The answer to that question appears to be a resounding “Yes!”.

Next week (April 25), UBC will be holding a public hearing regarding proposed amendments to the UBC Land Use Plan (LUP). This public hearing is needed to formalize the designation of Gage South as “Academic” land. However, at the last minute, UBC snuck in a second proposed amendment which is even more consequential than the Gage South one. Usually, when UBC does something sneaky in the campus planning realm, it’s viewed as being underhanded but technically allowed. This time, however, they’re on the wrong side of the law.

As a quick background, in 2010, UBC was given power over the development of campus lands, with only token oversight by the province, under the ironically-named Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (MEVA). Under MEVA, UBC was given direct power to amend their Land Use Plan (LUP), a high level document which determines what parts of campus are to be used for academic uses, greenspace, market housing, and so on. Within MEVA, there is a set of protocols that must be followed to make amendments to the LUP.

According to the law, UBC is required to “provide one or more opportunities the board considers appropriate for consultation with persons, organizations and authorities the board considers will be affected by the proposed land use plan [amendment]“ and a subsequent Ministerial Order gave further instructions specifying that this consultation is in addition to a public hearing, and that said consultation must be “early and ongoing”. These are not simply suggestions, these are legal requirements.

The Gage South consultations that took place this year are an example of the required consultation. They went on for more than a year. As a result of these consultations, a LUP amendment is going to the public hearing next week to change the area’s LUP designation from “Area Under Review” to “Academic”. While the Gage South consultations were biased at many points, it is inarguable that early and ongoing consultation about the topic was indeed undertaken by UBC in accordance with MEVA and the ministerial order.

However, once the proposed LUP amendments arising from the Gage South consultation were presented to the Board of Governors in April, a new, largely unrelated, proposed LUP amendment was inserted into the package. This proposed amendment establishes minimum floorspace allocations to all private housing neighbourhoods on campus. Consultation on this proposal was neither early, nor ongoing. In fact, no consultation was done at all.

The surprise amendment would add a new section to the LUP:

Section 5.1.4 Neighbourhood Distribution
The UBC Board of Governors adopted residential floor space allocations for neighbourhoods on campus to ensure a future population that would support a sustainable community and to transfer the floor space that would have been accommodated on the UBC Farm and other areas to new neighbourhoods (see Land Use Plan Next Steps: Neighbourhood Distribution Report, April 2011 to Board of Governors). Achieving these floor space allocations is essential to UBC’s academic mission, student housing goals, faculty and staff housing goals, endowment value and sustainable community goals. All residential floor space not achieved in these neighbourhoods will be located to different parts of campus in future.

To reiterate: consultation on this proposal was neither early, nor ongoing. It was not done at all. The LUP amendment protocols set out in MEVA and the ministerial order were blatantly ignored. IANAL and all, but it definitely appears that UBC is violating the law by sending this amendment to public hearing at the current time.

This amendment is not a minor tweak. It’s a major amendment, much bigger in scope than the Gage South amendment. It fundamentally changes the way that housing density is treated in the LUP.

The current structure of the LUP uses the language of maximums. Buildings have a maximum height (65 m). There is a maximum overall density (2.5 FSR) and a maximum density for any single property (3.5 FSR). There is nothing in the document requiring a minimum amount of housing to be built, only a maximum amount. The effect of this amendment is to establish minimums. In the wording of the amendment, achieving these floorspace targets is “essential” and if not achieved, the housing will be built elsewhere, including on academic land.

Where this proposal crosses the line from highly inappropriate to outright offensive is that the floorspace allocations in yet-to-be-built neighbourhoods are equal to the maximum allowable densities. The minimums are the maximums.

“Stadium Road” is a neighbourhood that lies directly east of Thunderbird Stadium. It’s currently an empty practice field. There are 993,000 sq. ft. of housing allocated to it. In order for Stadium Road to achieve all 993,000 sq. ft. of floor space assigned to it, every single site must be developed to a 3.5 FSR. Every single building in the neighbourhood must be a large tower close to, or at, the 65m height limit.

This is also the case for the “Acadia East” neighbourhood which also hasn’t yet been built. In order to achieve the 2,594,000 sq. ft. allocated to it, every single development must have an FSR of 3.5 and be close to the max height. According to the amendment, if anything less than these amounts are built, if even a single building in either of these neighbourhoods doesn’t achieve 3.5 FSR, the shortfall will be placed elsewhere. However, it will be impossible to transfer this floorspace to any other piece of existing neighbourhood land, since those neighbourhoods are either fully built, or already committed to accommodating the absolute maximum floorspace allowed under the LUP. UBC would likely look to convert academic land to land for market housing and would be able to claim that this is required by the LUP, a requirement they are ultimately imposing on themselves.

This makes a mockery of neighbourhood planning exercises that are still to come for unbuilt housing areas. If UBC really wants to insert floorspace allocations into the LUP, the neighbourhood planning process is exactly the type of consultation UBC should be required to undertake prior to amending the LUP, to fulfill the conditions contained in MEVA and the ministerial order. When UBC revised the Wesbrook Place neighbourhood plan, they met stiff resistance from residents resulting in a rejigging of building orientations, spacing, and heights in the neighbourhood to change how the neighbourhood would look and function in the built form. The floorspace allocations for the unbuilt neighbourhoods were determined without seeing what it would look like in the built form or if the maximum floorspace allowable was actually feasible. It was simply a back-of-the-envelope calculation of what the maximum allowable floorspace was and setting that as the target. Why in the world should UBC be bound to these numbers as part of the LUP when they haven’t even been validated as being feasible, let alone practical?

A note should be made that UBC has attempted to deflect these sorts of problems by making it so that the floorspace targets are not hard numbers, but are in fact hard numbers with little asterisks beside them. The asterisks denote that “*Floorspace in these areas may be reduced [...] subject to Board approval,” although it then goes on to list other numbers as minimums even within Board-reduced scenarios. The problem is that the LUP and a board resolution do not exist in the same legal sphere. The standard to change the LUP (when that process is not being ignored) requires more time, more consideration, and more hoops to jump though. More key, however, is that while UBC’s Board proposes changes to the LUP, the province is ultimately the authority that enacts those changes.

The standard to modify, repeal, or pass a new board resolution is much lower than for amending the LUP. It can be done privately via email. So even if the board approves a resolution to approve a reduced floorspace target, in theory it shouldn’t actually change the LUP because the standard required to change the LUP was not upheld. The asterisk represents the board attempting to claim that powers held by the province (namely the ability to amend the LUP) have been delegated to itself and that a BoG resolution should be as binding as provincial legislation. The act is clear on the amendment process, and there’s no provision in the act to create a new process by way of the plan itself. The power of amendment is given to the minister, and the minister cannot delegate that power to the board.

This whole situation is yet another example of UBC’s failure to adequately govern campus with the powers given to them in MEVA. Consider this entirely speculative, but likely highly accurate scenario. When UBC and Metro Vancouver were having difficulties and in the midst of their divorce, UBC probably had direct contact with provincial government officials in charge of drafting MEVA. They would have had the ability to influence the way MEVA it was constructed. They were essentially allowed to dictate the terms of their independence. Less than two years later, they seem to have decided that even the rules they agreed to follow need not apply to them.

