Jeremy Wood (who is working for the AMS on Olympics issues) wanted to know about access to Osborne. VANOC has apparently scaled back their security perimeter so that Osborne will be completely accessible.

Andrew Carne wanted to know how soon the presentation and all the info in it would be available online. They promised it would be soon and that they wanted to get info out there as soon as possible. Kristen wanted to stress that they don't sit on information; they get it out there fast. (I am extremely skeptical about this.) Michelle mentioned that we are one of the first groups to hear about this and provide feedback, before naming a number of other groups who they already presented to.

They then outlined how they will be doing consultation (they called it that, but it is not real consultation) with groups throughout the summer and will be having open houses in the fall for people to find out more.

So you might be wondering what the plan for Translink is. How are they going to reroute the buses to get around the closures of Wesbrook Mall and East Mall? That's a good question, because Translink has not released their plans for that yet and we probably won't know until the fall.

At this point, Manon Chouinard got up and spoke about how the Integrated Security Unit will be doing security for the games. Police officers from across Canada will be coming to join the ISU. She spoke about how their number one priority is keeping the venue, the athletes and the fans safe. She also mentioned how they had to "make some tough decisions to lessen the impact on stakeholders," which came across to me as defending the huge cost overruns for Olympic security (currently five times the original budget!)

Bijan spent a bit of time putting some lips to some posteriors then Tim asked for clarification of the residence contract. Michelle deflected to Stephen Owen and housing having to answer those questions.

Geoff Costeloe asked what the AMS can do to help UBC make things easier for students. The answer: "I wish I had an answer to that," but that they hope to talk to students in small groups to see what they think.

Tahara Bhate asked about security and the security perimeter, because it was redacted in the Venue Agreement. Michelle said ther perimeter will not go around Osborne. Manon took the floor to talk about searches. The ISU will only search you if you are trying to enter a venue. They pledged not to do random searches, though they also stated that the RCMP is still on charge on campus during the games and what the RCMP does is up to them.

A guest and UBC Alum listed a number of concerns with the lack of consultation, the limitation of free speech and the vague wording of the residence contract. She pointed out that if you wear a Pepsi shirt to an event, they might kick you out because Coca-Cola is an official games sponsor, and brought up a big incident from the APEC protests where a Tibetan flag was removed from the GSS, which prompted Dave Tompkins to ask what would happen if he were to walk into a venue in a T-Shirt with pepsi on the front and a Tibetan flag on the back. Kristen Harvey admitted that he could be kicked out for the Pepsi shirt. Manon said that from the ISU's perspective, a T-shirt does not constitute any kind of security threat; they want to be on the lookout for actual threats.

The guest then brought up the subject of protest pens. The answer wasn't totally clear, but they will provide "Safe Assembly Areas" that will be visible and won't be fenced in. Protests will not be limited to these areas as long as they aren't disrupting others or traffic. Manon: "We will respect the Charter of Rights and Freedom of Speech, as long as you're doing it peacefully."

Dave Tompkins noted that nothing in the past or present had addressed the AMS Whistler Lodge.

Rory Green asked about the overall communications strategy. They basically admitted they didn't have a great plan on how to reach students and would like advice on that.

I asked about the $10M donation to the arena. Earlier in the meeting, Michelle had wanted to clarify that no UBC money was going into it, that it was from a donor, that the arena would be named after someone, but wouldn't say who (because they don't sit on information, remember?). This super, top-secret information can be found in last month's Board of Governor's documents: it's going to be named after Doug Mitchell. However, the document also implies that the money is coming from a variety of sources, not just the Mitchells. So I told everyone who it would be named after and asked exactly where the money was really coming from. Michelle "can't disclose that."

There were a few more questions about how it would affect grad students, involvement in Translink's transportation planning process and more warnings from the UBC Alum guest about the ISU using surveillance tactics on anti-Games activists.

It must be stated that Michelle Aucoin has a tendency to be condescending in answering questions. The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Secretariat is basically a PR office. They exist solely for the purpose of communication and it isn't done very well.

I am particularly annoyed because the question I asked about the dates being pushed up for field usage was something I had already emailed her over the weekend, and had gotten no reply up to that point. The venue agreement was used many times as a defense about why things are the way they are, but in instances when they've chosen to deviate from the venue agreement, are dismissive of the concerns.

I'm pretty sure many of the people in the room who asked questions tonight had a similar sentiment: all spin, no actual information or communication happening. While the presentation was useful in terms of having the opportunity to look at Olympics impacts, I certainly don't feel very much more informed than I was before.

Iran Motion

You care about the debate? Really? It went exactly the way you imagine it would.

Voting time. Bijan's clicker isn't working...

Bijan: I can't vote.
Dave Tompkins: That's because you're Iranian.

Funny? Lacking in taste? Everyone in the room laughed...

Ultimately, it was referred back to External Policy Committee from whence it came.

Blake's Broadcast
Executive Committee got a presentation from Pierre Ouillet and Brian Sullivan about UBC's budget which has a $20M structural deficit; looking for solutions, Blake and Johannes will be on university working group to look at this issue; an issue with the Aquatic Centre not letting in students over the summer was resolved, students let in free over the summer; AMS involvement in orientations: presence at residence events, imagine materials, rebranding firstweek events; Gayle Stewart – former UBC olympic secretariat passed away, sent condolences on behalf of AMS to family

Crystal's Chat
Sub negotiation meeting frequency increased to see better progress: want less of negotiation and more of a conversation; rejigging photocopier/IFP area in SUB basement; working on All-President's dinner, meet the execs event, clubs days with SAC

Johannes's Jargon
Vancouver Campus Plan now targets 35% student housing, question is: what kind?, want it to be more than just beds and desks; LEAD initiative working with Sage/Kotter, "change management consultants" to work on implementing things stemming from CWSEI; partnering with FoGS for career services for grad students; Internationalization issues now go through UBC's VP Research office, may see change in strategy as a result; meetings with Kevin Kenna (RCMP) and Anne DeWolfe (VP Students office) about liquor licence issues

Tom's Tirade
Spoke to other universities about how their business operations work, learned about other models and how they work; went up to Whistler lodge to look at some issues; Business Operations Committee will talk about what to do with Whistler lodge during 2010 Olympics; branding and marketing continue to be looked at

Tim's talk
UPASS subsidy applications almost done processing; met with committees; dealt with press regarding the Olympics and the residence contract; the colour of the UPASS this fall: BLUE!; setting up meetings with politicians to do some lobbying; U of Calgary execs coming to visit, Tim will host; working with Tahara Bhate on transit issues; working with GSS on a childcare conference


One thing that came out of constituency reports: in response to concerns raised during the debate over the ACF debt repayment motion, the AUS will release their budget publicly this year so people can see where the money goes and can see that they are trying to be fiscally responsible.

2009-2010 AMS Budget: Tom Dvorak

You can look at the materials here. Audiences, used to the mediocrity of Powerpoint, never fail to be impressed by the use of Keynote and its style and panache. The most impressive moment was when Tom made the Alma Mater Society go up in flames. But onto the content.

The AMS has a structural deficit in their budget. The money allocated in the budget is greater than the expected revenues. However, that's only a problem if all of the money allocated is actually spent. In practice, not all the money allocated to things gets spent in a given year.

This year the structural deficit is estimated at ~$250,000. According to Tom, the AMS currently has about $7M in reserves. So in the short term, this is not a problem to lose sleep over. However, it's irresponsible and potentially unsustainable to be constructing budgets with structural deficits built in. The budget committee has proposed some ways in which this issue can be looked at.

