Damn, I guess this blog is still open, I thought the election was over!

I was hoping to be done with this, as I mentioned in a previous post, since I figured the election was done with. But all of the greats come out of retirement once in a while. But now we have this. I posted the letter in it's entirety as found on the La Rotonde website.

The gist of it? There is an accusation that four candidates acted as a slate. According to Wikipedia: A Slate is a group of candidates that run in multi-seat or multi-position elections on a common platform. The common platform maybe because the candidates are all members of a political party or have the same or similar policies, or simply that they are a group of friends.One of the contentions is that they broke the rules in the SFUO constitution about acting in each others campaigns. If the allegations are accurate, then the implicated parties need to be reprimanded. I do not know if the allegations are accurate though, and I presume the undersigned have adequate proof or they would not have submitted this complaint.

I do not like either of their suggested outcomes though. If the winners broke the rules they do not deserve to hold the position and should be removed (pre-emptively), however, to just hand over the position to the second placed finisher would lack a certain accountability or justice. They get closer on the second request, however, I think that if the winners of these executive positions are disqualified and removed from the position, then we need to have a complete and legitimate by-elections for the vacant positions.

For those of you who do not know my politics, one of the things that I hold in the highest regard is the rule of law and the rules of the game. Meaning that no one is exempt from the law, and that once the rules are in place, they need to be followed until they are changed legally/legitimately. Thus, if these individuals DID break the rules, then they need to atone for their mistakes. If they did not, then these accusations are unfounded and moot. Do I think that this is a move by a bunch of sore losers? It depends. If they have adequate proof of wrongdoing and the violation of our constitution then no, not at all. Otherwise, then maybe yes. We'll just have to wait and see.

Submitted Letter

17 February 2009

Ottawa, ON

To: Student Arbitration Committee (SAC)
Subject: SFUO Election 2009

We the undersigned wish to exercise our right under section 4.11.1 of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa Constitution - that any member may appeal the results of an election - and therefore challenge the certified results for the following positions:
- President
- Vice President Finance
- Vice President Social
- Vice President Communications
This appeal will be made based on gross irregularities and fraud as committed by several candidates for these executive positions, namely Seamus Wolfe, Roxanne Dubois, Jean Guillaume and Julie Segin, in contravention of section 4.7 of the SFUO constitution regarding the prohibition of slates.

We file this petition to the Student Arbitration Committee against the Elections Office of the [1]SFUO who certified these results and have an obligation to ensure free and fair elections.

Whereas section 4.7.1 states that:
“No candidate for a position on the executive or the Board of Administration may form a slate with one or more other candidates running for positions on the executive or the Board of Administration. To that effect, no candidate may:
a. spend money together with one or more other candidates; orb. participate in any way in the campaign of one or more other candidates.”

We will demonstrate with considerable force that to the contrary, several candidates engaged in actions that should be considered slates. These actions provided this group of candidates with a substantial advantage and, without a shadow of a doubt, impacted very directly and demonstrably the outcome of the election.

It is unfortunate that this evidence only came to light after the conclusion of the election. Had we been aware of this gross misconduct earlier, complaints could have been filed with the appropriate personnel early and the results of the election not brought into question.

We would ask that after careful consideration of our evidence, the Student Arbitration Committee would take the appropriate action to compensate for this injustice. We request that the candidates implicated be disqualified and that the second place finishers be declared the winners. In lieu of that, we believe that the election should be re-run for the positions of President, Vice President Finance, and Vice President Social without reopening the nomination period expect in the case of Vice President Communications where it should be fully opened. In all of these cases the implicated individuals should be barred from presenting themselves as candidates again.

Pursuant to section 8.6.3.1 we present this notice to the Chief Arbitrator and advise that we will be drawing upon the testimony of individuals approached by the slate and who have an intricate knowledge of the inner workings of the slate’s organization. Further, we will present several pieces physical evidence including emails and Facebook messages originating from members of the slate. These findings will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a slate existed and acted in contravention of the elections rules and the constitution of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa.

For further information, please contact us at your convenience. We look forward to the opportunity of presenting to you our findings.

In Solidarity,

Maureen Hasinoff
Alexander Chaput
Renaud-Philippe Garner
[1] Please note, a correction was filed to the Student Arbitration Committee through Mr. Dean Haldenby, President of the SFUO, via email on 18 February 2009 clarifying that in fact this petition was filed against the four individuals - Seamus Wolfe, Roxanne Dubois, Jean Guillaume and Julie Segin – and that the Elections Office would only be called as a witness.