I am a young faculty member here at UBC and this letter represents my personal opinion and my opinion alone. I write as a strong supporter of TAs and the TA union membership, but as a strong critic of the TA union leadership.

While I believe in unions and the right of unions to strike, I also believe a strike vote is a serious matter – it must be based on open, objective, and rational discussion among union members. I believe the TA union leadership has failed badly in this regard.

Inadequate Information

Union leadership provided members with a detailed comparison of TA compensation at UBC and the University of Toronto. It is indeed sensible to compare UBC to other top Canadian institutions. Why did union leadership not provide similar information about McGill University? Why did union leadership opt to keep this information from membership?

UBC operates in the province of British Columbia, which places UBC under very different governmental and financial restrictions compared to Ontario or Quebec. Why did union leadership not provide its membership with information on other British Columbian universities such as UVic and Simon Fraser?

Timing

Strikes happen rarely, perhaps once every 10 years. Timing is everything. Timing should be selected to yield maximum improvements in salaries and benefits. At present UBC is hindered by stringent, unusual, and temporary BC governmental restrictions (e.g., “net-zero”). This is precisely the time when UBC has the least they are permitted to offer TAs. A strike next academic year after the “net-zero” restriction is lifted could yield far more benefits for TAs. Why was this issue of timing never introduced to membership for formal discussion? Why was there no discussion of pros and cons for striking now vs. after “net-zero” is lifted?

Faculty Relations

Union leadership has made no effort to reach out to faculty. Graduate students and faculty are partners. We work together on almost everything. You help our labs run and our scholarly work happen; we help you grow and learn and produce, we write you letters of recommendation and support, we help make sure your theses and job applications are successful. We are allies and friends. Why has TA union leadership made no effort to reach out to us? Obviously a strike affects us tremendously. It would be common courtesy for union leadership to reach out to faculty, perhaps through an open letter or through our union leadership, to explain that a strike might be coming, that you understand the effect this has on us, that you sincerely prefer to avoid a strike, and that you will do your best to keep us posted because you value our relationship.

A Rush to Strike

Many TAs felt the information provided by union leadership was misleading, that union leaders were more interested in achieving a strike than facilitating an open and thoughtful dialogue among TAs about whether and when to strike. For example, TAs expressed to me personally that they felt the pre-strike-vote meetings were more like “cheerleading sessions” based on limited information rather than open, honest discussions. Other TAs told me that in an effort to ensure a positive strike vote union leadership repeatedly emphasized that a positive strike vote did not mean there would be a strike. This sentiment was also apparent in posts by TAs on the TA union Facebook page, for example: “it was heavily implied before the vote (though in a conveniently non-binding way) that there would not necessarily be a strike.”

Other TAs expressed to me that union leadership went out of its way to emphasize the pay available during a strike but never explicitly mentioned that receiving strike pay requires working for the union and picketing. If you don’t picket, you don’t get strike pay. You have a doctor’s appointment and can’t make it? Too bad. You don’t come to campus on Wednesdays? Too bad. In short, it seems union leadership was selective and biased in the information they provided to TAs in an effort to achieve what they wanted: a positive strike vote. This is not how union leadership should serve its members. TA union members deserved an open and honest conversation based on comprehensive information.

A Mandate?

In a March 22 post on the CUPE2278 blog, union leadership noted that a different UBC union, CUPE 116, received a mandate to strike. Specifically, 75% of CUPE 116 members voted, and 89% were in favor. This means that 67% of CUPE 116 members voted to strike – a true mandate. The corresponding numbers for the TA Union strike vote are quite different: only 35% of TA union members voted, and 81% were in favor. In short, 67% of CUPE 116 voted to strike compared to only 28% of TA union members.

Based on results from their respective votes, CUPE 116 leadership can be certain that an overwhelming majority of its membership support a strike, but TA union leadership cannot. It is quite possible that the majority of UBC TAs do not want to strike. Instead of acknowledging this very real possibility, and instead of acknowledging the disparities between the two votes, TA union leadership claimed a “positive strike mandate” within minutes of the vote closing. If union leadership first and foremost cared about ascertaining the consensus among its membership, the result would have given them pause. I might suggest that union leadership cared more about claiming a positive strike mandate.

In closing, I reiterate my strong support for UBC TAs. I was moved to write this letter precisely because I feel TA union leadership prioritized their own opinions and aims over the opinions and best interests of UBC TAs. UBC TAs deserved comprehensive information and a balanced, open forum for discussion. In this respect union leadership failed its members and failed UBC. UBC TAs deserve better.

In a report going to the Board of Governors meeting next Tuesday, UBC Campus and Community Planning (C+CP) has proposed an ‘Academic’ designation for the Gage South area (where the bus loop is currently located), which had originally been slated for market housing. While housing is still planned for the area, it would be restricted to students and post-doctoral fellows only, with a focus on graduate students. A public hearing to formalize the Academic designation will be scheduled for the last day of exams, April 25, at 6 pm.

In addition, C+CP wants to formalize the layout of the entire area with the Aquatic Centre and MacInnes Field swapping places, and a new bus loop being installed directly north of War Memorial Gym. They also plan to add a new clause in the Land Use Plan that “clarifies the Board’s ability to locate the approved residential floor space allocations not achieved in any particular neighbourhood to different parts of campus in the future”. In other words, they are already looking ahead to transferring the Gage South non-student housing to another part of campus, and it could even be somewhere that is currently designated as Academic land.

In summarizing the results of the most recent round of consultations, objection to the planned non-student housing in the area was strong, with 57% opposed to the idea. The report also notes “a substantial level of input compared to other consultation experiences on campus,” with over 800 students completing questionnaires. Even in a random telephone poll conducted by UBC, they describe student support for non-student housing in the area as “moderate”. It concludes “On balance, the predominant feedback emerging from both rounds of consultation, remains opposed to non-market rental housing for faculty, staff and students in the Area Under Review.” With a referendum question in the recent constituency elections showing over 90% objection to non-student housing for voters in both the AUS and SUS, as well as a petition we started with over 2000 students supporting the Academic designation of the area, the report notes that “the feedback has remained constant,” in terms of student opposition to UBC’s plans for the area.

On the surface, this is a significant capitulation by UBC, which has been aware of the constant and extensive student opposition to non-student housing in the heart of campus for many years. However, the devil’s in the details and the additional clause about housing transfer hints at the next steps. More analysis to come.

The AMS is a monstrous, confused beast. At least, that’s the ungenerous opinion that I’ve formed over the past three years, first as a proxy for the Law Rep, then as the Law Rep in my own right. UBC Insiders has been kind enough to offer to share their soapbox, and I’d like to make use of this space to offer my thoughts on the proposed restructuring of the AMS that’s coming before Council on Wednesday, February 8th. That said, the proposal is being brought by the VP Finance, Elin Tayyar, and any explanation or detail about the plan that I discuss here reflects only my understanding of the plan as presented at the committee level.