This includes a structural audit and a fee referendum to index the AMS fee to CPI, something the SUS just did recently. They also want to promote more volunteerism, rather than having so many staff that are paid. New business opportunities are also something to look at. (Tom's suggestion: JAPADOG!)

Due to an error in the wording of the NEW SUB referendum question last year, the AMS is also looking at deficit problems in the long term.

Council launched into a quite detailed examination of the budget and asked about why certain line items were changed, about the structural deficit and questions about how the various funds and funding sources work. It went on quite a while and showed that people really read through it. I also think it helped that the document that was prepared (linked above) was constructed and presented very clearly.

Budget passed.

Council was $1,337 under budget for Food and Refreshments last year. Next meeting we should definitely have ice cream.

Structural Audit

Motion #1: Council passed a code change allowing council to direct the budget committee to do things.

Motion #2: Council then used its newfound power to direct the budget committee (in conjunction with the oversight committee) to perform a structural audit of the AMS. This is connected to the AMS's structural deficit and provides an opportunity to have an even deeper look at where the AMS spends money and why.

Olympic Report Update aka Tahara's Motion

The AMS made an Olympic report in the past. Since that time, a lot more information has come to light (and more continues to come out). This report will be updated to reflect the new information available. This is useful because there is a lot of documents to sort through -we want to try and make it more accessible.

Video Surveillance

The AMS wants video surveillance in the SUB, primarily for security purposes. Their policy lays out why the cameras are there, what the cameras do, who gets to see what, and when, etc. People monitoring the cameras also have to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Interesting tidbit: By provincial law, if you have been recorded, you can go and request to see the image that was recorded of you. Finally, someone is thinking of self-centred commerce students!

Code and Policy

Motion #1: Currently the deadline for circulating the agenda and materials for council meetings is 48 hours in advance of the meeting (ie. Monday at 6 pm). The code change proposed making it 3 business days in advance (ie. the Friday before). The background for this is laid out in the May 6 council recap: Blake ceasing and desisting. This now formalizes in code something that Blake was trying to encourage to happen informally.

Motion #2: Some language in code was simplified to define who does and doesn't have to pay AMS fees. The end result is that some more people now have to pay AMS fees who previously didn't.

McInnes Field Motion

The EUS tried to book McInnes Field in order to hold a charity concert this school year. They were told that they could not book it. Instead, they were offered the football practice field, which is not Thunderbird Stadium, but rather beside it, at an exorbitant cost of $12,000.

The reasons for this aren't totally clear, but it has to do with field shortages. It is also related to the fact that the person within UBC Athletics handling concert bookings was recently let go and bookings now go through their finance director who is focused solely on maximizing profit with little regard to how it affects students.

Blake will be meeting with athletics and the VP Students office to try to bring dialogue over how this is completely unacceptable that students cannot reasonably secure any space to hold large events and wanted a council resolution to make his point.


Next meeting: July 29. Check out this Facebook event!

A special congratulations goes out Rory Green, who was pleased that the external office was not the centre of attention for all the wrong reasons this meeting.

Read More...

Summary only...

AMS Council Agenda: July 8, 2009

Since the AMS has not yet mastered the art of putting meeting dates and agendas online yet, the next one is:

Wednesday, July 8, 2009. 6 PM. SUB 206.

Agenda

The most interesting thing will be a presentation from Michelle Aucoin, Director of the UBC 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Secretariat about what to expect when the Olympics happen on campus. If you or anyone you know is curious or concerned about the impacts of the Olympics at UBC, I encourage you show up, and to spread the word! TIP: there's also free food. If you spread the word about that as well, you may have more success.

For example, UBC released a memo outlining how fields in Thunderbird Park are getting paved over for the duration of the Games. The fields will be handed over to VANOC July 17, 2009.

Curiously, the most recent UBC-VANOC contract regarding the arena specifies that VANOC's "exclusive use period" (ie. when they can take control of the fields) is not supposed to start until December 13, 2009. That's a pretty big five-month discrepancy, given that the original date would have allowed student/intramural use of the fields for the entire fall semester. That's no longer the case.

Of course, it doesn't end there. If you look further down the agenda for this meeting, you'll see a motion outlining how the EUS attempted to organize a charity concert for the upcoming school year. These plans unraveled because UBC Athletics would not offer them a suitable field for the concert, which was in part because of a shortage of fields. Wow, really? I wonder how that happened!

Also on the agenda: a motion about the unrest in Iran. You can read Matt Naylor's take about why this motion (and others like it) is utterly pointless.

Read More...

Summary only...

AMS Council: June 17, 2009

AMS council tonight. Highlights:

• Provincial Elections campaign budget revealed
  
• Executive quarterly reports released
  
• Student Court appointments

It's a proxy party tonight. Low turnout, lots of substitutes. Leftover food also means a weird dinner combination: Pi-R-Squared with smoked salmon appetizers.

CASA Conference Recap

First up was a presentation to recap the recent CASA policy conference in Calgary. However, the presentation by Blake and Tim, which lasted just shy of forever, spent a lot of time outlining a laundry list of complaints about CASA, all of which have been brought up before. Less time was devoted to what actually occurred at the conference. Summary: Tim and Blake don't like CASA. I would also suspect CASA doesn't like Tim and Blake.

Some division within the executive was made apparent immediately when Tom Dvorak stated that CASA sent a letter addressing the AMS's concerns in late April and that this letter was not shared with other executives or council. Hmmm.

Plenty of boring discussion (if you really care, I can send you notes), but the quote of the night came from Bijan:

"When students go to conferences, they like to have sex. There's something about having sex with someone you'll never see again that's exciting.”

I could put it in context, but it's so much better without it. Another great quote came from Jeremy McElroy, who noticed Blake's constant negativity about CASA and asked: Did you have any fun in Ottawa?

In a show of more executive division, Johannes questioned where the numbers came from which outlined the cost of being CASA members, saying that the actual cost is much lower than claimed by Blake and Tim.

Lots of discussion; not much concrete came out of it, other than that documents need to be made available to everyone, and not hoarded. Also, this will continue to be an issue this year.

Provincial Election Campaign Presentation

Tim got up and gave a recap of the provincial election campaign that he ran. While there were successes including lot of work put into awareness and over 500 voters registered by the AMS, the most hotly anticipated part of this presentation was the budget for this campaign.

For background, I'll refer you again to this Ubyssey editorial as well as a related radical beer tribune post. You can also read the recap from two council meetings ago about how part of this campaign was botched. And, as was confirmed tonight, it was at no small expense.

Without further ado, here is the budget breakdown:

[no idea why the huge gap is here]

Banners	616.85
Printing Costs	3,652.92
Ads in 24 Hrs	18,484.28
Bus Ads	3, 715.25
Website	2,627.29
Buttons	1,220.80
Design Services	445.70
Stickers	195.36
Hand Stamps	33.89
T-shirts	440.99
Videos	1,500.00
Campaigners	3,340.00
TOTAL	36.273.22

The ads in 24 Hrs (the newspaper) are absolutely mind-blowing. Geoff Costeloe was particularly enraged over this, calling it a crazy waste of money. I... concur.

Personally I also took issue with the fact that it took $2,600 to build this webiste. Andrew Carne pointed out that it was based on Wordpress. I just buried my head in my hands at that point. Still, nothing compared to the money wasted on ads in 24 Hrs.

The budget is the subject of a Ubyssey article, but here's the bottom line: it was a waste of money.

Executive Remarks

• Blake's Broadcast: 1st Quarterly Report available here; everything is in there.
  