Out of Retirement for One Post (and an even 30)

**I wrote this before the updated version of the results was posted on the website. Some numbers have changed slightly, but I am still using the 8201 number that is highly advertised.**

I know I said I was done with this particular blog, but I just wanted to share some thoughts, and push my post total to 30.

A LOT of praise has been given to e-voting, and why not. Never before has our voter turnout been so high. Never before has it been so easy to vote, I mean, you could have voted from anywhere in the world. I am not condemning e-voting, but I do have a point to raise.

According to the official turnout numbers, we had 8201 students vote. But not one race or question received nearly that amount.

Here's what I mean: (all statistics come from the attachment on the iwillvote.ca page)

President: Votes cast: 7565 ---->Difference: 636 ----------> Winning Margin: 442
VP Social: Votes cast: 6777 ----->Difference: 1424 --------> Winning Margin: 657
VP UA: Votes cast: 6744 ------->Difference: 1457 --------> Winning Margin: 265
VP Finance: Votes Cast: 6783 -->Difference: 1418 --------> Winning Margin: 1261
BoG: Votes Cast: 6470---------->Difference: 1731--------> Winning Margin: 764

I will stop there. The highest amount of votes for any of the races was for Smoke Free Campus at 7673.

I understand that people may choose to not vote in a particular race, but those are some pretty big numbers. For the VP UA, it's 17.7%.

I am not officially challenging the results, as I am pretty sure I have no place doing so. I only put the margins of victory to highlight how close some of these races were.

If we were using the good ole fashioned paper ballots, we could actually look and see either spoiled ballots or blank ones. Even if we could be shown the "receipts" for the e-votes, I still would not be satisfied, since it really doesn't prove much, since it could have been a transmission error while voting, or perhaps the person tried to select a candidate but accidently didn't.

I for one am not ready to jump on the e-voting bandwagon just yet. Bring back the paper!

The new blog

I figured I would set it up now:

http://kj360.blogspot.com

So this will be the last post I make here. And hopefully there will be no more posts regarding the 2009 Election Campaign. But if there is, they will go on the new blog.

Thanks again!

The second last post

Hello all,

This is technically the last real post, but more on that later.

The election campaign is over. I had a wonderful time meeting candidates and giving my commentary on the whole thing. I am excited to see what next year will bring and hope to be a part of the festivities. Never before have the SFUO elections meant anything to me. The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat have never been as powerful as it was this year.

I might be taking a short break from the blogosphere, but do not fret, my subjective brand of political commentary will not be gone forever, which is why this is the second last post. When I start up my new blog shortly, the last post will tell you where it is. I mean, we have student association elections shortly. So look out PIDSSA and PSA.

I thank you for reading. I thank you for agreeing. I thank you for disagreeing. My goal here was not to change people's minds. My goal was not even really to influence people. My goal was to get you thinking about these issues in a new way. I hope I have done that.

Thank you.

Voter Turnout

We had a historic night. But is it something to be proud of? I don't know.

I am not labelling it a failure. But I am also not calling it a success. A success implies that you are done. When you are working at a difficult task, when you are done, you may find yourself saying "Success!" Or when someone asks you how you were, you may reply "successful" if you were.

No one is to blame for it not being a "success". Wassim and Sylvia gave every student the opportunity to get informed, and each received up to three e-mails. They should be applauded for giving us such an increase in turnout. But we must take what we have learned over this election and do even better next yeara and continue the great efforts made this year.

What could we have done? I would have liked to see a second debate. Whether this what have helped I do not know, since it wasn't like there were 30 000 students at the first debate. I might go as far to say that this year our elections bureau is not to blame for not reaching a higher turnout, but perhaps the candidates could have reached out more. But I digress, we had over 7500 votes. That's pretty spectacular right there. When you figure that Dean Haldenby received 651 for his mandate this year. So even I am spinning my wheels here. Which is why I am glad I am not in charge of the elections bureau.

An Open Letter to Marc Kelly

Dear Mr. Kelly:

You are an afront to our university community and I am asking you to stop.

You do not represent the will of the students, because we whole heartedly disagree with you. Do you remember the debates, where people openly laughed at your ideas?