First, a bit of background: I didn’t do my undergrad at UBC, so my first introduction to the AMS was the UN complaint. In the aftermath of that chaos, I sat as a proxy for the law Rep, Dia, and then did so again for the next law rep, Kate. The second meeting I attended was round one of the cuts to the services budget, and at the time, the numbers seemed bizarre. That was the 2010/2011 budget. I took a closer look at the budget for 2011/2012, and my initial impression didn’t change. The AMS lives in a bizarre cycle, with each exec and council presiding over part of two different fiscal years, with no control over their income, and with the funding for substantial programs left at the mercy of annual business performance. There is no long-term plan, and at this stage, there can’t possibly be one.

How the AMS got to this point is a relatively familiar refrain. The AMS passed various fee referenda back in the 70s and early 80s, but failed to index them to inflation. As UBC grew, it has become increasingly difficult to hold general meetings that meet quorum (“have enough students in the room”), and as student participation in AMS elections has dropped, it’s been only slightly less difficult to pass a referendum. Until last year’s fee referendum, the AMS was making do with the fees it had established back in 1982.

How the AMS managed to “make do” and keep up with a growing student population on a fixed income was by relying on the profits from their businesses to fund programs for students. In principle, this is a good idea. In practice, there are a few problems with it.

One problem, structurally, is that the AMS did this too fast. The AMS lived year-to-year, relying on estimates based on last year’s income to plan the next year’s programs. This worked great while business profits grew, but whenever profits contracted, student leaders had to cut programs, regardless of how worthy (or worthless) they may have been. The graph of that process is a sawtoothed rollercoaster. With an annual change in leadership, there is no way to reliably plan ahead, and starkly limited incentives to save for the future.

The other problem is that by relying on our businesses to fund the AMS, we started to press up against the boundaries of the definition of a not-for-profit society. The Canada Revenue Agency has reviewed our files, and there’s a significant difference between how we’ve been doing our accounting, and how the CRA views things. The short version is that they expect the AMS to pay significantly more taxes, and if we don’t change things, they’ll be expecting it every year down the road as well.

The proposed restructuring is a substantial (but not complete) solution to these two problems. Before getting into how it solves these problems, it would be best to lay out what the new structure would be, and to do that we need to start with the current structure.

Currently, the AMS is constituted under the Society Act. The members are the students of UBC. The board of directors is AMS council, elected largely from the constituencies. There is also an elected five-member executive team. Under the executive is the General Manager, a full-time staff member who serves as a huge force for continuity in the AMS. Under the GM are the various administration groups (HR, Communications, etc), and a host of other roles, like the Archivist (who is indispensible to AMS Council), and various student services. The businesses are under the Director of Operations, who reports to the GM. There’s been a slight change recently, in that the AMS is in the process of hiring a Director of Student Services as a layer of co-ordination between the various student services and the GM. The AMS Council and the exec assume different levels of control over the businesses depending on who is serving in those roles. Some years, it’s a hands-off relationship, and in other years, AMS Council gets into the details of setting prices, but technically, as the board and executive of the society, they hold a huge amount of power.

The proposed structure would set up a new corporation, under the Business Corporations Act, which would be wholly owned by the AMS. Most of the administrative units (Human Resources, Finance, Operations and the subsidiary businesses) would move over to the new corporation. For the sake of brevity, I’ll refer to the new thing as “AMS Inc.” There’s a position labeled “GM” on both charts, and for the foreseeable future, that role in both organizations will be filled by the same person, in order to facilitate communications and coordination between the two entities. The exec admin support, Communications, and Student Services would stay with the AMS. The “New SUB” project appears on both sides of the chart, as elements of it are relevant to both organizations, but it’s a special purpose entity to begin with. In any case, student control over the project will be maintained.

AMS Inc would be governed by a separate board of directors, with twelve members, from four different groups. As proposed, the board would have three alumni, serving three year terms, four students-at-large, serving two-year terms, two of the AMS execs, and three members of AMS Council. The appointments of the multi-year directors would be staggered, and the intent behind the two-year student-at-large appointments is to strike a balance between student input, and the skill and knowledge of the directors. As a separate corporation, the board would control AMS Inc independent of AMS Council, although the AMS could make presentations to the board, and, as the owner (and with proper paperwork set up) the AMS could recall the directors (individually or collectively).

The proposed change involves a dramatic reduction in the direct control that the AMS can exert over its businesses, on paper. Arguably, the AMS already has little direct control, with Council following the proposals of the staff. If the staff are unhappy with a certain proposal, they only have to ride out each single-year term before things change. This isn’t a healthy relationship – I have a deep respect for the General Manager and the staff of the AMS, but the lack of oversight and the annual uncertainty means that the best we can manage is mediocre.

With the AMS Inc plan, the AMS can build in safeguards to ensure the Board complies with AMS values, and to recall the Board in case of significant conflict. It’s still a leap, but I’m confident that we can hammer out the details in a way that will make the leap a whole lot shorter. If we can’t, well, we don’t make the shift. That’s why we’re doing this in a few rounds – approve the idea Wednesday, then fill in the details to make it happen.

So, back to the “why” – the tax problem, and the sawtooth. The immediate reason for the restructuring is to avoid the tax bill. If AMS Inc absorbs the majority of the AMS’s current admin costs, the businesses, in their current state, will be essentially running at break-even. The AMS (not-for-profit society), with the admin costs removed from its budget, can run at break-even on only its student fee revenue. We can tweak that for the desired result in how we set up the contractual arrangements between the AMS and AMS Inc – basically the administrative staff will still do what they did before for both groups, but with an extra bit of accounting on top.

Looking longer term, the sawtooth is solved two ways. With an independent board and multi-year terms, the businesses gain significant stability and direction. The businesses can make the choices necessary for their own successful operations, with student input, but without having to pass through an impossible forty-person gauntlet that is council. By separating the budgets, we make it clear that the AMS lives off of student fees, avoiding the tax bill, and finishing the process of weaning us off of direct reliance on the business profits.

The last piece of the puzzle is buried deeper in Elin’s proposal: the profits from the businesses will be invested in the AMS endowment fund. This is the key to solving the sawtooth – putting the profits towards building a steady income stream for the AMS. It’s a slower process, but in the long term, it will allow the AMS to significantly increase the level of services that it provides to students. This isn’t a new idea – many student societies across Canada supplement their fees with endowment revenue (Waterloo, for one) – but it’s a very good one.

How to strike the balance between reinvesting in the businesses and contributing to the endowment is one of the details that remains to be worked out, as does how to enforce this requirement on the new AMS Inc. By having full control of the corporation as it is born, we can wire these things in from the start. Another detail that needs to be hammered out is how to have the AMS and AMS Inc share their toys (for example, Communications Director Demitri Douzenis) – there will need to be contractual arrangements, and some sort of liaison mechanism in place to make sure that things continue to work smoothly. This is part of the reason for having the same person in the GM role in both organizations. These are details. Details cost money. Elin will be standing up on Wednesday night to ask AMS Council to support this idea in principal, and start hammering out the details.

I think the plan is a very good idea, but any idea can be improved by critical review. In order to make this work, and to make this work for the students who come after us, we’ll need to thoroughly kick the tires, pick the locks, and peer into the nooks and crannies to figure out how someone might try and exploit it. Then, after we nail down all the details, we have to make sure that we’ve left the AMS Council and the AMS Inc board with enough flexibility to fix things when some clever person comes up with something we never thought of (probably very quickly). Making this change will shift the AMS from perpetual crisis mode to… let’s be frank, to near-perpetual crisis mode, but at least it will be able to better serve students while the councilors spend their Wednesday nights working on their public speaking skills.

