At the last GSS Council meeting on July 23, 2009, a plan to expand Koerner's Pub came up for council approval. However, before it could be dealt with quorum was lost for the third month in a row and no decision could be made. This project has been on the table for quite a while now, and many people have put a lot of work into refining the design and financing options of the plan.
Most graduate students and other patrons of Koerner's Pub are unaware of the planned pub expansion. Since it represents one of the biggest and most meaningful projects the GSS has considered in a number of years, this post is meant to inform all of those people about what the project's all about, why it's worthwhile, and what the current situation is. Most of the information in here represent the findings of the Pub Patio Project Task Force (PPPTF) and its presentation to council, which can be viewed here.
The following is a guest post by Dan Beaton, a PhD student in Physics and GSS Councilor.
Project History
In 2004, GSS council created a task force to look into the possibility of turning Koerner's into a brewpub, an idea which came from the manager at the time. Although we do try, grad students (and other Koerner's patrons) don't drink enough beer to make having our own brewpub feasible. If this plan was ever to work, it would be necessary to get more customers into the pub. Two options were proposed to increase traffic: food service and expansion. The taskforce at the time recommended both, with no recommendation as to which should happen first.
About a year and a half later, the current manager, Rick Carre, was hired and a GSS survey indicated that students felt Koerner's could be improved by providing food service. Rick made it happen and as a result Koerner's is now much busier, especially at meal times.
What happened next was some discussion within the GSS about two capital projects: expanding Koerner's pub and renovating the ballroom and the latter was ultimately chosen. At the same time, another group of councilors looking into the society's mandate concluded that Koerner's needs to be expanded in order to continue to meet graduate student expectations since the grad population had increased from 6,000 to 9,000 students. Last year the society felt that the project was sufficiently important to spend several thousand dollars on designs and plans - not to mention countless hours of the manager's time.
The Project
The basic idea is that some outdoor patio space currently containing a few picnic tables would be get a pre-fab, glassed-in enclosure to make space that would be useable all year round. (See pictures) Since this is not actually new space, it is already included in the existing liquor licence.
Sitting outside at Koerner's in the summer is one of, if not the best pub experience at UBC (it was voted one of the best patios in Vancouver by the Georgia Straight). Although this would eliminate some outside patio space, there would still be lots of outdoor space available. Even though we are currently in the middle of the hottest Vancouver temperatures ever, remember that most of the year has miserable weather. Space needs to be enclosed if it is to be useful for more than 3-4 months of the year.
Two views of the area that would be enclosed by the new patio.
Conceptual Rendering of glassed-in patio.
Capital Costs
Currently, the total cost of the project is about $177,000, broken down as follows:
$98,000 (due upon completion)
$41,000 (interest-free loan – to be paid to contractor $1,700/month for 24 months)
$38,000 (for Plant Ops electrical, plumbing, safety work; furniture and fixtures)
The project was actually ready to go last November but delays have pushed the cost of the project up more than $20K. The current quote is/was good until the end of July. The contractor is so keen to see the project go ahead they are willing to provide a $41,000 interest free loan to be paid off over two years.
Projected Revenues
Of course the underlying assumption with this project is that it would eventually pay for itself through increased revenues. Based on projections, it could add an extra $180,000 of revenue each year, resulting in an extra $50,000 in profit.
The assumptions made to arrive at this figure are that with the patio, Koerner's will get 25 more people (in the added 40 seats) for 2 hours during lunch time and 2 hours during dinner time for each of Monday, Thursday and Friday spending $10/hour. In other words and extra $125 spent in Koerner's per hour to 40 seats; or even simpler $3.15/seat/hour for meal times three days a week. If you've ever been to Koerner's on a Monday or Friday night, you know how busy it can get - this is not included in the estimate (neither are other days of the week) and therefore I think, and many agree, that the numbers are quite conservative.
The costs associated with providing the product these seats is 46% of the revenue and the cost of servicing these seats (2 extra staff and some other expenses) is 47% of the remainder. So of the revenue collected, 71% goes to cover costs; the rest would go either into paying down the cost of the expansion, or to profits. That's where the extra $50,000 comes from.
The payback period was also examined, and is simply the total cost of the project divided by the annual added income. Five years was identified as a suitable payback period, and the project should fall within this criterion. A best case scenario would see the patio paid off in 3.3 years and an absolute worst case scenario gave a payback period of 13 years.
Funding
The GSS is capable of paying for the whole project itself. Each year every graduate student pays a $5 fee for capital improvements (CPIF). Between the surplus from 2008 and the 2009 funds, there is $65,000 in CPIF funds available. General revenues for the GSS also had a surplus in 2008, from which up to $40,000 is available. That could cover the upfront $98,000 payment to the contractor.
The two-year $41,000 interest-free loan from the contractor could be paid off from extra pub revenues once the new patio is up and running. This leaves the GSS still short $35,000 on the project, but that could be paid for with a loan, more of the 2008 surplus (which was $69,000 in total), outside funding, or sponsorships.
This project may result in some short term cash flow problems, but all of the GSS's programs and services should remain unaffected. The GSS makes annual budget including all the annual projects, parties, events, etc the GSS puts on which would remain intact.
Current Situation
While council did have the opportunity to discuss the issue at the last meeting, the discussion got severely side-tracked by a lengthy Economics 101 lecture necessitated by a very few people at the meeting who either did not understand, or were presenting confusing information to council. These people were former and current executives. Although the GSS executives are against the project, council is ultimately the body to make this decision, a decision that will have to be made at some point. Too much work has gone into this plan from too many people for it to fail due to continued lack of quorum.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Koerner's Pub Patio Project
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Did The Killers Kill the Liquor at Thunderbird Arena?
The new Thunderbird Winter Sports Centre is currently applying for an amendment to their liquor-primary licence. The matter will be coming before Metro Vancouver's Electoral Area committee for approval this Friday and there seems to be a significant hurdle in the way: as a result of past violations, the RCMP does not support it.
Thunderbird Arena currently has a liquor-primary licence which covers the seating area in Father Bauer arena as well as the location of the former Thunderbar. When the new facility was erected around Father Bauer arena, the new areas were not covered under the existing liquor licence. As a result, UBC Athletics is applying for an amendment to the existing liquor-primary licence to cover the seating area and floor of the new arena. This application is not only in UBC's interests, VANOC wants it too. It's in the venue agreement, and so UBC does as VANOC wants.
As required by Metro Vancouver, some public meetings were held to discuss the plans and get feedback. Predictably, and in this case fortunately, the UNA objected to some of the items in the application. Because the process of obtaining an amendment to a liquor licence is tedious, Athletics threw in everything they think they might want at some time in the future, even if they don't need or want it at present, to leave themselves more flexibility. This resulted in some absurdities, such as proposed serving hours stretching all the way from 9 am until 2 am, and the licencing of an outdoor patio area that they currently don't have any use for.
The 9 am start is interesting to me; I don't think there was any particular reason for it other than that they were asking for everything they could. By doing so, UBC is now on the record as not objecting to morning drinking, starting as early as 9. On the application form the reason put forth for the early start time was so that people can drink mimosas – maybe it should have listed Beerios instead.
Regardless, things were going relatively smoothly until the RCMP dropped a bombshell. In a four-page letter (linked above; highly recommended reading), S/Sgt Kevin Kenna outlines some serious violations that have occurred at past events in the arena and that they do not feel Athletics is capable of living up to their responsibilities. What happened to prompt this strong objection?
"In order to promote events in the interim while the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch is considering the application, UBC has been granted a Temporary Change to its existing licence in order to allow a beer garden during certain events at the arenas. Management of the Temporary Change licence has been problematic and the Licensing Branch has had to rescind its approval after complaints about beer garden use at a recent concert." - David Boote, planner with Metro Vancouver
So Athletics got a Temporary Change, but that was rescinded due to poor management. At the next concert, they instead got a Special Occasion Licence (SOL). How did that work out?
"At a recent event where a Special Occasion License was obtained for a beer garden, there was such blatant abuse of liquor service (operating two beer gardens, poor security, over service) that all future events were not allowed to apply for a Special Occasion License." - S/Sgt Kenna, RCMP
Strike two. Without the Temporary Change licence and no chance at an SOL, the next event had no alcohol service. Problem solved, right?