There is a general admiration for Mr Rock on our campus. I would almost go as far as saying we are proud to have him as our President. I will say that I personally am proud to have him as our President.

I have no problem with you finishing your degree, under the conditions supplied by diplomatic relations with the faculty. But this public persona needs to end, for you are embarrassing us. It is time for you to step back, not e-mail students with your unsolicited e-mails.

No doubt you will disagree with what I am asking you to do, and that is your right. We had quite the debate tonight, and you could not formulate adequate responses to even keep me guessing. You sir, did not even come close to winning me over to your plight, but managed to drive me away.

Many will agree with me in saying that we choose to come to this university. We are but patrons of this institution, clients if you will. If you have a problem with the system, of merely being a customer of the university and the degree being merely a receipt, then your sir have a problem with the large scale. You are not Socrates. You are not Thoreau. It is not up to you to alter the entire system that we do not have a problem with. I come here to learn. I came here to learn from a person who has a PhD. I do not think I should be able to choose how my course is laid out.

That is all I will say. But I urge to take this to heart. No one deserves to be mistreated, and I have sympathy if you have been. However, the ball is in your court now. But I urge you to do the right thing: Mr Rock is a very intelligent individual. He knows how to win.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Joly

An Open Letter to Seamus Wolfe

Dear Mr. Wolfe:

I do not think you understand what you are getting into Mr. Wolfe.

You are entering into a position where almost 2/3 people did not vote for you. I support the first-past-the-post system so I recognize this situation as a win, but you must also consider the situation as well. Look outside your office, if you see a group of 3 students, if the all voted, two of them did not vote for you.

How do you plan on reconciling this? Before I began this blog, I was the uninformed student. I am the one that you are apparently trying to reach. You were one of the few candidates NOT to talk to me, on the many occasions we were in the same area. How do you plan on reaching out beyond your core group of supporters and into the massive amount of students that voted for someone other than you?

Both Mr Garner and Mr Steeves achieved at least 1/4 of the student vote. It is up to you to prove to each and every one of those voters that you plan on representing them. You have been a member of the SFUO executive for a long time, and you choose to continue this role in some capacity. It is time for you to prove yourself to the masses. One of the first reasons I chose to support Renaud was because he was not you. You are our President now. Your first act must be to heal this broken campus. Sit there with the elections results and see how divided our campus is on almost every single position. See that, and remember how many students also voted 'no' for the CFS. These are the students that are ready in a second to begin an impeachment proceeding. It is up to you to show them there is no reason to do that.

You may be thinking this is not your job. Your job is to run the SFUO. But I tell you the truth, campus is broken right now. And if campus is broken, so is the SFUO and it is up to fix it. I wish you luck, but in that same vein, I will be watching. And I know 4829 other students who also didn't vote for you will be watching too.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Joly

An Open Letter to Renaud-Philippe Garner

Dear Renaud:

I must admit, the first encounter I had with you was not favourable. You came into one of my classes and started talking about the Drop Fees Rally. I thought you were pretentious; you used the word "shant". I also had no idea who you were, or your name, or anything.

I have been an un-involved student for many years, choosing to turn my back on the SFUO who had turned their back on me. I decided this year to change that. When the election campaign began I decided to start writing about them. When the time came for me to support a candidate for President I sat down with the Fulcrum's election pull-out and really looked at the platforms. Yours was the only one that gave any actual ideas, any concrete plans. Less BS more action, more goals that we could accomplish in one meeting, no unattainable visions. I decided then that I would support you.

I must admit, I still did not connect you as a candidate for President to the person who I disliked in my classroom. That was, until you gave a classroom presentation in one of my classes. It was there that I was able to connect it.

But, my friend, you captured something on this campus. You captured our imaginations. No longer did our President have to be antagonistic. Our President can be diplomatic. Images of an adored SFUO raced through my head. I had trouble even imagining a situation where I did not hate the SFUO, let alone like it. You sir, accomplished something here. And for that, I give you my thanks.

I enjoyed our conversations. I enjoyed how you were an approachable candidate. I imagined an SFUO President who could not walk through the University Centre without being stopped constantly by conversation. That is what we needed on this campus.

I hope we meet again. And again, I thank you.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Joly

iPod Battle is pretty cool

So I'm glad I came after all.