Before I get too far into my ramblings on what I believe the role of the AMS President to be, I should note that I am not making any endorsements, or disendosements for that matter, in any race this year. In the wake of last year’s unfortunate endorsement controversies, from which I am not exempted, I feel it would be both hypocritical and in poor taste for me to comment on the candidates themselves. Instead, I hope to paint a picture of what life in the President’s office is like, and what qualities I think candidates need to demonstrate if they are to be successful as President.

I should start by saying that I in no way believe that I am an expert on student government. This was my first year being the President of the AMS, and it will be my last, so my pontifications here should be viewed more as advice from an older brother and less prescriptive. I have managed to get a lot done, though, in my limited time at the AMS. This year we restructured the organizational framework of the AMS and hired three brand new senior managers to help build out our potential for the new SUB. We passed the largest fee referendum in 30 years, creating more than $250,000 in funding for students and fixing the structural deficit. We reformed the health and dental plan, ensuring it’s future sustainability. And we finished designing the new SUB, complete with a 24-space childcare facility, 16 hectolitre microbrewery, nearly 50,000 square feet of club space, and two state-of-the-art performance spaces. I am not trying to toot my own horn here (well, maybe a little), but I am trying to demonstrate that the AMS has done, and continues to do, epic things. There is no student union in Canada that comes anywhere close to doing what the AMS does (not to offend students at other schools reading this) and the President is supposed to be the driving force of all of it. Now I would be a giant jerk if I didn’t give credit to my fellow executives, senior management team, student support staff, and Student Council for helping make all of these projects a reality, so I would like to take a moment to recognize their hard work and commitment. But I digress.

On Style

Being the driving force behind the AMS means you have to have a style. I don’t mean Oxfords and skinny ties, but a style of leadership. Over the past few years there have been some very particular styles adopted by different presidents. In 2008-09 Michael Duncan took to the streets, literally, with advocacy that led to the Great Farm Trek, lowering of Birdcoop fees, and running the New SUB referendum, his style was to engage the community as much as possible. In 2009-2010 Blake Frederick took to the media, writing frequent press releases, holding publicity stunts, and ultimately getting international media attention, his style was to shake the tree to see what fell out. In 2010-11 Bijan Ahmadian took to the backroom, preferring the brokering of deals to petitions, ultimately he did get the new SUB agreements signed and we made inroads on BoG issues, his style was to shake hands and rub elbows. This year, I am not entirely sure what my style has been, an optimistic irreverence, perhaps? Or maybe only my beard will be remembered. In any event, I did my best to be myself and do what I thought was right, and hopefully someone down the road can more accurately characterize my style. So candidates, don’t be afraid to show some personality and don’t shy away from your own style. And voters, pay close attention to the candidates themselves, not just their platforms, as it will tell you much more about what you can expect over the next year than talking points on a website.

On Responsibility

The President is responsible for a great number of things. From managing relationships with every corner of the university to drafting the $30 million budget, making sure the SUB gets built to keeping your VPs from killing each other (or you). Most people don’t know, and will never really “know” what a President has to do, but I am going to give you a quick non-exhaustive list of everything that the President has to deal with. The new SUB project, Student Council budget, health and dental plan, human resources (70 full-time staff, nearly 400 student staff), collective bargaining, all legal matters of the Society, liquor licensing, managing relationships with university executive, managing relationships with undergraduate societies, managing the relationship with the Graduate Student Society, planning referenda, U-Pass program, AMS subsidies, student project funding, municipal, provincial, and federal lobbying, managing relationships with other BC student societies, student outreach and campaigns, communications of the Society, managing relationships with local media (even if nobody reads the Ubyssey), knowing what is happening at the Board of Governors, Senate, and University Neighbourhood Association, brushing and flossing regularly, demonstrating value to students, getting sleep (sometimes), make a speech that doesn’t suck at Imagine Day and most importantly doing everything in one’s power to further the goals of the AMS and make the lives of UBC students better. This is the tip of the iceberg of things I had to deal with this year, and there will most certainly be more. So candidates, know that you are getting in to much more than what you might have heard about the role. And voters, know that the job of being President is so much more than the three or four campaign promises that any candidate will make. In fact, the majority of their term will be taken up with things they hadn’t planned on, so think hard about these candidates and their ability to be effective managers in addition to being student leaders.

I would again like to take this opportunity to point out that the success of the President is part in parcel with the success of the entire AMS – without everyone’s hard work, nothing would get done. But it is the President’s responsibility to oversee everything, to always know what is going on, and how to help. I must also point out that the success of the next President is predicated on all of the hard work that we have put in before them, and will serve as the foundation for success of those who come after. I got to design a new student union building because a courageous executive set out to make it happen years ago, and a future executive will be able to do more for students because of the work that my executive put in to fix the structural deficit. So be wary of any candidate that promises to fix everything in their year, and fails to recognize the work of those who have come before them.

I will leave it at that, as I have both reached my word limit, and my ability to write coherently. I apologize for not keeping in the tradition of “Presidential Endorsements” but I felt that students should better understand the role and decide for themselves. I hope that if you have read this far you at the very least better appreciate the things that I, and Presidents before me, have had to endure, and hopefully you can better judge the candidates on how they fit the job.

Over and out.

[Note: in the full interview transcripts, the 7th question was blacked out due to some confidential information in some candidates’ answers.]

In a race with only two spots available, to have 7 candidates who all demonstrated a good level of understanding and engagement in the Board process is outstanding – it shows a student interest in the larger issues like we haven’t had in years’ past. That being said, I do have to somehow narrow this list down to my two choices, so let’s have at it and see where we get.

The Highlights

Sumedha Sharma – The Incumbent
As an incumbent Sumedha Sharma is definitely one of the most adept in her answers, excellently outlining the process that items go through, as well as highlighting key players and critical discussions over the past year (all of which you’d expect from an incumbent). Her main issues from the past year included the Student Housing Financing Endowment, a massive step towards attempting to meet the demand for student housing, the SUB approval and the Wesbrook Place Neighbourhood Place approval which laid the ground work what is to come with Gage South. Her main weakness is connecting to students at large, something she’s going to work on through social media.

Mike Silley – The Moderate
Mike Silley brings to the table his year as the AMS VP Admin, as well as a fairly calm set of responses to the questions. The hospice approval and the South Campus Plan were his two critical resolutions which highlight a focus on the “neighbours” lands of the campus, and a strong interest in what is happening outside of the academic core. Ponderosa hub was also raised as an area of interest. Thought his self-identified weakness was the timeline of his graduation, through his response to question 5, I would instead propose fully researching into documentation to be an area of concern. Mike raised a discussion on affordability as one which “has NOT happened in the past few years” which isn’t correct. After the tuition motion this year, strong affordability discussion were demanded by Board members, and strategic discussion took place going over the topic – a some reworking of the Student Financial Aid office being something that came out if it. It would be appropriate to demand additional or follow-up discussions, but recognising what ground work has already been laid is critical. Mike also plans “to vote against any proposed tuition increase”, which would concern me not because of the gesture, but because it implies making one’s mind up before any facts are known. The provincial government is highly unstable right now, and by the time this vote comes up the arena could be very different.