  
• VP External: 1st Quarterly Report available here; went to CASA conference; over 300 applications received for U-Pass subsidy; Translink is running "Be Part of the Plan", encourage everyone to participate; looking forward to external policy committee meeting
  
  
• VP Academic: 1st Quarterly Report available here; met with residence coordinator at UWaterloo, want to not only increase residence space but also its relevance; met with Michelle Aucoin about Olympics issues; hired student court; remodeled offices; working on TA training, university has allocated funding for it; met with fraternity and sorority representatives; reinstated University Commission
  
  
• VP Finance: 1st Quarterly Report available here; AVP Catherine Metrycki did a lot of work to get a lot of stuff online; orientation for clubs with how to navigate AMS finance; looking at marketing for the upcoming year; attended alumni association retreat regarding alumni centre; looking at online payment systems to enable clubs to process credit card payments for memberships or events; Business Operations Committee is looking at Point-Of-Sale options, and AMS businesses contributed $1,114,981 to the AMS last year; preliminary budget prepped, found deficit, looking at budget reductions; budget will be presented next council meeting.
  
  
• VP Admin: 1st Quarterly Report available here; met with student development about proposed renovations to Brock Hall; hired assistant
  
  
• ECSS: missed this, but 1st Quarterly Report available here
  

Some Appointments-review stuff about salaries passed


Student Court Appointments

• Emmanuelle Frederic – Chief Justice
  
• Sara Askari – Judge
  
• Feruza Abdajalieva – Judge
  
• Alexander Cooke – Judge
  
• Wilfred Chan – Judge
  
• Adam Flanders – Alternate Judge
  
• Jordan Snel – Alternate Judge
  
• Constance Chan - Clerk
  

Conflict of Interest Motion

A motion came to council which would have required any member of council who also serves as a director of an organization which the AMS conducts business with to remove themselves from any In Camera sessions of council dealing with the other organization.

The goal appears to be the exclusion of UBC BoG reps, specifically Bijan, from In Camera sessions. However, while BoG is the most obvious example, there are probably other people on council who would also be affected by this and would also be required to sit out of In Camera sessions from time to time.

This was a Matt Naylor motion, who was not present tonight. His proxy, Alex Lougheed, did not feel comfortable motivating the motion since it was not his. It was eventually sent to Code and Policy. Should be interesting to see if this comes back to council sometime in the future.

Olympics Motion

Bijan brought a motion to invite Michelle Aucoin, who is in charge of Olympics stuff at UBC to present at the next council meeting for an hour. There should have been no discussion about this, but there was some. This also should have never been a motion in the first place, but it was. (Council doesn't need to pass motions to invite people to present to council.) Anyways, next meeting, look forward to an hour of Olympics presentation/discussion.

Committee Appointments

• Fundraising and Sponsorship Committee: John MacLean

Dave Tompkins: "Like the guy from Die Hard?" (Different speling, unfortunately. Dave looked it up on IMDB as a distraction from council.)

• External Policy Committee: Dusty C.

Next meeting: July 8.

Read More...

Summary only...

AMS Council: May 6, 2009

After a month-long break for exams, AMS council met tonight. Highlights:

• AMS to reimburse AUS $35,062.04 for accumulated Arts County Fair debt.
• Azim Wazeer, Joel Mertens and Josh Sealy recommended as new student senators
• Lots of committee appointments
• Whistler Lodge improvements
• External Office to stop distributing some provincial election campaign materials deemed partisan, must remove some already-posted campaign materials deemed out of line with lobbying priorities
  

Since this is the start of a new year, in a way, there were many new faces and lots of introductions to be made. Dave Tompkins is speaker for another year. Sheldon proudly mentions that he and Dave are the only ones in the room who have been with the AMS since since the last century (last millennium actually, as someone else astutely pointed out.)

Executive Remarks:

• Blake's Broadcast: Lots of meetings with UBC admin; Block Party and Great Farm Trek; Hired a new assistant; Held student-staff appreciation lunch; New SUB negotiations with university are progressing, albeit slower than hoped for.
  
  
• VP Finance: Looking at some renos to get some more office space; Block Party brought in ~$100,000 in revenues, but expenses were a bit higher than that; recently resolved a student fee issue that resulted in AMS getting ~$500k they were due; Blue Chip will be getting renovations to be fully equipped to do chilled drinks over the summer.
  
  
• VP Admin: New SUB survey completed and results will be posted online soon in condensed, more readable form; new water fountains coming this month and will encompass both drinking fountains and bottle-filling stations; AMS will try to phase out bottled water at their outlets and sell AMS re-useable water bottles.
  
  
• VP Academic/UA: Has been liaising with RCMP regarding olympic security and liquor policy issues; Sgt. Dan Wendland is gone with replacement coming this month; UNA and RCMP are working on a noise by-law to bring to the province; has been talking to provost and CUPE about TA training issues; NSSE founder will be making presentation tomorrow; who wants ice cream?
  
  
• VP External: Lots of work on provincial election campaign; Translink AGM is coming up; looked into applicability of residential tenancy act on campus.
  
  
• ECSS: mostly has been doing a whole lot of hiring for the upcoming year.

Code and Policy: Will look into why Code places restrictions on holding more than one AMS position at a time.

Senate Appointments: Student Senate Caucus went through a number of applications, did some interviews and ended up picking Azim Wazeer, Joel Mertens and Josh Sealy. There was some concern about whether the advertisement for this position was done, but given that way more people applied for the appointments than for the elections seems to indicate something was done right. Motion passed unanimously. Joel Mertens returns to council as Senate rep. Awkward moment: Guillaume Houle tried to get Geoff Costeloe to say that the meeting to pick the new senators took place during a hockey game, to no avail.

SUS Referendum Results: SUS recently had passed a referendum to index their student fee to CCPI (Canadian Consumer Price Index) and needs AMS to rubber stamp this. There are multiple versions of the CCPI; some debate over which one to use since it was not specified in the referendum question. Although SUS finances were admittedly fine, they feel is more sustainable and hopefully saves them from going to referendum every few years to raise it. SUS is the first constituency to index their fee to inflation. Motion passed.

Arts County Fair Debt Repayment: As expected, discussion on this item was quite lengthy. I won't summarize it right now and the arguments for and against are already known, I hope. Before I give myself carpal tunnel typing it all out, let's see what the Ubyssey comes up with. End result: 23-7 in favour of repaying $35,062.04 to the AUS for accumulated Arts County Fair debt.

Commitee Appointments: Sorry for the lack of last names, but Dave generally doesn't put them up, so if I don't already know it, it won't be there. Also, I apologize in advance since I'm certain there is a mistake or two in here.

• CiTR: Duncan McHugh, Aaron Nakama, Tahara Bhate, Bijan Ahmadian
  
• Irving K. Barber Library Stewardship Committee: Crystal Hon, Kyle Warwick
  
• LEAD: Tahara Bhate, Bijan Ahmadian, Lin Watt
  
• Oversight: Jimmy Yan, Joel Mertens, Laura Silvester, Kyle Warwick, Tony Yang
  
• Budget Committee: Kyle Warwick, "Ben", "K"
  
• Appointments Review: Kat, Aaron Sihota, Tim Chu
  
• Business Operations Committee: Guillaume Houle, Laura Silvester, Aaron Sihota, Joel Mertens, Hafiz Dossa
  
• Impacts: Hannes Dempewolf, Madeleine Schaefer, Kyle Warwick
  
• Sexual Assault Support Services Fund: Elena Kusaka, Pavani
  
• Code and Policy: Andrew Carne, Tahara Bhate, Matt Naylor, Blake Frederick, Jeremy Wood, Emily Griffiths
  
• Campus events committee: Fraser, Carolee Changfoot, Tony Yang, Lin Watt
  
• Fundraising and sponsorship committee: Madeleine Schaefer, Tony Yang, Tagg Jefferson
  