The candidates are slowly trickling in. Renaud is here, Peter Flynn just got here as well. Michele and Maureen have been hanging out for a while.

Good times for all. I'm gettin my drink on.

How's that for Political Commentary?

Why I didn't run (I need a filler post)

In December I was planning on running for BOA Social Sciences. I even started collecting signatures. During the Christmas break I decided not to run. Why?

1) The time constraints. I work a full-time job, go to school full-time, and love hanging out with the Youth Group. Now, the thing that attracted me to the BOA was simple, you did not have to be bilingual, and it was one meeting a month. However, I cannot guarantee that I will be available on the specific Sunday that the meeting is scheduled. ie. I am away the first 3 Sundays in February for instance.

2) My issues are with the current SFUO executive. What if the incoming SFUO exec is admirable and I support them.

3) If I was on the BOA and was acting in a antagonist manner towards the exec and was unable to attend a meeting then they would have due cause to remove me from the BOA. This is my conclusion point that works with points 1 & 2.

4) After doing some reading, I realized that the BOA was not actually where I wanted to be anyways.

So now, my plan is to sit on the sidelines and be vocal. I will likely keep some sort of blog, probably merge this type of blog with a personal one, just in case there is nothing to write about here, my real life highlights can pick up the slack.

To 1848 or not to 1848

I haven't fully decided my plan for tonight. I mean, it's not like this blog is play-by-play or interviews or videos and pictures. I provide political commentary. I saw what I think, I do say what is going on (for the most part at least). So the only reason I would really go is to see the party first hand. To view reactions and gauge how each contender will perform next year judging by their performance tonight. To commentate on the situation at hand. If you want the results, why would you go to a blog? Go to http://iwillvote.ca/. So if I go to bed, and find out the results tomorrow morning when I wake up, it's not like it will affect my blog. I am not there to get the first scoop on the results. I am not there to catch a photo of the winners rejoicing or the losers weeping. That's not my game.

I will try to stop by. If I meet some fun people and get engaged, then you might find me there for a while. If I am not enjoying myself, then I will head home. $5 isn't the real issue. Maybe official bloggers should get press privelages and get in free. But I digress (I would pay either way).

So if you see me there looking bored and you know who I am, and you are an attractive young lady, do not be shy! (even if I do not look bored)

My Predictions for Tonight (The Executive)

You may notice I have candidates finishing in different places then I supported them (ie, I may have supported a candidate and predict them to finish second or something). And to spice it up, I even pick percentage of votes. So if I end up getting everything right: I will be taking an impromtu trip to Las Vegas for Reading Week.

VP Student Affairs

Michele Lamarche:
Yes: 94%
No: 6%

VP University Affairs

Ted Horton 61%
Sidney Loko 7%
Jeremy Stuart 19%
Cameron Montgomery 13%

VP Social

Alex Chaput 73%
Jean Guillaume 27%

VP Communications

Julie Seguin:
Yes: 61%
No: 39%

VP Finance

Roxanne Dubois 54%
Maureen Hasinoff 46%

SFUO President

Renaud-Philippe Garner 39%
Marc Kelly 2%
Tyler Steeves 23%
Seamus Wolfe 36%

My Predictions for Tonight (BOA, BOG, Senate)

My only hope is that I don't get everything wrong.

BOA (Social Science) Sorry all you none-SocSci's

Peter Flynn
Miatta Gorvie
Sarah Jane King
Stephanie Marentette
Ivy O
Kyle Simunovic

Senate (Social Science)

Kyle Simunovic

Board of Governors

Austin Menyasz

How are our priorities set up?

So the polls close tonight at 9pm. But we have to wait until 12 for the results? Wasn't one of the reasons we switched to online voting the ability to have immediate results? So why are we not getting the results at the right time? I am told it is because the Arts Students are having an event at 1848 from 9-12, so the elections wrap party will go after it.

So . . . Absurd anyone?

We are led to believe by this huge IWillVote campaign that voting is important. That this SFUO affects every single one of us. We are given incentives to get involved and it has never been easier to get informed. But the results are being delayed because of an iPod Battle?

I know the event is a fundraiser for Relay for Life. But I also know that event could be held tomorrow.

I haven't decided what I am going to do. I don't want to go to the iPod battle, but I want to be there when the results are released. I also don't want to pay $5 to get into a bar that's going to be too full and too loud. I also don't want to sit somewhere until midnight to get in after the iPod Battle. This is lame. Way to go folks.