"Despite the fact that the next concert was [non-alcoholic], both drugs and alcohol did make their way into the event. The police encountered minors in possession and consuming both alcohol and narcotics. As well, there were many inebriated persons either on the main floor or in the stands or back stage. Numerous patrons were observed smoking marijuana in the "mosh pit" as well as parts of the stands. During this event a male was "head butted" and required an ambulance to take him to the hospital. Before this event even started, there was a lot of "pre-drinking" outside the Centre and in the nearby Thunderbird Parkade." - S/Sgt Kenna, RCMP
Well, shit. There's no way these people should get a liquor licence. Ultimately though, the RCMP concludes they are willing to work with UBC to resolve the outstanding issues, but until it is all resolved, the RCMP does not support any liquor licence amendments. Brian Sullivan penned a response acknowledging past problems and promising to do better, but also trying to claim that they have an "established record of success" running licenced events. Can you imagine the fallout if such serious violations occurred repeatedly at student-organized events? I can't imagine saying "my bad" and promising to do better in the future would get you anywhere at all with the RCMP and the University. Someone please teach me how UBC gets away with this stuff.
All of this makes me worried. With liquor issues, one bad apple spoils the whole bushel. The RCMP would like to enforce every group the same way so they are not seen as playing favorites, though this doesn't happen in practice. While this approach is both fair and unfair at the same time, the result is that a small subset of troublemakers has the potential to cause real problems to the majority of groups that do follow the rules surrounding liquor regulations. Of course Athletics has promised to clean up their act, but why didn't that happen when any of the major infractions occurred in the first place? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Not only that, these are only the issues only from Thunderbird arena. Athletics also gets SOLs for Varsity games and does not follow the rules in getting those either! Their track record is established and it's dismal. Students get a bad rep for being irresponsible with alcohol but the worst violations are arising elsewhere.
The other way I see this liquor-primary licence as a problem is that currently the RCMP puts a cap on SOLs, based on how many people are supposedly attending these events in a given night. Once that cap is hit, they stop giving out SOLs for that day. For example, the RCMP will not approve SOLs for August 14th due to the Warped Tour occurring at Thunderbird Stadium even though the Warped Tour will not have any liquor service. Any night with a large event at the arena will lower the capacity for student-run events. I am also going to assume that the revenue from these concerts is going into Athletics's bottom line but that very little of it ends up going back into student programs. I would love to see evidence which suggests I'm wrong about this, but I don't think I will ever see that. The university is catering primarily to non-students, having negative impacts on student-run events; this is the War on Fun in a nutshell.
Finally, this warms my heart:
It is my belief that the UBC Athletics Department is moving too fast with their planned events at Thunderbird Centre, especially music concerts; and that profit is the main objective rather than ensuring that community interests are taken into consideration and looked after now and in the future. - S/Sgt Kenna, RCMP
Sing it, brother! This is the gospel I have been preaching far and wide. I don't want to start off on an even longer rant, but the ancillary model for UBC Athletics is broken. Too much of the department's attention is focused on increasing revenues without considering whether it is actually serving the UBC community effectively. There is not nearly enough accountability to those ultimately paying the bills and shouldering the impacts. I am immensely pleased to see that others see it the same way as well and I hope UBC is paying attention.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
More from the CIS AGM
The Coles notes version of this post was already published: CIS restricts dual membership with NCAA.
Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS), the organization that governs high-performance sport at the post-secondary level, held its Annual General Meeting from June 8-12 in Gatineau, Quebec.
When UBC decided to defer its decision on NCAA membership until at least 2010, one of the reasons cited was unresolved issues reagarding CIS. In the context of potential NCAA membership, the three main issues identified were (1) Dual membership rules, (2) Athletic Financial Aid rules and (3) Quality of competition within Canada West. The CIS AGM is the only time of year where these issues can be dealt with formally by the CIS membership.
Due to my inordinate interest in athletics at UBC, and the NCAA isssue, I went to check it out.
FYI, the 90-page agenda package is here, including all of the committee reports and background documentation for the few of you who might care. I will pull out things that are more pertinent. Also, the CIS put up their own summary of happenings at the AGM. Their summary is very incomplete, so keep reading.
DAY 1
Day 1 started with some of the more preliminary activities: approval of minutes, and reports from individuals and committees.
Dick White, Athletic Director at the University of Regina and outgoing CIS president, and Marg McGregor, CIS CEO, gave opening remarks. Both of their speeches addressed many of the points contained in the CIS's Ten Point Plan (TPP). This is a collection of priorities which are designed to help the CIS achieve its vision of being the "destination of choice for Canadian student-athletes." It is essentially their version of a strategic planning document and was a very central theme throughout the meeting.
Both speeches were based around the idea that the CIS is not meeting its potential and that changes must be made to help the CIS improve. Dick White spoke mostly about the future and about the need for member buy-in to make change happen while Marg McGregor, who at times was extremely quotable, summarized the CIS's recent activities. In reference to the TPP, she said she wants it to be "CIS's elevator music: it's always playing in the background." When addressing the issue of the NCAA she portrayed them as Wal-Mart, with CIS being the mom and pop corner store.
For the most part, committee reports did not deviate significantly from the written reports in the agenda package. A quick wrap-up of some of the developments from the speeches and reports:
- Edmonton's bid for the 2015 Universiade lost out to Gwangju, South Korea
- The CIS launched new logos (top) to replace their previous one (bottom)
- A planned expansion of the Women's Basketball championship to 16 teams was pushed back for another year. The stated reason was prudence due to the current economic situation.
- CIS secured a major sponsorship deal with Research in Motion
- They are trying to catch up to new media with a Facebook page, a Twitter feed, a Flickr page and a channel on Youtube.
A few things that are on the horizon for the upcoming year:
- Clint Hamilton, UVic's athletic director, taking over as CIS president.
- Conduct a thorough exploration of how the CIS can partner with the CCAA (Canadian Colleges Athletic Association). This is awaiting government funding.
- Continue trying to adapt how the CIS deals with media. With many writers now doing blogs (holla!), press releases may not be the best way anymore.
- Leverage big national championships (basketball, football) in order to ensure a minimum level of service to national championships across all sports.
- Continue looking at governance reform and financial aid rules in the CIS.
The afternoon of Day 1 was then devoted to discussion sessions. The structure of the AGM is a little curious, since there is a lot of time devoted to these sessions, but at the same time, there are very few bona fide motions coming to the floor to deal with those issues. Lots of interesting ideas regarding eligibility, CIS championships, branding and governance were expressed, but whether any follow-up will occur on these ideas is anyone's guess.
DAY 2
Day 2 started off with a presentation from UWO's football coach Larry Haylor, on Canada's participation in the 2011 World Football Championship, which would in all likelihood involve CIS football players. After that, there was a presentation on a new system for locating football and hockey players in order to administer drug tests.
On a side note, the stats surrounding drug testing in the CIS really surprised me. Last year, four players were caught doping: one for steroids, three for marijuana use. My initial reaction was that university sport in Canada must be very clean, since there was only one violation (I disregard the pot violations since I'm sure it was not used for the purpose of boosting athletic performance). A closer look at the numbers seems to point in a different direction: the CIS boasts having over 10,000 student-athletes across Canada, but only 269 drug tests were administered last year. I realize administering these tests is probably costly, but it strikes me as being extremely low! Is the lack of violations really because the players are clean, or might it have to do with inadequate testing?
At long last, the discussion turned toward my raison d'être, the NCAA.
Background: A motion was brought to the 2008 CIS AGM which would have prohibited all dual membership. This would have been a very problematic policy not just for UBC, but for a number of schools in Canada. Ultimately, this motion was laid on the table while more discussion on the issue could occur. In the year since, during the entire process of examining the NCAA issue, UBC has been waiting patiently to find out what, if anything, the CIS would say about dual membership restrictions. In the last year, the CIS commissioned a report about the NCAA which was based upon both research and feedback received from members (I haven't read it). The NCAA was also discussed in depth at an April 2009 members meeting. The results of that meeting, in the eyes of the CIS board, was a call to action. Theresa Hanson (director of varsity sports at UBC) told me that in her opinion, the results of the April members meeting were inconclusive at best, only reaffirming that the NCAA was a divisive subject. Nevertheless, the motion that finally came from the CIS is board was:
The first speaker was Dr. David Murphy, athletic Director of SFU. He said that the posturing coming from the CIS was that they are trying to go forward with strength and boldness, but when he looks at the motion it reeks of insecurity and protectionism. In sports, all the schools in the room are in the business of competition. Why, then, should the CIS be afraid of competition, rather than using it as a catalyst to step up their own game? He also brought up that in the academic realm, being worldly and looking globally is considered a virtue. It's recognized as a good thing to broaden people's education and this motion flies in the face of that idea. He added that he doesn't think the NCAA will ever result in a mass migration of schools and that SFU is a very special case. To him, this motion is simply a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat.