• Campus Planning and Development: Jeremy McElroy, Andrew carne, "Pierce"
  
• Renovations Planning: Andrew Carne, Jimmy Yan, Carolee Changfoot
  
• Sub Renew: Luke(GSS), Jeremy McElroy
  
• AMS/GSS Health and Dental Plan Committee: Matt Naylor
  
• Equity: Geoff Costeloe, Tim Chu, Kat
  
• Executive Renumeration: Aaron Sihota, Jimmy Yan
  
• External Policy Committee: Matt Naylor, Kat, Tahara Bhate, Kyle Warwick, Elena Kusaka, Kiran, Iggy Rodriguez
  

SAC Appointments:

• SAC Member: Elin Tayyar
  
• Bookings Commissioner: David Le
  
• Buildings Commissioner: Kyle Lai
  
• Special Projects Commissioner: Cindy Zhan
  
• Art Gallery Commissioner: Jeremy Jaud
  
• Club Commissioner: Elaine Chin
  
• Administrative Commissioner: Sima Shoker

AMS Preliminary 2009/10 Budget: 2008/09 highlights include higher than expected business operations revenue ($1.165M) contributing to an extra $440k which is to be allocated to other funds. However, with the food-housing merger, the AMS expects to lose some of its conference catering business to UBC Housing and Food next year. 08/09 ended with a small surplus.
09/10 forecasts $13.8M of revenue, with another small surplus at the end of the year. Point of interest: Rogers will no longer be providing free Blackberrys to AMS executives.

AMS Whistler Lodge/ AMS Office Renovations:

• $21,900 for the Whistler Lodge, including: $1,800 for bunk bed improvements to combat bed lice; $6,600 for painting and patching walls; $9,000 for carpeting; $3,000 to build a boot storage area near the lodge entrance.
  
• $16,000 to move, divide and create some new offices in the SUB for some of their employees.

Code Changes 2009: VP Admin Assistant: Crystal gets to hire an assistant to maintain her sanity.

Appointments Review Committee: Concern expressed that $8/h is too low; how wages are set and hours calculated; differentiation between wage and salary positions; whether some positions are necessary. Mostly however, I was going through a post-11pm zone out for the majority of the discussion. Wages set for the following positions:

1. Equity and Diversity Coordinator – $9.62/hr
   
2. Assistant to VP Admin - $8/hr
   
3. Executive Projects Assistant –$8/hr
   
4. Internship Coordinator (AMS Connect Assistant Coordinator) – $10.23/hr
   
5. Campus Development Commissioner –$8/hr
   
6. First Year Seminar Commissioner - $8/hr
   
7. International Students Commissioner - $8/hr
   
8. Childcare Commissioner - $8/hr
   
9. Olympics Commissioner - $8/hr
   
10. AVP External - $10,380 per annum”

Blake ceasing and desisting: You should probably just read the motion for yourself:

BIRT AMS Council direct the President to cease and desist any imposition of deadlines regarding the submission of motions above and beyond what is specifically enumerated in the AMS Code of Procedures, Bylaws and Constitution

This motion came from Matt Naylor. Background: AMS council meetings are always Wednesday evenings. Sometimes, motions would come up and councilors would claim that they were previously unaware of the motion or had not received supporting documentation. At Blake Frederick's first meeting as president, he asked that agenda items be in by the previous Friday.

This was misinterpreted as being a hard deadline imposed unilaterally, when Code actually says agenda items must be in 72h prior to the meeting, which would be Sunday 6 pm. Blake stated that he was merely trying to give councilors the courtesy of extra time to look things over; he has never rejected motions that come in after Friday but meet the 72h timeline; he will gladly follow council's wishes on this topic; felt a bit slighted that the motion came the way it was, he thought it would have been more appropriate as an informal discussion period.

Matt simply felt that sometimes committees need a bit more time to work on items and Friday was too early; he also didn't intend the motion to sound as confrontational as it does; also felt that if the deadline needed to be changed it should come from Code and Policy, not the president.

A lot of councilors appreciated having the weekend to go over agenda items and the extra time available to consult with constituents, if necessary. Andrew Carne advocated for the pragmatic solution: send out preliminary agendas on Friday with as much as possible included (especially the more involved motions) with the final agenda sent out Monday. Sounds like a good plan. Motion failed 15-3.

External Lobbying: So maybe that $30,000 was not spent so well. This entry is too long already, so for background I will direct you to this Ubyssey editorial as well as a related radical beer tribune post. There was quite an in depth discussion, but I will kept it shallow cause I'm tired.

The AMS external office recently released a report card on the parties' platforms in this election which was up on the AMS website. It has now been removed, but I've uploaded it here. Rating the parties? That makes the AMS look partisan when they are not supposed to be; extremely partisan since the BC liberals got a big fat F. Council decided to pull the report card off their website, and not distribute it anymore.

Also, have you seen ads like this around campus?



Well, AMS council never said that lowering tuition fees was one of the principles they were lobbying on in this provincial election, so these posters are misrepresenting the AMS's priorities. Not to mention only the Greens are promising tuition reduction so it could also be considered partisan. All of these posters are to be taken down.

Essentially, this boondoggle was all due to the fact that the external office didn't follow proper procedures when putting together the campaign. It made a campaign based on the VPX's priorities and judgement, not council's or the External Policy Committee's. So, the $30,000 spent on the provincial election campaign? A waste of resources on a partially botched campaign and the AMS admits it.

Class dismissed. Next Meeting May 27.

Read More...

Summary only...

CASA Membership Downgrade was the Right Move

In the post below, Maayan expressed shock that AMS Council would change it's position in CASA "without due diligence". I think that Council should be praised for its prudent political decision, not accused of haphazardly voting without thinking.

The concerns expressed by the AMS in the letter sent to CASA cannot be swept aside merely as minor. They are indicative of ongoing issues that AMS has had with CASA, which have yet to be resolved. The tone of discussions, language used, social activities, and unfair treatment of delegates at conferences are not problems that are easily reformable. They are part of the culture of CASA and require a serious and concerted introspection by the organization. More serious issues such as the AMS's alignment of CASA's policies and strategy, as well as concerns over CASA staff setting the political agenda of the organization rather than the delegates have been raised by the AMS in the past.

One of the major concerns with CASA not expressed in the letter is their decision to not run a federal election awareness campaign. Contrary to Maayan's suggestion, the AMS did not vote in support of this move. Rather, former AMS representative to CASA Matt Naylor voiced his concern over the poor quality of CASA's campaigns. The solution he suggested was to make the campaigns better, not eliminate them. This year the AMS had to run its own federal election campaign costing $12,000 without help from CASA, a reality that is particularly disturbing given that they are the AMS's federal lobbying organization.

The AMS is also evaluating the benefit of being a part of a federal lobbying organization. No one has suggested that CASA should turn its attention to provincial matters, but with limited resources, the AMS has to make a choice whether to focus more extensively on federal lobbying or provincial lobbying. Plus, it's quite possible that the AMS can do what CASA does, but better and more reflective of the AMS's principles.

What's the benefit of being in CASA? The argument that more students united together means more resources and more influence doesn't apply so well here. As mentioned above, CASA isn't acting as a useful resource for the AMS - certainly not to the tune of $60,000 per year of student money. The influence has been lacking too. It might be asserted that CASA is more adept at getting in meetings with decision makers in the federal government. While this might be true when the Liberals are in power, the AMS is just as adept as scheduling meetings with the government. During the recent federal election, the AMS met with and lobbied nearly every federal candidate in the Vancouver area. We are the largest student union in the country and that carries a lot of weight. The most significant benefit that the AMS receives from CASA is the ability to network with other student unions across the country. This benefit should not be underestimated, but being a part of CASA is not the only way to meet with other student politicians. There are conferences every year that student unions attend (including the AMS) to network with one another.