Good Morning uOttawa Nam

Doing the bloggers panel was pretty fun. In case you missed it, there was talk it might be put into pod-cast form for the iwillvote.ca site. I had a really good time. The Ivory Antenna (hosted by Emma Godmere) airs Wednesday's from 2-3 on CHUO 89.1.
One the panel was myself, Logan Oulette and Kyle Ryc. I think it was a good mix both between faculties and blog styles, as well as with who we endorse or support.

The show was only 1 hour, so there was a lot that couldn't be discussed. I guess that's why we have these fancy things called blogs!

Blogger Panel on CHUO

So I got invited to sit on a "blogger's panel" to discuss all things SFUO elections. I accepted: should be fun. So it's from 2-3 this afternoon, on CHUO 89.1 FM.

A Pie in the Sky Idea

Tonight was the Relay for Life fundraiser where people can buy whipped or shaving cream "pies" (1 for $3 or 2 for $5) to put in the face of the candidates. It was a good opportunity to see how the candidates behave in emabarassing situtations, ie how seriously to the take themselves. No platforms, no speeches. I hit Seamus and Renaud. $5 well spent.

My thoughts: next year, the final round is for bloggers and student media, and let the candidates get first dibs. I would be down for that.

Oh and btw: VOTE!

Democracy with a capital 'D', or is that the mark for e-voting?

So the PIN's for the Anglophone students arrive, over 8 hours later than expected. So I did get to vote.

SO what happenes if this PIN distribution error is only the tip of the iceberg? I mean: come on, when the e-mail says please don't forward, someone is bound to forward it lol. Or if someone re-routes a bunch of @uOttawa.ca address to receive a bunch of pins and logons. Yeah, you may scoff, but think of what would be the consequences. When the computer science department think that e-voting is a mistake, I am inclined to agree.

We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out. And I will just say for the record, e-voting is the type of thing to go for a referendum, not the bunk we get fed every year on the ballot.

UPDATE: It seems that everyone has received their ballot by now. Let's hope that sending each student an e-mail will help increase turnout. I guess the system was simple enough too. I also think that having the link to the platform technically violated the SFUO Constitution. Here's hoping everything works!

BOA/BOG/Senate

I was asked last night at the Oak where my posts about the BOA were. I kinda answered that I really don't like the BOA and thus had no opinion on it. But I was going to write something on the BOA itself. If few students know what the BOA does, it meaans that things have to change. It's time for reform.

This ethics committee that RPG wants to start, that most candidates seem to like (ethics seems to be one of the many buzz-words this campaign), well the BOA should be that ethics committee. The Exec should not be on the BOA. They can go, they can have very limited speaking rights, but they under no circumstances should have a vote. We call ourselves a Federation, but really, we are using that term loosely. We are like a Presidential system with Federated Bodies. It would be like the President of the United States having a Vote in Congress or the Senate.

Thus the BOA should be totally separate from the SFUO exec. That's all I want to say about BOA reform for now. If someone wants to work on a solution to the BOA, I am all for it!

There are however, 11 candidates to choose from. I was contemplating a run for BOA earlier in the year, but for various reasons decided to not run. So who am I supporting, well, it does not really matter who you choose. I like the people who spoke at the function last night, so they will likely get my vote, but thats only 3 or 4. Who knows! Like I said, I'm a freakin maverick!

BOG: I will likely support Austin, since I didn't really like Amy's question during the debates. And also don't like her platform, and Austin speaks truth in his rhetoric. ie, Class sizes. Seminars of 75 are wayyy to big.

Senate: Likely voting for Kyle. Why? We do need more course opportunities at uOttawa. Will it happen? Doubtful, but if we don't try we will never get.

E-Voting

9:52 and No E-mail.

Dr. No or: How I learned to start talking and Love the Blog

The other working title was My Money My Choice, but I decided to be a tad witty.

This is hopefully my last post on MVP :P (hopeful but not optimistic). I will try to walk you through my decision making process I how I decided to vote no (when I get to vote) for this referendum.

1) $6!? That more than we spend on either newspaper, Legal aid clinical, counselling service, ANY of the student life services, zoom, accessibility fund, student advocate, or career services. So is it more important than these? Does MVP deserve more of my money that any of these services that I could easily walk into and benefit from? I pick up the fulcrum each week.