Matt Parson – The Influencer
To be blunt, Matt Parson’s answers were exceptional. He brings a wealth of experience from the AMS VP Academic and University Affairs position, and it shows as he describes the different approval processes and discussions that took place over the past years. He has also gown his ability to influence at a committee level over that year. A strong interest in and focus on the planning, approvals and housing aspects of the Board (similar to other candidates) is prevalent across his answers, and it is also where his largest strengths lie. He definitely brings enough background on many of these topics to impact the direction of the decisions. The biggest weakness he highlights is his reputational baggage from opposing the University a number of times as VP Academic, though given the perceptions I have heard around the table, I believe this won’t stand in his way.

Justin Yang – The Academic
Justin comes from an academic background and has served for a couple years on Senate. He understands the higher levels of the university as well as the best of the other candidates, and I would claim knows the Strategic Plan better than any of the others. His biggest weakness in my mind is the year he chose to run in, this year has stiffer competition than the past 3, if not more. His presented largest weakness is that he is too “acquiescent” (and his strength is an impressive vocabulary), which is a concern I share. It is something he is working on, and knows about himself, which is positive.

Sean Cregten – The Crotchety Old Man
The most entertaining answers to the questions BY FAR, with some gems including listing his biggest weakness as “My low campus profile. The biggest barrier to me being effective on the Board is the election process. CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.”, a campaign of “Winning. From Here. “, and explaining work being done on the Board “By Sean Heisler. Or in Reflections”. While the flattery is appreciated it won’t help. Amidst these, however, Sean does convey an understanding of everything that occurs from the Board. What is clear given experience with the Board longer than any other candidate is that he knows what students need, knows what the hot buttons are, and isn’t afraid to push them. Though his cited biggest weakness is his low campus profile, I would point to his graduation creating a potential detachment from campus as a larger concern. His knowledge of policy and ability to research items is possibly only second to Neal Yonson. [Ed: While the flattery is appreciated it won’t help.]

Tagg Jefferson – The Dark Horse
While Sean Cregten claimed his low campus profile as a weakness, Tagg would win that contest. Though he is highly known across Engineering thanks to massive involvements in the EUS and both building projects the Faculty of Applied Science has been undertaking. His answers are well researched, obviously having read minutes from every meeting in the past year, and his description of how work gets done on the Board was the best of anyone. Key strengths are that he would bring is a less politicized perspective than many other “hack” candidates and a fresh perspective from the other side of the building projects that none of the members of the Board have. He also picked out Hubert Lai as a strong ally, which no other candidate did, and I can say I have yet to witness anyone disagreeing with Hubert at, or around, Board meetings.

Erik MacKinnon – The Radical
With one of the most … aggressive blogs being associated with his name, Erik’s answers are not-surprisingly the most provocative. His clear strength is an ability to state confidently whatever is on his mind, so in areas where a student’s opinions align with Erik’s, he would be a very loud advocate. He already knows a great way to get things done on the Board (“Call Reny Kahlon”) , and he knows his biggest weakness is his bluntness. In the final question, however, he makes mention that “They are 47,000 voices brought together into one, and that one should accurately reflect how the majority feels.” when speaking about the role of a representative. In this comes what I believe to be a false sense of representation. While it would be great to represent 47,000 voices, when only 2,300 vote to elect the representative, how can you claim to represent a majority? Similarly, which opinion do you represent; a popular opinion, a researched opinion, a proactive or constructive one? Too often this year I’ve seen Erik land in the popular opinion realm – and though examples exist where this is effective lack of research has been an issue in his statements previously.

The Endorsements

Tagg Jefferson

He presents an opportunity and effectiveness to the Board that I only wish I could have offered. His biggest barrier is by far his name recognition in the election, but I would anticipate given these answers and his experiences, an amazing year if he was elected.

Sumedha Sharma

A knowledgeable incumbent who has been effective in her first year is an excellent choice. Though she is graduating, there is enough passion and affinity for UBC students that I don’t believe a disenfranchisement will occur.

Though not an official endorsement I would like to make an honourable mention to Matt Parson. If he was not in the AMS President race he would have received an endorsement. The reason this worries me are a) Split Priorities, especially if both races are won, and b) Perceived Conflict of Interest. While there has been one instance of someone holding both these positions, with the Governance discussion upcoming where the AMS and UBC are potentially (and likely) directly opposing stakeholders, he would have to step away from some of the most critical discussions if elected.

The bitter impression left by Bijan in last year’s election makes executives endorsing anyone a bit hesitant. The controversy of those events will take a few years for hacks to forget.

After 3 years of working at the AMS, I will let UBC students, minus me, make their own mistakes with choosing their AMS executives.

I do feel encouraged to weigh in on one race, where I think I can offer a perspective: the Board of Governors. As you should know, the BoG has a lot of power and influence, not just as ‘deciders’ but also in terms of access to the University administration.

Some BoG reps are good at representing students at the table, some are good at ‘harmonizing’ their efforts with AMS executive, for better results. However, few have connected the issues with the student body. The last big effort to connect students with UBC issues was Bijan ‘the infamous’ Ahmadian, before running for President (I think he did some campaign for some campus plan, precursor to the LUP). Student engagement is something I believe students have under-valued, when coming to a decision on their BoG reps.

Having been at a few BoG meetings, I also do believe that we need a vocal voice from our reps. Ideally, someone with a strong enough personality can hold the ongoing attention and respect of other governors.

This is my rationale for the endorsement that you will see in a few seconds (or minutes depending on how fast you read). Having worked with this character in a committee/board setting, challenged with very difficult decisions, and having seen them in action (not like that) in several capacities, I do believe that they are definitely deserving of your support, as well as mine.

In my opinion, the race has 4 strong/qualified/good candidates; I have no comments on the other 3. My endorsement goes out to Erik MacKinnon. Hacks hate him for not being a bigger dick as the Elections Administrator, for being a big dick in all other situations, for his affinity towards the fraternities (yes, hacks hate fraternities. no exceptions), and for his allegedly borderline sexism (in fact, I want to make it clear that this is all alleged; I don’t want a defamation suit).

But the reality is, Erik, if elected, could be one of the most engaging BoG reps that we’ve seen in years. Maybe decades. Maybe even centuries. But this deadly willingness to engage students (whether through petitions or through his blog), combined with his rationality, respectable work ethic, decent debating abilities, and his genuine care for students make him a candidate extremely deserving of one half of the student seats on the UBC Board of Governors.

Now when I say deserving, I don’t think anyone deserves anything as far as any leadership positions go (except the whole AMS execs deserving a living wage thing…). Rather, I believe, having worked with him on the AMS Budget committee, that Erik is a man of principle, and that his presence at the Board table will be an asset to UBC students.

My current impression (and I realize I may be misimpressed) is that the hack community does not like Erik’s sometimes controversial nature. I urge you (probably a hack anyways if you’re reading this) to sit back and take your feelings and emotions out, and vote for Erik, and one of the other 3 good candidates. Erik will bring a strong, level-headed, well-reasoned, and well communicated student voice to the big wooden table (actually, it might be 5 big tables put together, but you get the idea).