Let's be clear about this though - the AMS is not leaving CASA, it's stepping down to associate member status. What does this mean? It means we pay half the fees. It also means we lose our vote, which many will argue was virtually non-existent in the first place since the Eastern Block of CASA tends to band together and shut out the AMS. Most importantly, it sends a strong message to CASA that the AMS is serious about its concerns. CASA's response will largely dictate whether the AMS decides to stay or go - it's really up to them. CASA's national director, Zach Churchill, will get his chance to respond to the AMS this Wednesday.

Disclosure: Blake is employed by the AMS as Stef Ratjen's assistant.

Read More...

Summary only...

AMS Council Votes to Change CASA Membership

In an apparent unanimous decision, AMS Council voted tonight to change its membership in CASA from full member to associate member. (View the AMS's press release here.)

The AMS is one of the five founding members of CASA, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, a student federal lobby organization that is predicated on four main principles: 1) member driven policy setting 2) exclusive focus on post-secondary issues 3) fair membership regulations 4) exclusive focus on matters under federal jurisdiction.

The issues that the AMS has with CASA were expressed in a recent letter sent to the organization's national director. The letter as well as CASA's response can be found here:

AMS Letter to CASA (Aug 13 08)
CASA Response Letter to AMS (Sep 22 08)

Among the issues discussed in the letter as well as in an ensuing AMS working group are: staff setting the political agenda, respect for all delegates, troublesome bias in information documents, cost of membership vs. benefits received, the prioritization of federal lobbying over provincial lobbying, the decision by CASA to not run campaigns, and the AMS's opposition to CASA's new constitution.

The change in membership effectively means that the AMS will pay half of the regular membership fees, not receive a vote, but still be invited as a delegate to conferences. The move was designed to send a clear message to CASA that the AMS is serious about the concerns it has voiced with the student lobby organization, which have been largely ignored thus far.

Dropping to associate member allows the AMS to proceed with dropping out of CASA entirely next year, going back to full member status, or remain at associate member status.

Read More...

Summary only...

An Open Letter to the AMS

Sometimes in times of crisis it's important to look at the big picture. So that's what I'm going to attempt here. Make no mistake - the AMS has as fundamental a crisis as it can realistically expect to face. Since it has mandatory membership its very existence is not at stake, but its ability to make a positive change for students, either by lobbying or by campus presence, is very much at risk.

The AMS' credibility is shot. The Lougheed and Bonfire Affairs have pretty much turned the AMS into as much of a joke as possible. Students generally used to be fairly ambivalent; it's safe to say that the tide has turned. Students on all sides of the political spectrum have some serious grievance or other against the Society, and students in the middle are completely and entirely alienated by the insane and fractious factionalism that makes the U.S. House of Representatives look downright civil by comparison. Indeed, the only unifying belief is that the AMS isn't worth students' time. Not only has the AMS lost respect of students, it's also lost the respect of those with whom it needs to have a productive relationship - the media, the University, various authorities, and the community at large. And so much time will have been spent on damage control, diverting energies from worthwhile reforms.

The root cause is the unnecessarily bitter factionalism that's driven a wedge within the society. What began as an ideological cleavage has rapidly descended into the poisonous, petty politics of personal vendettas. While tempting, there's no need to blame anything else.

There's an upside - the AMS is still a relatively healthy society, and students have many reasons to appreciate it. It's still in good financial shape, just passed a transformative referendum, and was on its way to becoming the centre of campus discourse once again. Moreover, the AMS has an opportunity this week, with a Council meeting and the Block Party, to take the first steps to make it right.

There are some relatively easy steps to take. My rules:

1. A joint statement, signed by all the AMS execs. State what you agree on, and the areas that you can work on together to improve students' lives.
2. Don't suppress debate - you're not going to agree on everything. But, when there's a disagreement, and it's intractable, put it aside for a couple weeks. A month. Take a cooling-off period, and spend this Council meeting looking for common ground. If people are disagreeing on something fundamental - move on.
3. Let the exec do its job. That's hugely critical at this time. And let the exec speak for the AMS.
   
4. Circle the wagons. You don't have to become mindless cheerleaders, but make it known when you support each other. Again, find common ground.
5. Pay attention to words. No ad hominem remarks about who's sleeping with whom, or that people don't respect democracy, or are reckless. If a word gets a negative reaction from someone - drop it. Antagonizing people gets us nowhere.
6. No gossip. Scandal and gossip are fun and as "fun" as things get for student politicians, but right now, they're adding fuel to the fire.
   
7. Run a kick-ass Block Party. Channel your energy there, and give students an amazing send-off to the year. Be relevant!
   

But first, it'll require one side to "blink." In every intractable dispute, some party needs to be the first to stand down. Or at least take a step towards it. Please - do it. I'm not calling for a homogeneity of ideas, just a cooling-off period, and a focusing of the ideological cleavage in a productive way. Diversity of ideas breeds good policy and debate, but that can only happen if you find common ground to channel it. Mark my words - nothing constructive will happen this (exec) year without some consensus. The next few years of the AMS, and the student movement at UBC for the near future, depend on you.

Read More...

Summary only...

March 2008 AMS Referendum results

Don't forget the below posts. It's a busy week!

Well, unoficial results are in, and all the questions have been approved with a majority 'yes' vote. Here are the numbers:

Overall turnout: 44%
Total votes: 18,446

U-Pass renewal NO: 500 YES: 17,945 ; 97.2% in favour
Bylaw reforms NO: 1284 YES: 4357 ; 77.3% in favour
WUSC (student refugee subsidy) NO: 2162 YES: 8363 ; 79.4% in favour
SUB renewal fee NO: 6228 YES: 7342; 54% in favour

Good overall turnout - the quorum of 10% of daytime students was met in every question easily. SUB renewal fee passed by a very thin margin. I suspect the AMS will have to do a helluva good consultation to create the level of buy-in that's really needed. 54% isn't great - particularly considering that all the students that voted will be paying $40/year max towards the building (not much compared to the cost to future cycles of students). More discussion of SUB renew to come.

Read More...

Summary only...

Re-thinking referenda

Today is the last day to vote in this year's AMS referendum. The results of the four questions will determine if we continue to have a U-pass program, if we'll start subsidizing refugee students, if we'll build a new SUB, and if we'll make some by-law changes. The reason you need to we cajoled, marketed, and advertised into voting in this referendum by everything from t-shirts to 99 B-line ads is that according to the AMS's bylaws, certain things cannot be enacted by a simple vote of council, but need to get a mandate from students directly through a referendum. These things are any fee increases, and any changes to the bylaws themselves. Since referenda are expensive to run, inherently risky results-wise, and have a high quorum level (10% of students), they often fail.

Referenda used to be run more often (about once a year) before the advent of the U-pass. They failed quite often due to lack of quorum, or lack of support (I'll update with numbers as soon as I find out). Now, the AMS is running referenda less often, to coincide with the U-pass renewals every three years, which draw large numbers of voters. That means that other question can piggy-back on the U-pass and basically ensure quorum.