The response from Katie Sheahan (Concordia) was that she didn't think this motion was borne out of a defensive reaction, but instead that it is the responsible thing to do since the NCAA has the potential to seriously damage the financial health of the CIS. She also held the view that Dr. Murphy had oversimplified the issue and that the CIS board truly feels that the motion reflects the feelings of members at the April 2009 meeting.
Ivan Joseph (Ryerson) then expressed his view that the CIS's "destination of choice" mantra was more about keeping Canadian student athletes in Canada, not necessarily in the CIS. In that sense, this motion would not help that goal. To him, allowing institutions to have more options would also give Canadian student-athletes more options, hopefully keeping more of them in Canada.
Gord Grace (Windsor) brought up an interesting point that CIS membership is separate from membership in the regional associations (AUS, QSSF, OUA and Canada West). His example was thus: supposing Windsor joined the NCAA and were prohibited from being CIS members, they would still be allowed to do all their league play in the OUA. In theory, Windsor's football team could end up winning the OUA championship, but be ineligible to play in the Vanier Cup because Windsor was not in the CIS. If something like that were to ever occur, it would be embarrassing.
Ken Schildroth (York) asked why this motion applied only to the NCAA and not the NAIA.
Dick White responded that the CIS board felt there was a clear distinction between the NCAA and the NAIA in terms of how powerful their brands are. The NAIA does not pose a big threat to the CIS, but the NCAA does due to their extremely high level of recognition. As a result they didn't think it was appropriate to lump them together.
Theresa Hanson (UBC) had the floor next and acknowledged that the NCAA issue is extremely complex, but that one of the great things about the CIS has been its respect for the autonomy of the individual institutions. If UBC ultimately decides that the NCAA is best, UBC's autonomy should be respected.
Clint Hamilton (UVic, incoming CIS president) wanted to make it clear that the CIS board has been devoting a lot of time to this issue and has been taking it quite seriously. Through the entire process, he has repeatedly heard how it's good for institutions, but has never heard any argument about why it's good for the CIS. The board wants to do what's best for the CIS, and the evidence seems to show it would be damaging to CIS from a number of angles (ex. sponsorship, marketing, recruiting) by allowing a stronger brand to get a foothold here.
Dick White (Regina, outgoing CIS president) then acknowledged that the motion may appear to be protectionist, but in his opinion that would only be true if this was done in isolation. To him, it's just one part of a bigger campaign to strengthen the CIS. Allowing the NCAA to enter Canada would put the CIS in a position of weakness and the fact that schools want to put some of their sports in the NCAA and some in the CIS says to him that the CIS is viewed merely a league of convenience. He also stated that he didn't think this is an issue of autonomy since there are many instances where people give up autonomy. He encouraged everyone to support the motion and thought it was one of the most important motions in a number of years
Pat Murray (CIS VP Marketing) pointed out that they just want schools to show commitment to the CIS; that you're either in or you're out.
David Murphy (SFU) took the floor again to express his worry that there may be a lot of misinformation out there and that SFU's move to the NCAA won't be painless for anyone involved, including SFU. They just support the ability to choose. Rather than trying to shut out competition, the CIS just needs to learn to adapt and will ultimately be successful.
Marg McGregor (CIS CEO) then took the opportunity to respond to a number of point that had been raised. She acknowledged that the CIS was being protective of their interests and that they were doing so in the best interests of the CIS, stating unequivocally, "I make no apologies for trying to protect the CIS." She also acknowledged that choice is important at the institutional level, but that everyone also needs to take the national interests into account. On the topic of looking globally, she said that the CIS already has rules in place about foreign players, so recognizing and protecting Canadian interests is nothing new. She ended by warning that if the motion was defeated, it would make the CIS a weak and vulnerable organization.
The last word went to Leo MacPherson (St. FX) who said that his institution, and all those Atlantic Canada, were largely ambivalent about this issue since there was no threat of losing AUS members to the NCAA. He urged every school who felt ambivalent about this motion to show their support to the CIS board and vote in favour.
Phew. So there you have it. I was quite surprised that UBC did not speak up more, or offer a more compelling argument than the need for institutional autonomy. (Bob Philip was not present to give his take: he had to fly back to Vancouver earlier in the day.) However, at the same time, I kinda doubt it would have made any difference. It really seemed like everyone had made up their mind beforehand; no one was about to be swayed either way by the arguments put forth. That comes as no surprise. That's the pattern you see whenever you talk about the NCAA in Canada.
The two discussion periods that followed were about Athletic Financial Aid (AFA) and partnering with the CCAA. I won't go into to much detail, suffice it to say that it seems unlikely that there will be any significant movement on the AFA front in the near future. They are going to 'explore' a flexible scholarship model, but the AFA committee did a survey of schools and found that there is little traction for major changes to AFA policy.
In the afternoon of day 2 is when the voting finally occurred (like I said, AGM structure is a bit odd where discussion and voting happen separately). For the record:
CIS members are not permitted to play in the NCAA in sports that are offered by CIS.
For: 55 Against: 20
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CIS members are not permitted to play in the NAIA in sports that are offered by CIS, unless they also compete in that sport within CIS, effective September 2011.
For: 64 Against: 19
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CIS support in principle the exploration of a flexible scholarship model in concert with striking a Board Task Force to do further study and review to address the challenges and issues that CIS members have identified.
Carried
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The AFA motion is pretty toothless, but the NAIA motion has the potential to further complicate things for UBC. Theresa Hanson identified Cross Country as the sport it would affect most.
So what's next for UBC on the NCAA front? As far as I can tell, not much. Trying to get some clarity on accreditation seems to be the only major outstanding issue that needs to be addressed. (Of course, I still consider the distribution of funds from the athletic fee, and the structure and transparency of UBC Athletics major outstanding issues that need to be addressed - but I am probably alone on that.)
What will be helpful over the next year is that SFU, apparently completely undeterred by the accreditation requirement, already submitted their application. Over the next year, UBC will be able to simply watch from the sidelines to see how the application process unfolds. During that time, it may be possible to reach the point where nothing except careful deliberation is standing in the way of hearing the outcome. However, I'm not sure anyone is in a hurry to get there quite yet.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Want chairs? Perhaps... 99 of them?
In case you were unaware, 99 Chairs and Trek Express will be closed for the summer in order to undergo renovations. 99 Chairs is kaput, to be replaced by a White Spot. Pizza Pizza and Timmy's will be staying put and the sandwich place will get a new name familiar to those in Vanier: Stackables.
So, without further ado, here's your Craigslist ad of the day. Chairs and tables from Trek Express and 99 Chairs can be yours for as low as $5! Not only that, Andrew Parr, the head honcho over at UBC Food Services is actually volunteering to take calls on the weekend to sell their stuff on Craigslist. Folks, that is what is known as dedication, or possibly just workaholism. Give this man a promotion!
Actually... UBC did just promote him. But that is another topic for another post!
A few weeks ago, I went to 99 Chairs for the first and last time, mostly to be able to write this post without being completely uninformed. (According to my co-worker, the main reason most people went to 99 Chairs was to buy beer on your meal card.) Although the food was passable, I did get the sense that this was a worn-out restaurant - no pizazz or excitement. It could certainly use some sprucing up. But... a White Spot?
Really?
I don't think UBC Food Services runs franchises very well. Like many university campuses, with a near-monopoly on campus food service, there is only a token effort to be competitive. (Check out this other Craigslist ad too . They go out of their way to tout “No competition” as one of the best qualities of their UBC business.) Personally, I thought the whole idea of having a franchised restaurant is that all the locations are pretty much the same. UBC Food is running the black sheep of all of these corporate families. (For the record, UBC Food describes their franchises as being “non-traditional”.)