What were some things you noticed in your past AMS role (as Vice-Chair, Finance Commission) that you hope to change/improve on in the VP-Finance position?

Well, here are a couple off the top of my head. One is streamlining the process for the submission of required club documents. Like, Budgets, Authorization Forms, ect. As well as reducing the amount of paper by moving some of the forms to an online submission system. Perhaps, improve treasurers training as well, to make sure they really do know what their doing (Don’t misunderstand me, many, if not most, of our treasurers preform incredibly well, but, their are always exceptions, especially given we have around 400 subsidiaries). I would also like to continue revamping the FinCom Policy Guide. The guide (formerly the “Treasurer’s Hand book”) is a very old document, and has been haphazardly updated over the last 20 years. The Commission has already started updating the guide to fall in line with current Provincial/Federal Legislation (tax policies ect.) but still needs some revisions to bring it into this century. I would also look at setting standard times to hold elections for Treasurers, perhaps twice a year, as the current system of letting clubs decided is a nightmare from a logistical standpoint. However, FinCom would have to work with SAC on this last point.

Many students are quite uninformed about the AMS Finances and its financial health. How will you go about addressing this issue?

This is fairly difficult to do. But, one of the ways I would try and combat students being uniformed, is by sending each member of the society the budget (a simplified version) and the quarterly reports from the VP Finance office. The best we could hope, is that students will read it, and take interest. However, it has been my experience that this may be wishful thinking. I have in the past held info sessions, and of the 400 people invited, only about 14 showed up. So we can try and reach out, but it requires that people care. And I’m not sure they do, which is unfortunate.

What do you mean by being “sustainable” in terms of the AMS? What challenges do you foresee in terms of student apathy and buying-in to being sustainable?

Sustainability is a concept that is far to often misinterpreted to relate only to environmental projects and problems. Sustainability is a holistic concept of stewardship that incorporates three main elements. Environment, Economy and Social health. So, when I say we need to work on creating a more sustainable AMS, specifically from the Finance Department, that means we need to create a more stable financial situation. This is so we can ensure we have the funds to work on our environment (“greening” our businesses, services and the SUB) and to continue to provide services to students that benefit the social aspects of the student life (mental health, SASC, tutoring, and lobbying and subsidy programs for students in financial hardship ect.). In order to ensure the environment and social dimensions of sustainability are being addressed, we have to ensure the financial dimension is addressed first, as the dimensions are always linked.

On apathy, lets call a spade a spade. As far as apathy goes, the Finance portfolio is one that is, frankly, unaffected by student apathy (except in regards to policy that requires referenda). That is to say, the vast majority of our day to day functioning does not require students to care, because what we do is largely behind the scenes, internal policy, and done without much volunteer student involvement. Most of what we do is done by paid employees (things like taxes, insurance, contracts, and the list goes on). So, from this perspective, students don’t need to buy-into being sustainable, our internal departments must comply with our policies.

With that being said, Its important that students at least support in principle the policies of their Society. I would also assert that most students would probably agree on the principles of sustainability. But, at the end of they day, as much as students care about sustainability (or not), it is Council that will ultimately have an influence on whether or not we can work towards sustainability. As council must pass major fiscal policy, like the budget for instance, in which suitability would be reflected (by 2/3 majority). Councillors must “buy-in”, not just students, for sustainability to move forward at the AMS.

What is your opinion of the 4 referendum questions?

I think they are well written and well thought out. The AMS is giving students a chance to take part in some big decision making and I encourage all voters to check out both sides of the various arguments, and make an informed choice. Read the report commissioned by the AMS on the Ski Lodge that says we should sell it, and read the opinion articles arguing to keep it. Read about the art and the AMS’ options. When it comes to plebiscites, make your own choice. I, personally, will be voting YES on all the questions. I think these initiative will help move the AMS towards that goal of sustainability. You might disagree, and thats OK. I respect that. JUST VOTE. Thats what counts.

—–

Name: Iqbal Kassam
Age: 19
Year: 3
Faculty or program: Political Science
Past Campus involvement:
Various AUS Co-ordinator and committee positions
Past non-campus involvement:
Charity work for the Union Gospel Mission
Bell Walk for Kids Help Phone
Covenant House
Real Estate Property management
WPGA valedictorian and student council president.

Assuming you are elected and everything passes through successfully, what would the summer semester look like?

(editor’s note: I did not receive a response to this question)

What is one unique quality/experience you have (that other AMS VP-A candidates don’t have) that would make you the ideal exec member?

3 years of experience as a real-estate property manager, managing private-sector student housing on the Vancouver west side. There is absolutely no reason non-market student housing should be more expensive than private sector units; my biggest gains in reducing the cost of housing has come from keeping units occupied for a greater portion of the year. I believe that this experience could be invaluable in helping UBC reduce the cost of housing for all students.

What reflects affordable on-campus housing to you? How will you work with the university in changing that definition and to ensure more students are afforded the opportunity to live on campus?

Significantly less-expensive than its private-sector equivalent. Currently, students can live at the gates of UBC for as low as $600/month, in units equivalent in space and comfort to the Marine Drive residences. This is possible, because the units are also occupied during the summer by gap-year students, or students taking summer courses at UBC. By expanding the summer semester, I believe that the resulting increase in demand for on-campus housing year-round would allow UBC to significantly reduce monthly residence fees.

What is your opinion of the 4 referendum questions?

1. This is a question students must rule on as a collective. While I support selling the Whistler Lodge, students must decide how much of their tuition should go towards maintaining public spaces in and around the Student Union Building. There is no clear-cut right and wrong answer to this question; it all depends on how much students are willing to pay to maintain the public spaces utilized chiefly by them.
2. Building an endowment fund is a very good step in the process of adding stability to AMS revenue streams. Having a steady stream of revenue outside of AMS businesses and more risky assets will allow the AMS to build more sustainable, and long-term projects, and have to worry less about funding being cut to existing programs deemed valuable.
3. I absolutely agree with the decision to sell the Whistler lodge. There simply is no good rationale to hold onto an asset losing hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.
4. I agree with selling the art. It is currently on display, and providing no benefit to UBC students. It is very important to create a sustainable source of revenue for the AMS, and putting proceeds from the art into the endowment fund is a good place to start.
—–

Name: Carven Li
Age: 21
Year: Fourth
Faculty or program: Arts – Socioiogy
Past Campus involvement:
AMS University and External Relations Committee
AMS Sociology Students’ Association President
AUS Advocacy Coordinator
AUS Wellness Coordinator
PrideUBC Political Coordinator
SLC Highlighted Project Presenter
Past non-campus involvement:
Our City of Colours – Board of Director
Health Initiative for Men
Vision/COPE Canvasser
City of Richmond Multicultural Advisory Committee
Maxwell Maxwell’s Pit Night dancer (2011)
SPITVancouver’s Dancing Chinese Ambassador (Gung Hay Fat Choy, everyone!)

Assuming you are elected and everything passes through successfully, what would the summer semester look like?