Now that's fine as far as it goes, but here's a different idea for how referenda can be used. Instead of once every while, and only when absolutely necessary for a fee or by-law change, a new type of referendum system could be invented to help with the democratic deficit in the AMS. As we all know, the AMS isn't especially representative because of low voter turnout, ignorance, and apathy. And this ultimately erodes the AMS's efficacy and power as a democratic organization. Imagine a real direct democracy system that asked students about issues. Regular yearly or bi-yearly referenda on issues would certainly draw lower voter turnout than a U-pass renewal for instance, but they would give the AMS clear mandates to address various types of topics in a certain way. The results of such referenda need not even be technically binding - they could be "consultative referenda" of sorts. A win could result in automatic placement on AMS council's agenda. If a question on such a consultative referendum had a lot of support, there would be political pressure in council to enact whatever it is. The point is to get ideas and issues to filter up from the grassroots student towards the AMS through a more populist issues-focused process than elections, which tend to be more about personality and networks. For this to work, many details would have to be thought out: how to qualify for placement on the ballot, how to administer/fund regular referenda, how much clout the results should be given, and so on.

Essentially though, direct democracy may have benefits to the AMS in terms of political engagement. Right now, I wouldn't say that it's impossible to get something onto council's agenda as a normal student (if you go through an executive), but there's certainly no established process for doing so. And even if something does get on the agenda, councilors are often unsure of what the popular opinion toward it would be. A regular consultative referendum system would provide both a mechanism to filter ideas up through the organization, and provide political consensus behind them. Some countries (New Zealand, Switzerland) have frequent policy referenda. Perhaps we can learn from them.

Read More...

Summary only...

What to learn from the Crompton Lougheed affair

The world has gone mad. I don't check comments for one day while working on a paper, and when I return there's a frenzy! Anyway. There's plenty of discussion in the below post about any and all aspects of this controversy. I want to zoom out and offer a few things we can take away from this episode.

• Elections code needs to be tightened up: get rid of the ambiguity about 1 person 1 vote. Is the onus on the elections committee to ensure this, or is every person only allowed to cast one ballot, or both? Is there a functional difference between a cast ballot, and a counted vote? These are extremely easy to clarify.
• Student Court should have its own appeals process, and its ruling should not have to be approved by council automatically, unless council specifically wants to call something in in order to overrule it (akin to a notwithstanding clause). AMS council should have a more defined role vis-a-vis the court - is it just an "advisory body" as some say, or is a real "independent judiciary"?
• The AMS is vulnerable to cronyism, terrible PR, and political/personal motivations. Fact of life that ain't going away
• On the other hand, AMS council will, (maybe even when they technically should not) make decisions that best serve students - in this way, councilors are actually fairly enlightened. This decision is an example: a lot of councilors I talked to made their decisions on the basis of what would make the AMS most functional and best for students this year. Though you can make legalistic arguments for either side here, I defy anyone to claim that disqualifying Alex over this and then running a by-election in the middle of exams, or in September would best serve students. Or worse, that running a petition (as Nathan Crompton is currently doing) to get Alex impeached will ultimately serve students best.
• Code is important. Procedure is important. Communication and honesty is important. When process falls down, the real issue is that much harder to tease apart and evaluate. An example here is that while the case was actually "Crompton vs. Elections Administrator," Alex Lougheed was the one being essentially judged. All sorts of bad communication and confusing processes occurred as a result.

Now, lets all move on, shall we?

Read More...

Summary only...

Point: focus on the Knolligarchy

An opinion piece by Jesse Ferreras, M.J. Candidate, UBC School of Journalism. Counterpoint coming next week.

There’s a war on truth at this University, and a resurgent movement of leftist radicals is fighting on its front line. I’m speaking, of course, about the Knolligarchy, formerly a joke name that now encompasses UBC’s newly-visible activist front. It’s a group of people affiliated with the AMS Resource Groups that is hot off a “Resisting the University” conference, which culminated today with a march of about a dozen people and an invasion of a meeting in the Board of Governors chambers (to the amusement of all those present.)

First off, let’s give credit where it’s due. The activist well had run dry at this university – it’s been years since a decent protest has been held anywhere on the Point Grey campus, at least since the quiet, passive protests that came in advance of the Iraq War. In this context, the Knolligarchy is a breath of fresh air. They’ve managed to inject just a little bit of excitement into campus life with events such as Trek Park and Trek Park 2.0, as well as the recent conference. It was music to my ears to hear an activist yelling into a megaphone and leading a march across campus last Friday. It at least gave me the impression something was happening.

But that’s enough credit. Let’s cut to the facts.

The Knolligarchy gets its namesake from The Knoll, a partisan campus publication that seems to avoid editing and facts as a matter of editorial policy. Describing itself as a “Weekly” (a “Monthly” might be more accurate) it is published through the AMS Resource Groups. The groups collectively receive $1.50 per student per annum, according to outgoing VP Finance Brittany Tyson. This year the I can’t be sure of the amount of money that goes specifically to publishing the Knoll, but it must come from somewhere within that $1.50.

This money is put towards a publication that advertises itself as partisan news coverage and thereafter sets out on espousing what can be more accurately called revolutionary fervour than news, more anonymous articles than journalistic agency. They don’t, however, get their message out solely through the publication - they also do it through public appearances and direct action techniques.

An example is a little episode in the Ubyssey office in early January. Stefanie Ratjen, Jasmine Ramze Rezaee and Nate Crompton, three of the Knolligarchy’s most prominent members, came into the office to complain about the front page of its first issue in 2008. The top story, splashed across the top of the paper, was “Activists vandalize Ponderosa complex,” accompanied by pictures of broken glass. Beneath it, to the left, was “Trek Park bulldozed,” a story about the mysterious razing of the Trek Park installation.

Crompton, Ratjen and Ramze Rezaee, despite having a story on the front page, complained that the Ubyssey hadn’t put the Trek Park story at the top. They were unhappy about the association given to activists by placing the story at the top (a fair complaint) but also that the Trek Park story, despite being devoid of a good photo to accompany it, was not placed at the top. Crompton went on to complain that “I said all these interesting things,” going so far as to call the issue a “fraud.” Nate argued that the University had “declared war” on Trek Park, notably ignoring the fact that their protest had devolved into a trash heap after the elements caught up with it over the course of several months. The three of them left the office clearly dissatisfied with the dialogue they had with me and a few Ubyssey editors, with Ramze Rezaee remarking, “I hoped to get more out of this conversation.”

The campaign of misinformation began in earnest MKduring the AMS elections. Language is always subjective and contentious, but this group of students has taken misleading rhetoric at UBC to embarrassing new heights.

Stefanie Ratjen made grand overtures to students, spreading falsehoods like “Translink is a private corporation” until I called her on it on my blog. Ramze Rezaee was at her side throughout the campaign, at one point asking VP Academic candidates what they felt about military funding for the International Relations program. IRSA president Gordon Hawkins saved students the trouble of swallowing this tripe when he corrected her publicly, saying that the Liu Institute for the Study of Global Issues receives funding from the Department of National Defence, and not the IR program. Ramze Rezaee exclaimed, “It’s the same thing!”

The lies propagated by members of the Knolligarchy reached their peak when Ramze Rezaee created “Freeman Poritz Watch,” a Facebook group devoted to ruining his campaign for VP External, and had a curious similarity with the anti-Semitic “Jew Watch” website that Poritz himself noted. The group was registered under the name “Sandra Davidson” but the fact of its creation showed up in Ramze Rezaee’s Facebook mini-feed when she started it. In the group’s description she castigated Freeman as “anti-woman,” “militaristic,” a “frat boy” and “xenophobic,” with nothing credible to support the latter claim (the reason, if I remember correctly, was his unfortunate comment about feeling cheated that international students get their degrees and then leave – an impulsive comment, to be sure, but hardly xenophobic.) Its members eventually included Nate Crompton and others involved in the Knolligarchy. At some point the site was taken down, but Freeman was undoubtedly hurt by its claims, notably its unwarranted accusation of xenophobia and its similarity to “Jew Watch” - an antisemitic website.