Much like my beloved Shopper's Drug Mart which refused to honour Shopper's Drug Mart flyers, nowhere except A&W accepts coupons. The Subway in the SUB doesn't ever participate in the never-ending Subway promotions and in fact, their regular prices are slightly higher than average. The Tim Hortons at Trek Express doesn't accept Tim Hortons gift cards which are being heavily promoted chain-wide, though I'll note they do participate in Roll Up the Rim; there probably would be a revolt if they ignored that one. Have you ever been to another Manchu Wok that closes at 2:30 pm and is never open on weekends? How about a Tim Hortons that closes at 3:30 pm and is likewise restricted to Monday to Friday? Heck, McDonald's in the Village is open to 3 AM!
So you may have guessed by now that I'm not terribly excited about White Spot. Don't worry, there will be no Durganesque rant about the horrible dangers of corporations. Instead, I am wondering how much time and effort is going into this plan. After all the dust has settled, what real changes will we see? My prediction: not much. The food will still be mediocre, the hours terrible, they won't participate in White Spot promotions, and you'll have to start tipping. It seems like a completely lateral move from what 99 Chairs was, except that it will take a large amount of money (franchise fee of $75,000 and an initial investment of $750,000 - $2,500,000) and effort to get there. What's the point?
UBC's ancillaries, UBC Food included, could definitely serve students and the larger UBC community better with a different set of priorities. If you read the documentation of UBC Food's visit to BoG in February, there is a long list of objectives they are working on. Reading it as a potential customer of theirs, I could not find a single objective where I read it and thought “Oh, that's a good idea.” I guess potential customers is not a market segment they are hoping to attract.
Some things about ancillary structure are indeed changing soon, driven by UBC Admin. The full details aren't out there quite yet, but I'm sure you'll hear more as it develops.
I will give UBC Food some brownie points for the simple fact that they are not Aramark or Sodexo. Still, I can't help but thinking that they are wasting a lot of resources on initiatives that, in my opinion, have no real benefit in the end. If they really have so much money and time they wish to expend to improve food service on this campus, I have ideas for some more tangible ways to do it:
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Two fun promos!
Thought I'd drop by to share a couple cool clips.
This is from Terry*, an interdisciplinary project at UBC that runs a course (ASIC 200) and an amazing speaker series. The newest branch of the project is Terry Talks, a one-day conference modeled on the popular TED Talks. It'll bring UBC's most dynamic students to give "the talk of their life" on a high-profile platform. All you folks should consider attending or even applying to be one of the special few!
Promo number 2 is from our very own AMS, starring Prez Michael Duncan. What happens when the Joker threatens to take over the AMS and blow up the SUB? There's only one way to find out dudes.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
RBF's triumphant return
As you were wandering about campus this week, you might have noticed people strutting about in army fatigues, bright red shirts, and megaphones shouting vaguely about fun, beer, parties, beer, campus life, beer, politics, and beer. These are not drunk Russians left over from the soviet era. Nay, these are the members of the Radical Beer Faction, UBC's oldest political group. Back when the AMS elections ran with parties (called slates) RBF ran a full slate of joke candidates, ranging from fairies to fire hydrants. These days, RBF is an AMS club, focusing on fighting what they have termed the "war on fun" on campus. This "war," being waged upon students by the "axis of boring" of the UNA, RCMP, and university administration, has allegedly reduced the number of parties on campus due to restricted liquor licences, and bitchier neighbours. For the RBF's lobbying document, click here.
RBF VP politburo "Scary" Mike Kushnir recently had a nice little interview on the CBC radio drive-home show On the Coast explaining the Faction and the its activities at UBC. Have a listen.
Mike is a pretty eloquent guy. For the response from the RCMP and a shout-out from Grant Lawrence, CBC radio 3 host of awesomeness, here is part 2 of the segment.
If nothing else, RBF has built itself a kickass brand with Soviet-style iconography, enthusiastic membership, and a great message: the way we party is political. Take a look at some of Tim's old posts here, and here to see why. The issue of beer gardens and how students party on campus actually does relate to the fundamental issue of students' social and political engagement with fellow students. Props to the Ubyssey for harnessing the energy of this group in a by-weekly RBF column, which will be paired with a column from another active campus group, Students for a Democratic Society.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
GSS Handbook Upheld
Nothing like a little controversy to start the fresh school year off! The Graduate Student Society (GSS), like the AMS, releases an agenda and handbook that's distributed to students for free every year. This year they asked a well-known campus activist, Nathan Crompton, to put it together. Supervising it was the GSS Handbook Committee chaired by GSS VP Student Services, Rodrigo Ferrari-Nunes.
The Handbook has been printed at a cost of at least $20,000. In addition to normal stuff like an intro to student services and an agenda, the handbook features a critical, cynical and satirical history of UBC and numerous assertions about the university's profit-mongering raison d'etre. The content proved to be too "inappropriate" for GSS President Mona Maghsoodi though. In response, three members of the Executive decided to suspend distribution of the Handbooks and lock them in an unknown location. Although Mona would not return my calls and it has been noted in other publications that she declined to say which elements of the handbook are contentious, but said it's not necessarily the "activist stuff."
In response to the nature of the content, Nathan Crompton said that "there's a certain level of satire. I don't think it's over the top." He also expressed his views on the purpose of the handbook. "A lot of people see the handbook as a way to impress the president. We didn't make that kind of handbook."
Some people think the radical political content of the handbook is fine, and withholding it is "censorship". Others find the content inappropriate for the handbook and objectionable in general. For me, the more interesting question is: How was this thing massively produced before being checked over? Presumably the president of a student society would weigh in on such a massively important publication before sending it to the printers. According to Nate, the editors did their work in the plain view of the GSS Executive. Editors held 'Open House' meetings, where executives were invited to review Handbook material, in addition to several Handbook presentations to the GSS Executive in which Executive members were informed that the Handbook would feature the activist history of UBC.
Since the the Handbook is the responsibility of the Handbook Committee and GSS Council, not the Executive, the final decision on whether or not to distribute the handbook lies with GSS Council. See the debate play out at tomorrow's GSS Council meeting! Free beer!
Happily, we've got an electronic copy. You can download and take a look a the contraband handbook itself HERE .
What do you think? Good political critique of the university's past and present, or overly negative and editorialized introduction for new grad students? What reflection does this fiasco have on the GSS as a whole?
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
UBC school of music takes a stand against CBC Radio 2 butchering
I admit, this is a topic that I would have written about regardless of the UBC angle. I'm that angry over it. And you should be too. Our wonderful public broadcaster needs to listen to its listeners, for once.
CBC management, with the wisdom of it's lobotomized-gerbil brain trust, decided last Thursday to disband the CBC Radio Orchestra, the last remaining radio orchestra in North America. This move follows closely on the heels of a major overhaul of the Corp's Radio 2 programming away from its core classical programs towards more "diverse" music. Basically, all the best classical programs from the morning and evening primetime slots have been axed, to be replaced with poppy "easy-listening" largely Canadian content. Classical programming will be relegated to daytime hours when most people are at school and work.
This morning around 10:00, 150 people gathered outside the CBC to protest these changes. Among them were UBC students and faculty from the school of music, who had their classes cancelled this morning in order to attend. Read about the protest HERE, and see a couple photos on Tod Maffin's CBC blog HERE.
The "Save Classical Music at the CBC" facebook group summarizes the changes announced for Radio 2:Gone are Music & Company - Tom Allen's morning show, Here's to You - Catherine Belyea's (Formerly Shelley Solmes') all-request show, Studio Sparks - due to the venerable Eric Friesen's "retirement", and Disc Drive - Jurgen Gothe's popular drive-home show after almost 30 years. These changes come on the heels of last years round of cuts to vital programs such as Danielle Charbonneau's much-loved Music for Awhile; Larry Lake's new composer showcase Two New Hours; Symphony Hall - Canada's live orchestra recording showcase; The Singer and the Song - Catherine Belyea's excellent Classical vocal program; Northern Lights - the overnight Classical program beloved by Night Owls everywhere; The reformatting of In Performance- a primarily classical live performance show into the much-reviled Canada Live - a uniformly non-classical and completely unfocused hodge-podge of World music, soft pop, and sort-of Jazz; and the controversial replacement of veteran Howard Dyck from Saturday Afternoon at the Opera after many years of great service.12. The CBC axing the Radio Orchestra one day citing lack of resources, and the next day buying hugely expensive full-page ad in the Globe and Mail to convince us how wonderful everything is going to be in their Brave New World.