2) The whole question of does the program even work. I will be honest. I do not know much about MVP. I haven't researched it or read a ton of articles about the initiative. But I will tell you what I did do. I looked to our very own International Development students. I hate reading about development, so I am very grateful that we have students on our campus who will subject themselves to that stuff :). And I have heard a lot of criticisms towards MVP from DVM students. So if some DEVELOPMENT students dislike this DEVELOPMENT program, that's enough for me.

3) The irony. The 'YES' committee clearly supports positive liberty (Isaiah Berlin if you want the standard definitions). They feel as though the individuals living in Sub-Saharan Africa deserve to be able to become rational creatures and that it is up to outside sources (outside of themselves, either through the state or beyond) to force them to become developed (rationally). Negative liberty is the freedom from something, so freedom from having the police walk into your house and arrest you for no reason. Freedom from 100% taxes or freedom from oppression.
Yet, on our campus, the 'YES' committee is clearly infringing on my Positive Liberty. I have the freedom to develop my own rational choices. So perhaps this is more an infringement on my negative liberty (but no less ironic). Should I not be able to make my own rational choices?

4) It seems to be the 'YES' committee vs everyone in this debate. That tells me that there are only small pockets of support. Even if people don’t know about MVP, or aren’t informed students, that’s not their problem. If MVP is such an amazing program and will save thousands of lives and everyone should be doing it, wouldn’t we all be running up with more than $6? But that is not the case. Will forcing students to donate to the project immediately make them support international development projects in general? Nope. Will it make them care? Nope. Will it increase their passion for ending extreme poverty? Nope.

5) What would it take for me to support MVP? A well-known total opt-out possibility might (might) do it. But really, this should be an opt-in (like fund-raising!). What of the Grade 12 student right now. Do they have a choice in this?

6) The benefits for us? There have been claims of direct benefits for us as a student body. For one, the ‘Yes’ committee claims that it will open up internship opportunities. They say 1 or 2 per semester. WOW! 1 or 2, and over 30 000 people pay into it. Want to go on an internship? Voting ‘YES’ won’t make a difference in your chances, since there are many opportunities already, that we don’t get forced into support financially. Some guy I’ve never heard of is gonna come to campus and give a lecture that I wouldn’t go to. Yeah, I care about that. And I go to events on campus, but only those that appeal to me.

7) They claim that the initiative is sweeping across university campus’s all over the country, but the person who said that listed 4 (including uOttawa!).

Time to stand up and say NO!

And if it passes? Someone wrote in our of the discussions that there was all this passion around the NO CFS campaign, but now you hear none of it, and people seem okay with it. So why fight this? If it passes there is nothing we can do. Sit around and complain? Well that will get you nowhere. I will not be happy giving my $6 and will support the first efforts to mount a referendum to reverse the MVP levy.

Conservative Students & Many Candidates

Before I go to bed, I wanted to jot down some of my thoughts that came out of this evenings Canditates Forum/Meet & greet that was hosted by the Conservative Students Association on campus. In attendance were Renaud, Tyler, Alex, Maureen, Ted, Austin, Kyle, Amy, Cameron, Steph, Peter, Sarah, Miatta, Scott, and Melanie. So it was quite a long list of people, and I might have missed one. If I did, I will gladly add em to the list.

A few quick points:

Sarah asked of the crowd who supported the Millennium Villages campaign: not ONE hand was raised. In fact, here is a link to the super awesome campaign against the levy: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=54205156079.

Tyler was impressive tonight. He is still my second pick, and I still see him finishing third. There were a lot of shots at Seamus, so that made the crowd happy. I am slightly concerned of vote splitting.

I saw Ted in a different light not standing beside Seamus. I still much perfer Jeremy's platform. Yed has this bit about helping students living off campus in the dealing with landlords and making sure they know their rights. While I like that idea, I would perfer a shift towards getting more space in residence. In some universities if you are accepted you are guarenteed residence for your four years. That is revenue that the university is throwing away.

I will post my thoughts in the BOG, Senate, and BOA tomorrow.

Quote of the night: "They're all going AGAIN??"

And once again I will reaffirm my choice for President, Renaud-Philippe Garner:


I will post something more on that tomorrow. Something like a "Why I'm voting R-P G" maybe, who knows, I`m a freaking maverick.