Today we find the Knolligarchy in an unfettered quest for power at UBC – and they’re not afraid to get their hands dirty. Tristan Markle, your new VP Administration, got them covered with ink when he was caught on camera February 27 defacing posters near the Pit that read “I support Alex Lougheed!” with the added slogan “Right to Cheat.” The posters themselves have come in response to a complaint from Nate Crompton, who alleges that Lougheed voted for himself 12 times in the AMS elections for the position of VP Academic. The votes weren’t counted and the complaint came more than 72 hours after the election results were announced, thus nullifying the complaint according to AMS Code Section IX, Article 8 (1). Markle, however, is living on the hope that he can help put three members of the Knolligarchy on the AMS Executive, even though another election would likely have to be held if Lougheed was impeached, the only way he can be removed from his position at this point.

The scariest thing about this is his tactics may be effective. If there is another byelection, I have little doubt that Nate will run again. And given the pathetic turnout of voters to byelections, as in the VP Admin campaign, he could very well win.

The Knolligarchy’s strength resides in caring about the things that most students don’t. They rallied to Tristan Markle’s side for his election to be VP Admin and succeeded in putting him in office. I hadn’t previously believed it when Patrick Meehan told me the Knolligarchy could count for approximately 400 votes for any candidate – these days I’m more inclined to agree with him.

In short, the Knolligarchy is a force to be reckoned with, and its publication, The Knoll, is a great avenue for them to get their message out. You’re helping it get out there by paying your AMS fees. A small amount of those fees are being placed towards the AMS Resource Groups, and a portion of that amount is ensuring that the Knolligarchy has a publication through which to advocate their leftist political leanings. It’s starting to succeed to the same degree that Conrad Black did in making Canada a more conservative place when he started the National Post - of course, he wasn't funded out of the public purse. It won’t stop until someone reviews how funds are being allocated to the AMS Resource Groups – and specifically, the Knoll.

In any other governmental system, it’s deeply unethical to put public funds towards a partisan cause. Here, purely by paying your AMS fees on top of your tuition, that’s exactly what’s happening. Those fees are being towards the AMS Resource Groups and subsequently the Knoll, which is in turn publishing reasons why its friends and close acquaintances should hold public office at UBC. It’s like the Government of Canada, rather than the Conservative Party, using a pamphlet to campaign for Stephen Harper. Why should students get away with it?

Activism certainly has a place on this campus – without the Great Trek, we wouldn’t be studying or living in the buildings that we’re in today. But truth deserves a place here too – and the Knolligarchy doesn’t seem too keen to let it stand in the way of its actions.

Read More...

Summary only...

Why can't we all just get along? the executive dynamics post.

Once upon a time amidst the tacky coloured walls of the Almar Mater Society’s student union building, executive council was dominated by slates (basically political parties). Back then, elections were in some ways more colourful (in both the literal and figurative sense). Brand names were recognizable from miles away – the extreme conservative “The Right Choice” in navy blue, the centrist “Students for Students” in a lighter hue, and a communist resembling “SPAN”, not to be confused, though understandably often mocked, as SPAM. I need to insert here right away that I am a political product of the latter, though my political career took me past the great era of formal slates. Anyhow.

I have seen my share of executives interact with one another over the years, since 2002 until 2007, both before and after slates existed. By being a peripheral nuisance around the office, and having inherited some institutional gossip, I find myself unable to feel the same degree of outrage over recent events as the visitors who comment on this and other blogs

The reason I bring in slates into the picture is because they were a key vehicle through which politics was driven at the executive and council level. And I also include petty bickering into the term ‘politics’.

When I was running with SPAN, I experienced for the first time the true viciousness that is brought out of individuals during the electoral process. For instance, a colleague who I had previously considered a friendly acquaintance, sprayed me intentionally with water in order to get to a key postering spot before me. At another instance, physical threats had been posed. By the time the elections were over, the atmosphere was so tense that it was difficult to separate the personal from the professional. I personally got over it. And because my slate had swept the election that year, I did not experience the tensions that threaded through the year before.

Apparently (and this is a one sided claim) within executive council, it was an iron rule that each member of one slate would vote one way, and the other slate would oppose. Frequently the minority slate was voted down in their endeavours to the point where it was suggested that it was purely for the sake of sabotage. How valid this claim is I cannot assess, but I am willing to entertain the notion.

Enter the banning of slates. Former AMS president Spencer Keys championed this project primarily from an inclusiveness standpoint –individuals, no matter how qualified, who do not gain access to slates are severely disadvantaged in an election. This is true in “real life” as well, and in the AMS especially so.

Others would claim that there were other reasons why they supported this motion. For one, they found the blind loyalty towards a strict party line excessive and tiring. They may have felt like a footsoldier than a free thinking individual. There was enormous peer pressure within one slate to oppose the other parties.

Whether slates should in some way or form be reinstalled is a debate I would like to see on a different post. If I have one last comment on this, it would be that emotional baggage is an unfortunate part of continuity of a slate and its agenda. It’s the nature of the beast. It happens in the real world too.

And it’s this emotional baggage inherited from all these previous years which may have culminated into bitter executive dynamics, which is more the topic I would like to focus on. From the comments seen in previous posts, there seems to be a romanticized ideal of ‘executive cohesion’ floating around, the purpose or exact definition of which has not been elaborated by anyone so far. My guess would be that the executive should achieve a certain amount of reliability and trust among one another, as well as the ability to collaborate on joint executive projects. Personal squabbles should not sabotage the job they are elected to do, as in “I hate A so I am going to vote against anything A wants to do”. I don’t think anyone expects AMS execs to be best friends, or wear the same T shirts, or have brunch together every Sunday, or engage in a communal brainwashing program such that they become the same person (although I wouldn’t be surprised if these things have been done before).

This idea of ‘cohesion’ has been brought into conflict with an individual’s political agenda. The question here, then, is if there is a degree to which an executive (and I would argue council member) should limit her/his own politics in order to achieve cohesion with their (potential) colleague(s). This question has become especially pertinent in this particular case regarding the photo we published, where the political agenda antagonizes the very position of their colleague. I suppose it is a sticky situation. I can see how it could be taken personally by the individual affected. But should it? And will it?

Is it too naïve to believe that in our post-slate era, we should still be allowed to charge with political valence while allowing others to do the same? Removal of official slates did not equate political lobotomy. In the past few years we happened to experience little slate-like activity and consequently, a relatively quiet year. However, political assembly is a right everyone can exercise, and it is inevitable and arguably necessary at times. Kudos to A-Lo fans who mobilized to launch a poster campaign. Kudos to Knolligarch(s?) for mobilizing to deface them. I suppose I expect a sort of cordial professionalism once in office, which allows for a working rapport while their own individual politics still manifests into defacing each other’s posters.

In the end, and from the practical perspective of a former councillor, I would sprinkle enough of this “cohesion” ingredient into the executive bunch in order to achieve productivity from them – as individual executives fulfilling their elected portfolio, and as the group that is at times required to present some sort of unified front. It seems to me like the latter point is threatened for some readers here. From a very systematic point of view, the people have picked their representatives and all the strings that come with these individuals. The political passion which I see in both team Lougheed and team “Knollarchy” does not have to be squashed just yet for the sake of executive cohesion, or pleasantries, or platitudes. Not yet at least. It will be the role of AMS council to watch the progress of the executives and decide if some or all of the executives are unable to splice out the personal from professional well enough to meet council’s standard. I have a feeling it will become obvious soon enough.

Read More...

Summary only...

AMS Council Meeting, Jan 30, or how much we care about committee reform, deep down inside.