This isn't including changes that have already occured, including the cancellation of Rick Philips's wonderful Sound Advice, Two New Hours, the axing of the classical division of the CBC record label, and plenty more. You can get the full list of the denuded classical programs HERE.
All this is to snare elusive and desirable "demographics" and convert them to CBC listeners. Apparently, classical music is only enjoyed and appreciated by retired grandmas, and the rest of us "key demographics" are just way too cool for it. Instead, we would like to listen to Leslie Fiest and Joni Mitchel ad infinitum. Eugh. Jeffery Simpson and Russel Smith had a good articles about all this in last week's Globe. The McGill Daily also reported on it. I agree with Mr. Simpson that CBC is only relevant and worth the investment as long as it caters to Canadians' intelligence and high culture. Diluting Radio 2's classical offerings in a race to the bottom with commercial radio is a lack of foresight of the worst kind. I think it's undeniable that CBC needs another national FM frequency for a wider variety of popular and world music - and that's originally what CBC Radio 3 was envisioned to be. Unfortunately, that idea was also demolished by another foresight-deficient president (Rabinovitch) only leaving a sort of internet residue - and we're paying for it now. It's sad to see Radio 2 being re-directed to straddle both missions - because it won't do a good quality job at either.
If you want classical music to stay, make your voice heard. I've written a letter to my MP, and various members of the CBC brass. Find contact details on the facebook group.
Monday, March 31, 2008
UBC Farm politics, elaboration of.
If you've voted in the current student referendum, you may have noticed that there is no question about the UBC Farm. Most people of course, wouldn't have expected one, but it is a surprise to some. The Friends of the Farm started a campaign to get a question on the referendum ballot which would see students providing permanent funding for the Farm. A big step for sure. But this, and why it was ultimately abandoned as a funding/advocacy strategy is only one piece in the puzzle of convoluted politics that the UBC Farm is in the middle of.
Brendon wrote a good post about some of this earlier,HERE. I encourage you to read his post. There's more back story, and some more recent developments, however.
The Farm, since its existence in its current form as a multi-use education/academic/community resource has had a tough fight for institutional legitimacy and enough funding. That's not for lack of support from its home faculty, Land and Food Systems, but because first, it's a strange and hard-to-define space, and second, its land is a 250 million dollar cash cow waiting to be sold. These facts produce a climate in which the Farm's very productive, vibrant, ambiguity can be exploited in order to manipulate decisions and planning processes toward institutionally desirable outcomes. This attitude, which seeks to dissect out various "uses" and what fraction of land each occupies so that the rest can be cashed in to real estate development is patently against the desire of most students, faculty, and community members. Let alone against the spirit of UBC's much-vaunted mission statement, Trek 2010.
So what's going on? There's a few levels of really important people in this political scene. There's the very convincing folks in the UBC treasury office that have converted UBC's brass that a large-endowment strategy is the best direction for the institution. Thank Byron Braley and Terry Sumner for that. They in turn have influence over people like Nancy Knight, UBC's VP Planning, who have alot of power in determining the planning processes and baselines from which consultations are formulated. She in turn informs by the Board of Governors, which, being populated by business-type appointees, is disposed to like alot of money. Then there's president Toope, who seems genuinely well-meaning, but either doesn't know too much about it or doesn't have too much real leadership. On the other hand, there's some folks at Vancouver City Hall and the GVRD who have some ideas about local food systems and see the UBC farm as a boon. In the same type of vein are the residents of the University Neighbourhoods who see the farm as a community amenity and green space. Then there's the academic and student community, whose support will be the most important ultimately.
UBC's desire to sell off the Farm land is no secret. But here's a few incidents to put you on your guard about the manner in which it's trying to manage this:
As my good friend Rona says, I'll support the endowment next time it lowers someone's tuition. In the meantime, I'd like to see one of the best places at UBC continue to thrive. The next few months of consultation in the Campus Plan process will be critical to send a clear message about this. Please participate with your eyes open. Here's the campus plan website, which will tell you how to do so.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
UBC and the NCAA
[I’d meant to write this sooner, but work commitments sapped my time and writing energies. As well, there’s a very good Ubyssey article on the subject; read it here. I also note that there has been some discussion at AMS Exec about the Athletics fee; I’m not sure what it is, and I’m not sure on the latest developments.]
The annual NCAA men’s Division I basketball championship is coming up in a couple weeks. I’m excited. But did you know that UBC could compete in it as soon as a decade from now? More importantly, did you know that, even if you don’t give a rat’s ass about sports or athletics, you should still care?
The NCAA is the US collegiate sports authority. It’s big. There are no non-US members. They recently voted to allow non-US members into Division II (their second tier) on a provisional basis. UBC harbours an intense desire to join the NCAA. Why? Better competition, more exposure, better development opportunities, and fewer restrictions on offering scholarships. In short, Athletics wants to be bigger.
But here’s the thing about joining the NCAA. It’ll cost a ton. Initially, only a few sports would join, which would only require an internal budgetary re-allocation within Athletics. But UBC’s athletics facilities generally are far below the requirements for NCAA competition. They need upgrading. And that’s where students come in.
Right now, students pay a levy of nearly $200 to Athletics and Recreation. There’s long been a simmering undercurrent of resentment about it, as students still have to pay for gym memberships and intramural events. Indeed, UBC is among the only universities in Canada whose students still have to pay for gym passes. UBC Athletics has also long desired to upgrade the SRC, which contains the Bird Coop. But they can’t do it without student support. Nor can they get through any of the other development they need to do in the face of student opposition. Indeed, there’s a chance that an attempt to raise funds could trigger a backlash and threaten their existing mandatory student funding.
Heck, everybody is a being cautious about joining the NCAA, including the NCAA itself. If students opposed it outright, that could easily scuttle the project.
What a smart student leader should see here is leverage. There are many ways in which Athletics can enrich the student experience. They could provide free gym passes to people other than varsity athletes, reduce Storm the Wall fees, co-operate with a renewed SUB to include free student fitness components (see Mike Duncan’s campaign platform). Because right now we have an Athletics department that can’t afford to provide free exercise equipment or affordable intramurals to students, yet is seeking to spend more on performance athletics. And that’s a tension that students can profit from. Indeed, it’s a no-lose proposition. Yes, there have been conversations about a new Athletics fee, but I’m not sure if the NCAA application has, on the student side, played a role in the negotiation. And it should.
I have no idea what the progress of the NCAA decision is. But the deadline to apply for 2009 membership is June 1 – very very soon. Students should demand to know what’s happening, and demand to play a role in the process before it’s too late.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
UBC Farm: Why they aren't taking a referendum question to students this March
Most students know by now that the future of the UBC Farm is shrouded in uncertainty and controversy. This year strong student supporters of the Farm (particularly Friends of the Farm), wanted to hold a referendum question asking students to increase their student fees to support the farm’s programs and development. The hope was that a passed referendum would show UBC just how much the community supports the farm, and would help secure the farm’s future. But the current political situation within UBC and the region has made some supporters of the referendum question if now is really the right time.
Find out why behind the jump...
A brief history of the UBC Farm:
When UBC first decided to build market housing on campus, they ran into some concerns and push-back from the community (students, faculty, staff, residents in Vancouver and the UEL). So, the GVRD stepped in and said that there would be some regulations and guidelines for how UBC could develop that market housing community. Those rules were all outlined in the Official Community Plan (OCP). Of course, the Farm sits in the middle of prime land that the University ultimately wants to sell to developers. After public outcry over the farm in the development of the OCP, the farm was slated for “future housing reserves” – meaning that they weren’t going to develop housing there right away, but it would be set aside, and we would come back to it later to make a decision (that date is supposed to be 2012).
Of course, this stamp of “future housing reserves” also gave UBC an excuse to not invest in the Farm, and refuse to help build its research capacity and refuse to see its value as a community amenity. In fact, when some market housing residents worked with the farm to create a community garden, UBC denied the proposal and said it wasn’t allowed! UBC has been actively impeding any development of the farm for many years, so that they can more easily deny the farm’s importance in 2012 when the issue is up for consideration.
The current situation:
To understand the current situation, you have to understand some local politics. UBC would like to make changes to the South Campus Neighbourhood Plan – they would like to densify the neighbourhood (add more units, make more money). This requires a change to the OCP, which requires approval from the GVRD.