Voter Turnout

Voting begins tomorrow. I would be overjoyed if we had an excellent showing but I am not holding my breath.

Remember the CFS referendum? Remember the fervour? It seemed like almost everyone knew something about the vote (even if it was only that the vote was going on). There were SO many people campaigning in the halls. Basically at every turn in a major building there was someone telling you to vote yes. We only hit 20% for that one. I don't see that same fervour for our SFUO elections.

I don't even know if e-voting will increase anything. I mean, when you had the paper ballots and polling stations people still just walked by.

The polling stations are still going to exist, but with laptops so that people can vote. If the process for voting online on-campus takes too long (due to an overload on the already unreliable wifi) how long are the line-ups going to be? And what will get those people who used to simply walk by the polling station to stop and vote? Why would they say, oh man, I can vote online, SWEEET!! NOW I'M GONNA FOR SURE!

We will def beat last year’s by-election turnout of 3.75%, but I think anything around 20% should be seen as a good turnout, and would say that an estimate of 20% is optimistic. But again, if we get a huge turnout, I will be quite pleased.

An Idea I had . . . a suggestion even.

I got this idea a while ago really. I can't remember when, but now it seems to be so much a part of me it's like it's always been there.

Do you know what you pay to keep the Agora open? If you are a full-time student registered for two semesters its $18.64 ($9.32 for part-time). It's even more if you take classes in the Spring/Summer sessions as well. The only Student levy item that’s higher in price is the direct SFUO one (excluding the Health Plan). At the moment, we pay the $18.64 to save about 2% on our textbooks (the Agora charges 5% below MRSP while the Campus Bookstore charges about 3% below)[approx]. I know that not all of my books are available at the Agora (and even if they are I don't like the store) which means that I don't even break-even on this transaction; I will "save" about $2 this year.

Now the Agora did/does serve a purpose. Before it was opened the Campus Bookstore was charging 10% ABOVE MRSP. So it has served a valiant purpose. But really, I think there are better ways to continue this. Paying well over $500 000/year as a student body to keep this store open does not at all seem fiscally viable. So what can we do?

When the Agora was opened, the world was a different place, especially the way online shopping worked in Canada. Why can't we make a deal with Chapters Indigo to provide them with our textbook requirements, the same way it happens with the Agora, and have them set something up on Chapters.ca where students can search by Course Code and the books come up? Chapters.ca is a very good place to buy books. The prices are 30-40% cheaper on average than in the stores and with $39 or more you get free shipping. They ship from Mississauga so it’s pretty quick. Don't have a credit card? No problem, go to one of the Chapters/Coles stores and buy a gift card in the amount you will need, and you can purchase online with it. In the current economic climate, I'm sure they would enjoy that much new business.

It may not be a complete plan, but something like this would keep the Campus Bookstore competitive and save us money at the same time (and $18.64/year to boot).

A note of clarification

Hey all!

I'm sitting up "supervising" about 23 teenagers . . . I have no idea when bed-time will come. . . in it for the long haul.

If you disagree with something I write please feel free to post a comment to that effect. It's already happened a few times. As a political science student I yearn for the discussion. And more importantly the opportunity to better my own position and stance.

Also to that effect: post your agreements as well!

When real life is more important

I write this on my Archos, early in the morning, sitting in an empty dining hall at a youth camp a little north of Kingston. This weekend I am here with the youth group I lead thus I will not be on campus until Sunday (if I even go there at all).

My point: never forget real life. Sure the SFUO is real life; it has a huge budget and it is a decent job for the Exec, but for the rest of us? If you asked random students what the sfuo does, i'm sure one of the most common answers would be along the lines of a social events coordinator (or possibly something about protests).

I think the first task of the new exec should be to change this. While social events are admirable, I doubt that students want to pay over $140 per year for a few social events! There are so many opportunities for improvement: just look at CHUO. I mean, I have yet to find anyone who listens regularly. The Pivik should not be more expensive than walking to Mac's. The Agora should NOT cost the student body over $500 000 a year to keep open. There should not be excessively loud snowboarding events on the Morisset Terrace during mid-terms. The sfuo events or campaigns should not ever be outright failures.

I know those were all "should not" statements and I have offered not concrete suggestions, but that should be the job of the people earning our votes. I do have suggestions for some of the above problems and have also shared my concerns with some of the candidates, and when I get home I will elaborate.