Summer semester would be structured, and in turn, populated like our winter semesters. This will draw in many students who prefer to enrol in classes during the summer of Vancouver and then leave our Canadian winter for a warmer vacation during our ‘Winter Terms.’ Right now, students who work full-time, year long, often do get to choose the courses they want in the summer due to the limited course offering. These students want an alternative to working 9-5 and heading to school in the dark, during winter terms; an expanded summer term allows for more students to study during a period with longer daylight hours. Another advantage would be that family with two student parents can better alternate school terms. Finally, increased student enrolment due to more structure and course availability in the summer term will keep open much-needed services like Safewalk, increase residency for Student Housing, and revitalize campus life and businesses. I see that with incremental expansion and the inclusion of campus resources, the Summer Term can grow to benefit many students. It will likely contribute to Student Housing revenue and may even, with active student leadership, inspire UBC administration to lower the cost of student housing for students in response to the restore of housing demand during the Summer Term.

What is one unique quality/experience you have (that other AMS VP-A candidates don’t have) that would make you the ideal exec member?

I am an outgoing, approachable leader who has a passion to proactively help students through active listening and collaborating; I’ve proven to myself that student advocacy is what I really enjoy and to other students that I am effective in introducing new ideas to both the City and UBC administration.I currently sit on AMS University and External Relations Committee: I learned about our University structure and how to navigate it when lobbying. I am aware it is important that AMS Execs are reflective and are proactively critical of any lobbying that may be tokenizing or premature in consultation.I have the experience in promoting social justice and respectful representation through vigilantly making visible our personal privileges and our duty to represent students who are not always heard by UBC, and, in campus culture.

What reflects affordable on-campus housing to you? How will you work with the university in changing that definition and to ensure more students are afforded the opportunity to live on campus?

“Affordable housing” for students is entirely different from “affordable housing” in the context of the City of Vancouver; therefore, I will bring a stronger student voice on issues of housing affordability and the land use governance model. Having attended an AMS-held forum on housing affordability, an issue I’ve identified is the shortage of students participating in the dialogue of housing affordability. If elected as VP Academic and University Affairs, I will not only respond to immediate student grievances but also actively inform students of their right, in the positive sense, to ensure the entire student body has access to affordable housing and a positive campus culture. UBC has the goal to house 50% of its full-time undergraduate population and only a handful of the attendees to affordability forums are students… this goes to show how UBC students and the AMS need to establish a stronger relationship, one that will encourage all members, especially our student governors, on the Board of Governors to take these forums as opportunities to observe students’ demands. I will hold more informational forums because, in addition to University-held consultations, forums allow Governors to access less restricted discussion on students’ ideas of designating student ratio to campus-centric housing and of different affordability models as offered by expert panelists. When there are not enough forums and not enough students for student Governors to, respectively, attend and listen to, I am committed to firstly resolve the problem of student engagement on the topic of housing affordability by stepping up as a leader who lobbies and problem-solves. Expansion of the summer term, for example, may be an answer to housing affordability due to the restore of housing demand from students in the summer.

What is your opinion of the 4 referendum questions?

I find the wording of the Student Art question imprecise as I support selling three pieces of art to fund the restoration and the preparation of an exhibition for the remaining art, in addition to funding AMS to “purchase additional art and support other on-campus arts programming and initiatives.”As for Whistler Lodge, students feel that the asking of the referendum question is premature and I agree that there needed to have been an open consultation at which more options were discussed, before a Yes/No campaign.
—–

Name: Kiran Mahal
Age: 21
Year: 4
Faculty or program: Biochemistry, minor Commerce
Past Campus involvement:
President, Science Undergraduate Society (2011/12)
Director of Administration, Science Undergraduate Society (2010/11)
Chair, SUS Code Committee and Building Management Commission (2010/11)
Science Grad Coordinator, Science Undergraduate Society (2010/11)
Internship Program Coordinator, AMS (2010/11, 2011/12)
Externship Program Coordinator, AMS (2011/12)
Member, AMS Student Life Committee (2011/12)
President, Young Women in Business UBC (2010/11)
Vice President and Mentorship Program Coordinator, Young Women in Business UBC (2009/10)
Squad Leader- Science, UBC Orientations (2011/12)
MUG Leader- Science, UBC Orientations (2009, 2010)
Past non-campus involvement:
Director of Chapter Development, Young Women in Business Network (2011/12)
Steering Committee Member, Canadian Cancer Society Relay for Life (2007-2011)

Assuming you are elected and everything passes through successfully, what would the summer semester look like?

Thus far changes to the summer semester have been mainly structural in nature and are a great start to revitalizing the term. My focus moving forward would be to increase the breadth of what the summer term offers as well as begin a shift in the general attitude towards it. The summer semester should be a viable alternative for student to take courses that are normally offered in the winter term. This means an increased number of courses offered with adequate information given to students early on as to which courses will be offered so students can plan their degrees accordingly. I would like to see the summer term take the form of a full semester; however I am aware of the many complications that may arise with that structure. As it stands, I am in favour of the new two-term split within the summer term and would like to see the removal of courses that are 3-4 weeks as I feel they do not send a healthful message to students.

I would also like to see a shift in the perception of the summer term and ensure that both professors and students see this term as equal to the winter ones. Professors should strive to maintain the same quality of learning experience and ensure that no material is removed from the course. Students need to follow suit and demand the same quality of education and learning from their faculties. With more restructuring of the summer term, we will hopefully see a campus that is vibrant and bustling year round with options for student housing and resources throughout. A year round presence from students on campus will allow us to bring forth a stronger stance on land use and transit to UBC.

What is one unique quality/experience you have (that other AMS VP-A candidates don’t have) that would make you the ideal exec member?

I have experience directly leading an executive team and council representing a constituency 7,000 students strong. Through my role as SUS President, I have shown that not only can I be a strong voice for students, I am also an innovative and encouraging leader. I am extremely proud of the results that SUS has achieved over the last year. The work that the executive team has done is directly in line with the platform that I campaigned on for the presidency. My ability to make reasonable and realistic campaign goals and see them through speaks volumes both during my Presidency and my term as Director of Administration. I understand how to balance my own portfolio while still being an active member of an executive team. I will work hard to ensure our team is cohesive as I understand how important it is to be part of a strong team that supports on another and keeps each other accountable. Getting students involved with consultations is a large part of the VP Academics role. My time as SUS President has also exposed me to the many issues that students face and has showed me that we need to take new and innovative approaches to engage students and collect feedback.

What reflects affordable on-campus housing to you? How will you work with the university in changing that definition and to ensure more students are afforded the opportunity to live on campus?

Affordable on-campus housing to me means rent that fits the budget and needs of students. I have personally worked part time throughout my University Career to be able to live on campus. Many students at UBC pay their own way and want to live within their means. The range of affordability for each student is different and I feel this is something that the university needs to recognize when making plans for new housing. Students want housing in central areas of campus that is accessible and affordable- we are not looking for luxury. This is not just an issue surrounding housing – with UBC’s decision to explore the idea of commuter student collegiums; we need to ensure that these spaces for commuter students are an affordable option. Students should not always be tasked with bearing the financial end of building community on campus.

The best way we can send a message to UBC about this issue is by mobilizing students and providing avenues for students to express concerns and share what they feel affordable housing should look like. With the work currently taking place surrounding the Housing Action Plan, the time is now for students to express their input and ensure our definition of affordable housing is communicated to the University.

What is your opinion of the 4 referendum questions?