However, the community has some allies in the GVRD who have an interest in a) preserving the farm, and b) seeing UBC become part of the City of Vancouver. Both of these fit into policies that the GVRD already has (for the farm, they are worried about food security and how quickly farmland in the region is being depleted, for governance, they GVRD would like all electoral areas to become part of a municipality). Therefore, some elected officials at the GVRD were saying to UBC: “We’ll let you densify the South Campus Neighbourhood, if you promise to deal with the farm issue and do a governance review.”
Well, UBC doesn’t really like the prospect of being told what to do by the GVRD when it comes to the Farm or governance, so at the most recent Board of Governors meeting, UBC decided not to pursue the South Campus Neighbourhood densification – for now…
But to appease the GVRD, UBC also said that they are going to deal with the farm issue and the governance review right now. I told the GVRD at a recent meeting that I didn’t really believe UBC’s commitment to dealing with the governance issue – I genuinely believe they are dragging their feet, they have no interest . And the farm issue is going to be dealt with through the Vancouver Campus Plan…this is where the concerns from Friends of the Farm comes from.
Hidden motives:
Nancy Knight, UBC’s Associate VP Campus & Community Planning, has decided to ‘deal with the farm issue’ through the Vancouver Campus Planning process. That may sound like a good idea at first, but its much more complex than it seems.
The Campus Plan process is an institutional planning process, meaning UBC has complete control over that process, meaning the GVRD has no say in what decisions are made. Thus, when the farm gets addressed through the Campus Plan, we lose some really powerful allies in the GVRD who could put a lot more public pressure on UBC to “do the right thing.” For now, we as students and as members of the University community have to flood the Campus Planning process in order to save the farm. Of course, we all know that UBC isn’t that great at listening to students, and is quite selective about what it hears in consultation processes.
The point is that if the farm review is part of any OCP changes, then the broader community, including the GVRD, and the UNA residents have some sort of say in what happens to the farm. If it’s a Campus Plan process, then UBC gets the ultimate say, and the GVRD really has power to interfere. The Campus Plan is about institutional spaces - aka, learning and research spaces. Taking care of the farm through the campus plan process conveniently means that UBC can look at it primarily for its research value, and thus it’s easier justifying that it move to the bio sciences research area – the same amount of research can occur no matter where its located.
Now add to this the fact that Nancy Knight and the team at Campus & Community Planning have gotten external consultants to come in and review the “potential” of the farm. These consultants were chosen without letting the farm or the faculty of Land and Food Systems know, and it has mostly been all behind closed doors. Nancy Knight wants to have these consultants come back and say: “the Farm is very valuable, but they only need half the land and could probably move to the Bio-Sciences research area and still do the same great work.” Perhaps she sees this as some sort of compromise between the Board’s agenda to maximize the $250 million that can be made off of that area, while still preserving some sense of a farm for the community.
As long as the Farm issue is dealt with through the Campus Plan, the result is going to be cutting the area by at least half, or moving it way down to the bottom of campus in a very remote and inconvenient location, or both.
The other thing to consider, is this process to deal with the farm through the Campus Plan is only looking at the farm from a research-value standpoint, and not from a community amenity standpoint. The Farm is so much more than a research facility, it’s a place that brings students and residents and researchers and learning all together in one place. This is more than just an institutional facility, it’s a community facility, and the community should have a much greater say about its future.
Canceling the Farm Referendum
I told the Friends of the Farm that it was a big mistake to back down from the referendum now. The concern is that the political situation is too tense right now to take the risk. I say that a referendum is always going to be extremely risky. The only reason there are more backroom deals being made about the farm right now is because UBC is facing a lot of pressure from the GVRD, students and the community-at-large to save the farm. As long as UBC is facing pressure on the Farm, they are going to push back, and push back hard. The farm lands are worth over $250 million dollars in Endowment revenue. We’re up against a huge beast, and that is never going to change.
But, if we as students could come to the table and say “students care about the farm so much that we are willing to pay out of our own pockets to develop the farm’s capacity” then we’re in a really strong negotiating position. Don’t forget, it’s UBC who has been financially neglecting and starving the farm for years, and its students who are stepping up and footing the bill.
If the referendum were to fail, then it would be a tragedy. But, as far as I’m concerned, certain people within the University are always going to misconstrue the evidence and use any referendum outcome against us. But there are also a significant number of people in the University who will take a passed referendum seriously, and that will be way more powerful than the few who discredit it.
The Farm needs a student movement behind it right now, and there is nothing better to get a student movement started than through a “Save the Farm referendum campaign.” Getting hundreds of students around campus, handing out pamphlets and saying “UBC is trying to take away our farm, we can’t let that happen” – what better way to start a genuine student-movement. That’s something almost all students can say yes to.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Right To Be Cold - Sheila Watt-Cloutier at UBC
In the past two decades, Inuit across the Arctic have reported profound changes to their environment and wildlife — changes where their human right to life, health, subsistence, safety and security are all being violated as large countries emitting greenhouse gases continue their business as usual. Yet even as this immense struggle is ongoing, Inuit are now also faced with a renewed interest in the Arctic from a world hungry for its resources and newly opening shipping routes.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier will discuss the need for our world to re-connect around our shared Arctic, our shared atmosphere, and ultimately, our shared humanity. Individuals, communities, corporations, industries and nations must realize that the challenges in the Arctic are connected to the cars we drive, the industries we support, and the policies we create.
More info at the fabulous Terry* website: terry.ubc.ca
Terry Limerick:
(with feeling!)
"There once was a project named Terry
That wanted to make people wary
Of things going on
In the world that are wrong
Without making it all seem too scary."
Friday, February 22, 2008
A place to sprout?
Yesterday I sat down with Caroline, and Martin, the store coordinator (and baker of amazing bread), to learn about the road Sprouts and the Natural Food Co-op club have traversed, and what the outlook is for Sprouts and the club. First, a little history: The Natural Food Co-op started as a group of students that got together to buy organic and local food straight from distributors, to avoid paying boutique prices in '97. The space they had, in a random nook in the McMillan building (near where the bike coop used to have a space) was slated for renovation in 2003, and they got kicked out. So, the club had to re-envision itself. The idea of having a store came to fruition with the new space the AMS offered them in the SUB. As an AMS club, the space was free, though of course money was spent initially to renovate and prepare the space as a full-service grocery store. Several grants supplied the capital to do this. But, the renovations were over-budget, and so Sprouts started out about 15000 dollars in the red. Nonetheless, the store was launched, selling a wide variety of products from packaged goods and bulk grains to produce. Initially it was run by volunteers who were members of the club, but eventually the club hired staff to run Sprouts most of the time. The store never really made any money, and in fact, continued to go further into debt, as staff costs increased. As this was happening, many of the original natural food coop members graduated, and the club became less and less active. The buying collective stopped, and Sprouts, which was by this time mostly run by staff (and some volunteers), was the only manifestation of the club's existence. This being the case, maintaining an accountable relationship between the natural food coop board (ie. the club executive), and their hired staff became problematic. By the end of last year things got a bit out of hand. The financial situation was not getting better, with the debt mounting in order to pay staff wages. To compound this, Sprouts was broken into and had a thousand dollars stolen. By last spring, involvement had plummeted, and only two people showed up to the AGM. So, with the board of two, no membership, and a few store staff, an mounting debt, something obviously had to change. Katerina, the store manager at the time, came up with a new business plan that would see Sprouts turning from a grocery store into more of a cafe-style space with lunch items as well as fruits, vegetables, and bulk food. Unfortunately, there was no real plan to implement this, and so few people involved that come September, the store feebly re-opened and then closed again within the first few weeks of the term.
The story takes various more twists and turns (including a deportation, crazy personality conflicts, a change in vision, and a change in leadership), until things started looking up. Over the fall term, the AMS executive and staff helped Caroline and the few involved people put together weekly implementation plans, start understanding the finances of the situation, apply for grants to re-organize the space again, figure out a new menu, and learn all the mechanistic details of running a cafe from foodsafe certification to accounting. A club board was scraped together, and over the winter break, they re-wrote and updated the club constitution to contain concrete position descriptions, learned about volunteer coordination from the sustainability office, and completely overhauled the space to put in seating, new paint, different kitchen equipment, and a new flow. During the process of restructuring and rebuilding, it became obvious that it was financially impossible to have paid staff. Sprouts is now a 100% volunteer-run initiative.