Today's council meeting was both disappointing and heartening. Disappointing because the anticipated public lynching of EA Brendan Piovesan failed to materialize. Heartening because it turns out that deep down inside, we really care about committee reform. And there were several other important (University Ombuds Office!) and thoughtful (Systemic discrimination in the AMS?) decisions.

We got to find this out when an apparently simple motion about changing the chair of the Impacts committee (which looks at sustainability) from the VP Admin to VP finance. This motion was predicated by conversations in the impacts committee and executive committee about where sustainability issues fit best in the structure of the organization. Since the many of the sustainability and impacts issues have to do with businesses, and implementing the budgets of the sustainability strategy, they seemed to agree that the chairmanship would be best supported by the Finance portfolio. Basically, this was about finding a permanent home in the organization for a committee that has traditionally had... issues.

Seems simple enough. Makes sense. Consultation with the committee in question took place. Both the VP Finance and Admin already sit on the impacts committee anyway. Interestingly, this motion met with resistance. Councillors wanted to refer it to the Code & Policies committee (sometimes a bad idea in my opinion). Throughout the debate, it became clear that it wasn't just this committee, and the trivial switch in chairmanship that was bugging councillors. It was the "top-down" nature of the proposal, the fact that it was still an executive committee member that was being proposed to chair it, and that it hadn't gone through a committee process - essentially, it turns out that council really cares about the ideas behind Spencer's committee reform, and the fact that this change in committee structure wasn't integrated holistically into the whole committee reform conversation, was very bothersome! Wow!

For whatever reason, momentum is building behind committee reform. Somebody even called the phrase a buzzword today, which I had to chuckle about, considering that it's been in negative buzz territory for numerous seasons of sitting on the backburner. But I'm very happy that people are thinking about it, even to the extent that they're dragging it into irrelevant debates. yay!

In other notable meeting news, the long-awaited University-level Ombudsperson Office is one step closer to reality with hiring proposed for April 2008. The Ombuds Office will be an independent and confidential service for students to voice complaints against the University and to serve as a central body where students can go to seek referrals to all other campus resources. AMS Council voted unanimously in favour of a 3-year funding package in support of the initiative with the GSS and the University providing joint funding. This office has been 16 years in coming; a previous AMS attempt in 1991 failed at the Senate level. Attempts under Martha Piper were emphatically refused by that president. When Stephen Toope came on board in 2006, students saw an opportunity to try again and found encouragement from the new President. An ad hoc committee with members from the VP Student's office, University counsel, equity office, faculty association, AMS Ombuds, AMS Advocacy, GSS Advocacy was struck, generating terms of reference, which were reviewed and passed by the University Administration. The Ombuds Office will be housed in the Student Union Building, a nod to the independent and student focused nature of the service. [This paragraph kindly written by Joshua Caulkins, Geography Ph.D. student and Chair of the Ombuds Committee]

Ross Horton has been hired as the new General Manager of the AMS. The GM is a hugely important position which oversees all the business and service operations of the AMS. The GM sits on the Executive committee, reports to the president, and is basically the boss of everyone that the AMS employs. He/she suplies important turnover for executives. Another complete post on the new GM is forthcoming. This is big for the AMS.

Other interesting motions that were carried:

• Oversight committee (which usually evaluates the performance of executives) is to seek submissions and make recommendations about this year's election process, in hopes of improving it for the future. This research and report will be totally separate from the process of resolving current elections irregularities, which is taking place through elections appeals committees and student court.
• An "appropriate external body" (whatever that may be) is to be employed to look at systemic discrimination in the AMS. In the last three years (maybe since the abolishment of slates? term paper anyone? (asks Jeff Friedrich)) there has been a decrease in the proportion of women politically active in the AMS. Council seems to be disproportionately low in visible minority representation as well. This ties into the commuter/non commuter dichotomy also. This is to make a professional determination about whether there is a problem, and how to address it.

The last thing on the agenda was a discussion topic about the elections period that has just concluded. The discussion topic was added to the agenda by AUS president Stephanie Ryan, in order to discuss a submission she had received from a constituent. But immediately as the agenda item came up, it immediately went in camera (ie. nobody except councillors (and anyone specifically invited)) allowed. "I came specifically for this though!" said "Che" Allison, a candidate in the President race, as he waited outside the council chambers for the in camera session to conclude," I can understand where they're coming from, but there are people that have personal experience about the HR issues they're going to discuss. Don't get me wrong, I love sitting through AMS meetings [dripping sarcasm] ... They invited Chris and Stef [the VPs finance and external elect], but not two other candidates, one of whose election is still unresolved! And they should have invited the VFMs - since that was a shitshow too". In any event, it seems that some councillors have vowed to move to discount any and all elections results that include the results from paper ballots, which were not conducted in sectret on Jan 25th, when the elections results come to council for approval. This won't happen until the various sundry official complaints are resolved.

The whole question of in camera session when you're talking about employees' performance is a little mysterious to me. All students are members of the society, and should be able to participate in a conversation about HR issues in something as important as an election. Anyone care to enlighten about what libel/lawsuit worries drive council into in camera sessions? Particularly when the agenda item is just a discussion period as opposed to a deicsion-making topic?

Read More...

Summary only...

Student Court challenges, election 2008

The period for the 2008 AM elections was punctuated by numerous irregularities of various sorts. When problems arise in elections, or in other matters of stuff that goes against the AMS Bylaws or Code, complaints can be brought to a group of people called the "student court". These are seven people, typically law students, that interpret the code, and make rulings based on it in whatever dispute is going on. The Student Court is comprised of one Chief Justice (who has to be in third year law) and six other students. They've got the ultimate say on interpreting AMS bylaws and code. AMS council can overrule Student Court rulings, but usually doesn't. Elections-related complaints first go to the election appeal committee. This committee consists of the Elections Administrator, Chief Justice, and a representative of the person with the complaint (other than themselves). If this committee can't decide what to do, or if the person appeals their decision, the issue goes to all of the Student Court.

Current challenges/complaints that I'm aware of (there may well be more):

VP Academic race: A complaint pertaining to this race has been submitted. I don't know by whom, or any details. The VP academic race was particularly close, with only 30 votes separating the winning candidate, Alex Lougheed, from the runner-up, Nate Crompton.

VP Admin race: Mike Kushnir, the candidate that ran as "scary" Mike "the rabbi" in the VP admin race, is filing a complaint about the cancellation of this race, in opposition to code. Specifically, he wants the results from WebVote released. To quote the formal complaint he submitted to the elections committee a few days ago:

I am not looking to have the VP-Admin election declared valid. I am simply looking to have the election results released. I would like to have Stephanie Ryan appointed as my representative to the Elections Appeal Committee.

BoG race/ general: According to sources, one of the winners of the BoG race sent out an email to members of the Greek system, stating that he was the only fraternity member running for BoG. This turns out to be factually incorrect, since Andrew Carne is also a fraternity member. Omid Javadi, the EUS VP external, who is filing a complaint about this and more general matters pertaining to the conduct of the Elections Administrator is on the record saying the following:

Brendan does not deserve a penny of the honorarium he is supposed to get. The election results should be invalidated, simply because democracy was not achieved with this election. He provided no services to this society, and as such, should not be paid. This sort of ineptitude should never be seen again.

Details are still fuzzy, since I can't find a list of current Student Court members, and the Election Administrator isn't answering my emails. Speaking of the EA, rumors are flying that council is going to try and fire Brendan Piovesan, this year's EA, at tomorrow's council meeting.

In any event, elections results are only official after council approves them. As long as there are unresolved Student Court challenges pending, this won't happen, so the elections results are still very much in question. Hopefully this won't spell a huge delay for Executive turnover.

Read More...

Summary only...