I am currently an employee of the AMS Services; therefore I am unable to answer this question directly. What I will say is that students should aim to get informed about the questions and understand the impact they will have on the AMS before making their decision.
—–

Name: Bahador Moosavi
Age: 26
Year: Graduate student
Faculty or program: Mining Engineering
Past Campus involvement:
Serving on AMS Council as Graduate Student Representative: Feb 2010 – Present
Chairing AMS Education Committee: Sep 2011 – Present
Serving on GSS Council: Nov 2009 – Present
Have served on various committees at the AMS and GSS including, AMS Oversight, Agenda, Legislative Procedures, Education, Extraordinary Appointments and March Referendum committees as well as GSS Academic and External, House and Finance, Code and Policy and Hiring committees
Serving as Team Leader for UBC Thunderbird Robotics Founded and lead UBC Thunderbots
Heavily involved in the UBC Persian Language and Iranian Studies Initiative
Co-facilitated a Student Directed Seminar
Past non-campus involvement:
BCSoccer referee
Second degree black belt in Taekwondo
Very involved in Vancouver’s Iranian community

Assuming you are elected and everything passes through successfully, what would the summer semester look like?

Although, a very important part of my plan includes consultations with students of various faculties about what they would like their summer semester to look like, here’s what I currently have in mind:All the 3-week courses will be eliminated becuase they are not suitable for students’ mental health. The main purpose of taking courses over the summer is to learn and it’s hardly possible for students to have a very successful learning opportunity in a short and intense time frame. The whole 4-month term will be divided to two 2-month terms where courses are offered. Also, there will be a large extension to the number of courses that are already offered. The reason behind this (rather than having 4-month courses) is to allow both students and faculty to be able to take/offer courses for 2 months and take a break (or do field research and attend conferences in case of faculty) for the rest of the term. Also, the extension will ensure that students have the option of taking courses or participating in internships/coop programs.Please note that the course offerings will vary from faculty to faculty and it’s my hope to work with the different faculties and the respective undergraduate societies to come up with a plan that makes sense for them.

What is one unique quality/experience you have (that other AMS VP-A candidates don’t have) that would make you the ideal exec member?

I have been a student at UBC for about 8 years now and have watched the AMS as a regular student (during my undergraduate studies). Also, I have been heavily involved with the AMS in the past two years, as an AMS councilor, making me the most experienced candidate in terms of involvement with the AMS. This combination provides me with a good understanding of how the organization works, how the university works and how students deserve to be represented.

What reflects affordable on-campus housing to you? How will you work with the university in changing that definition and to ensure more students are afforded the opportunity to live on campus?

Generally, housing is affordable if it doesn’t cost more than 30% of one’s income. For UBC students, this would be housing that doesn’t cost more than 30% of a typical student income (including student loans). The university has been avoiding the use of the term “affordable” and has replaced it with “non-market student housing.” This is troublesome for students, especially since as part of the guiding principles of the UBC-V Housing Action Plan, the Board of Governors has required providing housing options “for people of all income levels assuming housing costs of not more than 30% of a single income.”Currently, this promised is to be upheld for some of faculty and staff housing. If elected, I will work with the university to make sure this promise is upheld for students as well.

What is your opinion of the 4 referendum questions?

I, personally, approve of the four referendum questions for the following reasons:

Reduction of student fees: I’m in support of this because the UBC Ombuds Office has proven to be a very valuable resources for students. Also, currently there’s more funds available in the Student Spaces Fund than needed and the most responsible plan of action for the AMS is to return the excess amount to students.
Establishing a Student Endowment Fund: The establishment of this fund (which already exists in the AMS code) in the Bylaws will ensure that the fund itself will only be accessed if the membership permits it, therefore, creating a plan that ensures the long-term financial sustainability of the organization, while ensuring that growing services for students each year.
Selling the Whistler Lodge: I do understand that many students already use the lodge as it is a very affordable option while in Whistler. However, a professional review on the lodge has shown that selling the lodge is the only option that financially makes sense to the AMS. Also, all the proceeds will go to the Student Endowment Fund, which will benefit all students. If elected, I will work together with the students (such as the Ski and Board Club) who are currently using the lodge to come up with a long term plan which ensures that they are still able to keep all the benefits that the lodge has offered them in the last 40 years.
Paintings of the Art Gallery: Currently, the AMS Permanent Art Collection is maintained in very poor conditions and is under-appreciated (since it’s only displayed to the public twice a year). Thus, I’m also in favor of this action, since by selling up to 3 items of the permanent art collection, the AMS will not only provide sustainable benefits local artists, but also it will be able to maintain the existing collection in a better manner.

As of 11:28pm Jan 22, 2012, Ian “Party Rock” Campbell has not submitted his/its responses to UBC Insiders.

Name: Elaine Kuo
Age: 22
Year: 4
Faculty or program: Arts English literature
Past Campus involvement:
UBC Orientations squad leader
English Students’ Association president
AUS student services coordinator
AMS Student Administrative Commission member-at-large

Why should students care for a new SUB, particularly if they are graduating before it is built? In your opinion, what has been the weak point in the New SUB Project, and how will you fix it?

Being a senior student, I myself will not be here to see the completion of the new SUB, but I believe we should leave the campus a better place than we found it and it is where students’ AMS fees are going so they should take an interest in how their money is being used. I think the new SUB project needs to promote the new SUB more and instead of waiting for students to ask questions or look at the renderings, the new SUB committee should involve first and second year students more by asking them via social media and focus groups if the aspects of the SUB meet their expectations.

We’re about to break ground on New SUB construction. How do you see this building (and along with that, the AMS) interacting with other UBC stakeholders and the wider community?

I’m very excited about the commencement of construction on the new SUB. I would work with other stakeholders such as the Aquatic Centre and the businesses along University Boulevard to ensure minimal inconvenience during construction and maximum partnership upon completion. I anticipate the new SUB being the hub of student life where students can find a comfortable space that serves all their needs.

Both Caroline and Elaine mentioned platform points on club administration and in particular, the Student Administration Committee. What has been a problem within SAC, and how will you change that?

Being a club executive myself, I often find the rules in the SAC policy handbook hard to navigate and applying for club grants a little tedious. I would like to establish an online database where clubs can find all the information including constitution, membership lists, budget templates, and applications for additional resources like the Clubs Benefit Fund.

I would better promote the Clubs Benefit Fund by providing specific examples of eligible projects and establishing a new award for the club that makes the best use of the fund.

Another significant issue is the lack of AMS account codes for new clubs which would improve by staying on top of de-constituting inactive clubs and encouraging similar clubs to share account codes.

What is your opinion regarding the 4 referendum questions?

I would encourage students to vote yes to the referendum questions. The Student Spaces Fund is underused and the money could be reallocated for more effective use. The UBC Ombudsman Office is a valuable service which is important to contribute to in case students should need it when they feel they’ve been unfairly treated by the university. The Whistler Lodge is valuable service but the money made from the sale of the lodge could be used to fund students’ trips to Whistler in different ways. I think art exists to be seen, so the three pieces should be sold and the money used to acquire new pieces as well as fund art initiatives and programs on campus.

As of 11:13pm Jan 22, 2012, Caroline Wong has not submitted her responses back to UBC Insiders