When they opened up again this term, things started looking up. First, Sprouts is busy again. The buying co-op is up and running again for club members. Volunteers started materializing out of the ether to help with the daily baking and soup-cooking. The AMS executive and staff continued to be unrelentingly supportive. Community Eats partnered with Sprouts to bring students a free vegan lunch bi-weekly. The club has a functional executive board, and their new constitution recently passed through SAC. Also, without the cost of staff, and the higher turnover in sales, Sprouts is making money now. They're working on a memorandum of understanding with the AMS containing a re-payment plan which will see it get out of debt over the course of several years. There's even music jam sessions at Sprouts once in a while, coordinated with the club's new social coordinator and the indefatigable JAM superstar Rodrigo Ferrari Nunes. And most importantly, it's just an awesome spot to hang out and feel at home. The tastiness, affordability (1.50 for a perfect breakfast of coffee and thick slice of home-baked bread and butter?? amazing!) and social aspect of Sprouts are all things that only come about from the connectedness and ownership that comes along with a group of dedicated students creating a place they themselves really like and really believe in.
Caroline: "we've been really sensitive to how people use the space - the space is now more engaging. You usually have to sit with someone, since there's only a few tables, and no to-go containers... the outreach isn't as explicit now, but it's more effective. Being volunteer run, we also feel like we can be more idealistic with what we're doing, and fulfill our mandate better, with minimally packaged, locally sourced food."
To me the story of Sprouts (it's fall and rise) shows that student-run business is possible and incredibly valuable, when done right. Few other things can be so exciting and fulfilling and trully meet the needs of students so well. This example also proves how the AMS can be incredibly supportive to actually make such initiatives work - this project would have been impossible without the almost ridiculous support the AMS has given - financially, with its leadership, with its staff, space, and expertise. All for a good idea - which is of course, how it should be. The AMS sould look at incorporating more space for student-run business into the SUB renew program. The kind of support shown for Sprouts is a one-off in a way, due to the extreme screw-uppedness the place had gone through, but it can also serve as a model for many more businesses. Student businesses, supported by the AMS, could end up being an incredible service for students. So anyway, go take a peek, if you haven't already. Slip into the yellow diner nook with a brownie, strike up a conversation, and life is good.
Sprouts web page
Monday, January 14, 2008
Issue of the day: Campus life
Boy, it's hard to write "Issue" posts when there's no candidate platforms four days before voting. Oh wait, the campaign just started today. Never mind that, then.
Last year I spent a lot of time harping on what I see as the slow and steady decline since I first came to UBC in the good old days (read: 2001). Then, it got worse: ACF died this term. In an unexpected decision in November, the ACF executive decided to disconitnue the event indefinitely in the face of declining ticket sales and mounting debt. (See our coverage here, and here.) At first, I chalked it up to external pressures (external to the event, not the University {like See our coverage RCMP, unsupportive faculty, recalcitrant sponsors}) trying to kill the fun. But then I realised that just as important were the internal, student based pressures, too. So that seems as good a framework as any to discuss student life and events.
For reference, I adopt "generally loud, slightly beer-y" as a general definition of student event. I fully understand that not all students events fit this description, but there's just something wonderful about the communities that develop, the memories that are created. I owe a lot of my student politics success to beer gardens, and the fact that they're dying is sad.
External Pressures
These are well-documented. They tend to fall into the following categories:
- UNA and noise complaints about the residents
- Safety and alcohol abuse
- Fewer students engaged on campus generally
- Enhanced RCMP and university enforcement of alcohol rules
- Reduced liquor licenses
Internal Pressures
I've never seen an outpouring of student outrage like the ACF cancellation. There's massive support for the event. But that wasn't enough to save it. Why? Mostly because those responsible for the event didn't want to continue it. It had gone on for a remarkably long time, they said, and it was getting too tiresome to run.
But an interesting thought occurred to me. The AUS Council didn't want to end ACF; the ACF exec did. And there's an interesting point there. Which is that it's the same people who've been running it from year to year. And while the event is tired, so were they. The event was losing money, and these people were losing the energy to fight.
In short, the event was unsustainable.
Now it's not easy for student clubs to have a sustainable existence when there's constant turnover. People come, people go. A great person can be hard to replace, and when a person's involvement takes a year to gestate, they only have a couple years in a leadership role before they move on, to be replaced by a relatively unknown quantity. Similarly, student groups rarely have financial or budgetary expertise; they have to learn the way most of us do, by failing. Unfortunately, they're not usually around the next year to apply their hard-earned knowledge. And finally, they're often more susceptible to pressure mostly because they're often new at the game. And hell, they're students, not full-time event planners.
So why is it relevant? Because the AMS can help. There's a potential positive role for them to play, in terms of facilitating clubs and groups. Some financing options, maybe some financial planning. Ready access to event planning staff. Perhaps a central co-ordinating body for events or a way to leverage networks for publicity. And of course, ye olde lobbying. There are oodles of options. And it's not all bad either: beer gardens, despite the tougher social climate on campus, are persisting. Bzzrgardens.com has made a succesful return under the brew-mastership of SUS councilor Alex Lougheed, and is a great resource.
I imagine some of the candidates or readers might have some ideas. Anybody?
(Then again, maybe this is just on the brain because I'm writing this while watching Old School. Seriously.)
Sunday, November 25, 2007
The townie theory of social engagement, or lack thereof.
ACF is one of the only UBC events I attend. I'm lazy and antisocial, so I don't prioritize things like beer gardens and storm the wall and pit night and whatever else. When I do socialize on campus, I'm getting drunk with a few friends at Koerner's or the Gallery.
I really have trouble believing that the u-pass and bad financial aid policies are the reason people don't party on campus. Personally, I blame townies such as myself, who can go home after school to unwind. When you know the city real well, there's less reliance on the campus scene as far as finding fun goes.
There's the simple matter of competition - I'd like to state for the record that I think rational choice theory is overrated, overused, and oppressive as it obfuscates the role of systemic discrimination and power in things. As we are discussing something as minor as 'where Ainge gets sloshed and why', I'm going to apply it, as this is its place. If anyone wants to chime in with some critical theoretical analysis of my drinking habits, please, feel free. I'd also like to state that this is purely anecdotal, as is most of the stuff you'll read on the internets.
I drink where I drink because I appreciate a good beer on tap, and a nice booth or patio. Standing around Buchanan D holding a dixie cup with a bunch of strangers I may have seen in class or on the bus just ain't my thing. I make a little money, and I want to maximize the enjoyment. See, it's simple.
Being a townie has definitely influenced my indifference towards campus events. Spending twenty years in this hamlet means I get that sense of community elsewhere. I coach debate at my old high school, I involve myself in local politics, I hang with my ridiculous Italian family, and I stay in touch with people I've known for ages.
My experience is not universal - some townies do throw themselves into campus life. The thing is, UBC events compete with everything else the city has to offer, and the sentimental ties that should be keeping us on campus to party just aren't there. We don't mythologize our college experience that much here in Canada. It's seen less as a life-changing experience and more as
Friday, November 23, 2007
Three green-tinted notes
A few notes of interest that come to mind for the environmentalist-lite on campus:
- UBC Farm Fee referendum: Yesterday I was at the farm. Getting there was a bit of a hazard due to the South Campus construction bedlam, and I ended up getting tangled in a barbed wire fence while attempting a shortcut, and shredding my favorite pants. Not that it wasn't worth it. In between sorting butternut squashes and bunching kale and collard greens, I checked in with Mark Bomford, the director of the UBC farm, about recent farm developments. As you may have noticed, the UBC farm is collecting signatures to introduce a 4-dollar student fee. Two of these dollars would turn into sustainable yearly funding for the UBC farm's programming. Two of the dollars would be put in a fund to be allocated to students engaged in climate-action related projects. More accurately, they are actually collecting signatures to place a question about the student fee hike on this year's referendum ballot. All new AMS fees need to be approved by referendum. 1000 signatures are needed for referendum questions to be put on the ballot without the approval of AMS council. They're a few hundred signatures short so far, but it's expected to reach the goal. The money would mean that students, not the university, are the ones supporting the Farm in the most substantial and sustainable way. Currently, the farm functions from a combination of temporary grants (chielfy a TLEF grant that expires this year). It has no core institutional funding, though it does receive support from the faculty of land and Food Systems. If the fee is approved in referendum, the governance structure of the Farm would change to include AMS representation. This would probably take the form of AMS representatives on the current farm advisory committee. This committee reports to the dean of the faculty of Land and Food systems, and makes the major steering decision about the farm. Eventually though, says Bomford, the goal is to have the farm acknowledged as an official unit of the LAFS faculty in the Senate. This new funding, he continued, will allow the farm to meet its goals in sustainability, student services, and outreach. These will be student dollars for students, he said. I've had reservations about students saddling the financing of the Farm. Too me, this is an example of a program that should have core university funding - it meets the University's trek 2010 vision perfectly. Does students taking up the cause of the farm send the wrong signal? Bomford and Jeff Friedrich, the AMS president don't think so. They think that if students approve this fee, it will put pressure on the university to match funding. This will be interesting to watch.
- Elizabeth May at UBC: The leader of the federal Green Party was at UBC to speak today. This is the second time I've heard Ms. May speak, and I have to say, I've just been floored both times. She is incredible. First, she really is a talented speaker. She's very sharp, very insightful, and a wonderful aura of leadership surrounds her. Even in a dingy physics lecture hall, she was both comfortable, and respectable. And the content! oh the content! I haven't heard so much actual content out of a politician...hm...ever. Seriously. She was full of information, science, and points of view. She talked about policy solutions in a very concrete, non-hand-wavy way. She summarized, explained, and illustrated with a near-perfect balance of vision and detail. There were absolutely no platitudes. If this is what Elizabeth May can deliver in Hennings 200, I cannot wait to see her in the official debates, not to menetion the House of Commons.
- Terry speaker series: 100 mile diet authors: Today, Friday the 23, is the kickoff of the Terry Project's high-profile speaker series. For the uninitiated, Terry is an innovative project at UBC whose aim is to address big global issues (environmental and social) from a multidisciplinary perspective. There are several branches of the project, including a brand-new undergraduate course (ASIC 200), a very cool website (http://terry.ubc.ca/), a writing contest, lots of neat collaborations, and, of course, the speaker series. Among previous participants are notables like Stephen Lewis, David Suzuki, and Vandana Shiva. Tomorrow it's going to be James MacKinnon and Alisa Smith. From the terry website:
These are the authors of "The 100-Mile Diet," a bestseller and buzz worthy book that uses a social experiment (can we subsist on only eating things produced within a 100 mile radius?) to look into the world of food politics, economics, and culture. Extra bonus is that James and Alisa also happen to be Vancouverites, so their story has this wonderful local angle to it.
The talk is tomorrow at the Chan at 12:00, and there's still some (free) tickets available.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
More ACF Post-Mortem
Maayan keeps nagging me to post. I never do. Quite frankly, there's little UBC-related stuff that can raise my ire and I'm able to comment on in a public forum. This is one such issue.
There are two universal UBC experiences. Imagine UBC, and Arts County Fair. Seriously. Think about it - is there any event, beyond those two, that impacts essentially every student at UBC (well, the Vancouver campus)? Even if you've never gone to ACF, you've still gone to a res breakfast, or hung out with friends, or taken a day off because everybody else was partying. It's campus-wide party, on a campus with a dearth of campus-wide cohesion.
That's why its demise is sad. Very, very sad. Sure it's a drunken booze-up, but this one was special. It's as essential a part of the UBC year as literally anything else.
So, who's to blame? First, not the AUS. They've been soldiering on for years, swimming upstream. It's to their credit that they created a campus-wide institution, and kept it going so long and so successfully. I place blame in three areas:
- The University Neighbourhood Association. All those condos around T-Bird stadium, along Wesbrook Mall? Those are filled with people who complain loudly every time there's a loud concert at T-Bird, and every time there are drunk students stumbling around. Their constant pressure has resulted in massively inflated police and security costs, and additional planning headaches. Sure, nobody wants loud, drunken people around their property, but you moved to a university campus - what were you expecting?
- UBC Administration. Several reasons. For putting up roadblocks to the event, rather than helping to remove them. For translating the UNA concerns into pressure brought to bear on the organizers. For shoddy financial aid and admission policies (see below).
- Students. It's a great event. Go to it.
There has been much said about the demise of the drinking culture. I don't believe that, per se. But I've long had a beer garden theory of social engagement. Beer gardens weren't about the drinking - they were about the community. Just happened to involve sweet, delicious beer. There used to be 6-7 on any given Friday. No longer. Their demise coincides with the tuition hike, and corresponding (relative) decline in need-based financial aid. People need to work more, maybe are more likely to need a part-time job that takes away their Fridays. Maintaining your scholarship becomes more important, so people are less likely to go out and party, more likely to spend Friday working on the essay. And you're more likely to stay at home to save money, meaning you spend your Fridays with high school friends, not on campus.
I also reserve a special bitterness for the housing lottery. Peoples' social networks moved off-campus when housing became lottery-based and people and their friends got kicked out of housing. People were less in tune with the campus social culture, and less likely to come out. By contrast, res was filled with 18 year-olds who couldn't even get in to (the good parts of) ACF.
What's the solution? There are two. First, the University administration can step up. Recognize the value of ACF to the campus and help support it. I'm sure the AUS could provide a fulsome list of ways the University could help. Second, perhaps other undergrad societies could step up to the plate. AUS will have some institutional memory, other campus groups could help absorb the financial risk, and, hell, maybe the event could even be bigger and better.
My big fear is that once this event is gone, it'll be impossible, in today's climate, to bring it (or anything similar) back.
Arts County Fair is no more
The yearly campus festival of music and debauchery synonymous with the last day of classes is no more. Ats County Fair, the last-day-of-class drinking extravaganza that has marked the end of the school year for 16 seasons of students at UBC has come to a sad end. The Arts Undergraduate society cancelled the event for the year at a Tuesday meeting.
Citing the increasing debt that the even has incurred over the past two years, the press release from AUS president Stephanie Ryan expressed regret about the need for the cancellation. Essentially, he financial reality of running an enormous festival with security have gotten out of sync with the revenue from ticket and alcohol sales.
In the press release Stephanie blamed a lack of engagement on campus and change in the sense of community and drinking culture for the declining popularity of the event. Looking over pictures of ACF crouds with AUS old timer (and blog hero) Gerald Deo revealed a pretty stark trend - simply less people.
I've never been to ACF, and don't know too much about it, but this seems unfortunate even to me. The cancellation of this event will only make people more convinced of the dearth of fun on campus, and ignite more feelings of disappointment in campus life, and detachment from the campus community. Facts is facts though - the AUS can't go on losing tens of thousands of dollars every few years. Happily, the AMS will be running an event on the last day of school as something of a substitute for ACF this year on McInnes field. And it's anything like the welcome back BBQ, it will probably rock. So we can still look forward to that.
The interesting thing about this is to speculate about the AUS itself. With the fair out of the way, they will actually be able to reclaim the second term of the year. There's great potential for any number of creative and interesting events now. Who knows, this may even result in a better and stronger AUS that has a more sustained focus on Arts students throughout the year, instead of the typical form of a fairly small clique of ACF-planners.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Jam spaces on campus - grassroots!
Two new posts today. Don't forget to scroll down.
I stood there and listened to her for a while - she didn't notice - and then I went on my way. This reminded me of a cool project that GSS councilor Roderigo Nunes has started. It's about establishing music-friendly jam spaces on campus, in environments that aren't formal, or linked to alcohol. They're trying to get pianos tuned, refurbished, and placed in public areas. It's based on the idea that music is good. I'm pretty sure we can agree on that. Since Roderigo is in social sciences, there's lots more big words in the official description, including a reference to Henri Lefebvre.
Check out the Jam Spaces project, being organized on facebook, (the natural home for all activism, apparently) HERE.
There used to be a piano next to the SUB art gallery that students used regularly. Not sure where it went, but it not there now. It's pretty bizarre that the only usable piano in the SUB would hidden away in an upstairs kitchen, of all places. It was wonderful to hear that music today though; it would be wonderful to come across spontaneous music around campus more often. It's also pretty neat to see a grassroots type of group come together to forward a great topical issue like music spaces - one that wouldn't really ever come up from traditional student government circles.
Posts