The Position of a President

Alright, so here is where I date myself: In my first year, the guy who was SFUO President was named Adam Brown. Can I remember anything he did, nope. I do know that I didn't despise/distrust or even dislike him. He seems liek an approachable and available guy. I think he even held two terms, it was so long ago I can't really remember (and don't feel like looking it up!).

I'm sure that there were factions on campus that disagreed with Brown, but I heard no real ill-will of him. Will that be the case with our elected leader next year? Certainly not if Seamus Wolfe is elected. While he may have the passion and will strive to make things better, will it be the change we actually want? For those of you in your later years, is campus a better place today than it was in your first year? Are relation between the SFUO and the University Administration getting better or getting worse? What about the relationship between the SFUO and the students it represents? I would say its worse on both counts.

If you agree with my above sentiments, then I will have to urge you to vote against Seamus Wolfe. I feel that he represents a status quo, with him we will get more of the same. More of the same "getting worse".

Will Tyler Steeves be able to shift the course? Possibly. With a background in management, you would learn how to have good working relations with groups. I think that would be a good start, which is why he is my second choice.

When I tell people that I am blogging and caring about the SFUO its like a shock to them. I hate the SFUO. I hate spending all that money and coming out on the other side no better then when you came in. That's why I am supporting Renaud-Philippe Garner. Whether he is successful or not, at least I can feel as though I will be in a better position at the end, then when I went in.

The Refendums (2)

Here is an update on some of the referendums.

Banning Tobacco Sales
I had a conversation with the head of the yes committee yesterday, voicing my concerns that the loss of that revenue would cripple the pivik and end up causing a sharp raise in prices. Renaud was involved as well, so he does realize that possibility. Hopefully if this measure does pass (I do support it really, just not at the expense of everyone) the SFUO will be able to move quickly and agile enough to improve the Pivik and not have to raise prices to make up for the loss of that revenue.

ACRES
This will be a $1 levy if passed. Now you may be saying, okay, it's only a dollar, but I will have to point out that it is ANOTHER dollar. Sure its open to all students, but so is Hillel, C4C, IVCF and every other religious/national/racial/cultural group/association on campus. And I am sure that if Hillel proposed a $1 levy, there would be an awful lot of people up in arms. This is not about prejudice or racism, or less even about the damned dollar, it is more about the fact that every year there are many groups reaching into our pockets with very little resistance. Our levy is already going up $14, if the Millenium Village thing passes, there's another 6, plus $0.75 for the food bank, and $1 for this, so an increase of $21.75, or 15.34%. IN ONE YEAR! Sure we "vote" on it, but lets be honest, only like 15% of students actually voted last year, and less than 5% in the Presidential by-election.

The President (1)

Here it is. The long awaited Presidential post. I am going to do these in the order in which I think they will finish (and a little hope as well!) in reverse order (last-to-first)

Marc Kelly
What? Does he even think he has a chance? His performance in the debates was marked with laughter at some of his outlandish statements. I think he needs to realize that most students like Allan Rock. He has kids in university right now, he is in Uganda this very moment doing humanitarian work. He is not an evil monster. Even Kelly's platform is bunk. Having students choose what they are going to do for their classes by voting on a syllabus or getting to choose it themselves is not a good thing. He continually claims that the syllabus is a contract, while it is in effect a COURSE OUTLINE! There are only three actually candidates running in this election.

Tyler Steeves
While he is my second choice for President, I do not think he will be a contender. There are a few reasons for this, one is that he is a management student, which means that he belongs to only the 5th largest faculty. Less than half the size of Social Sciences and smaller even that the science faculty. Beyond this obstacle, which can be quickly overcome, he lacks a commonality. By this I mean he has an air of arrogance around him. While I think he is a nice guy, and had an extended conversation with him post-debate, I think he is over-confident. His platform is decent, but lacks actual practical idea, and he is just spouting rhetoric (although rhetoric I agree with). He also knows a good idea when he sees it, saying that if elected, he would enact some of the ideas from other candidates as well.

Seamus Wolfe
Where do I begin? Seamus rubs me the wrong way. Whether it is using our money to campaign for things that are not in our best interests, or continually participating and creating events that are nothing more that SFUO masturbatory efforts to make themselves feel good. He may be considered the "front runner" due to name recognition, but let's remember that you may recognize the name, but why? A major part of his campaign this year has been to tell students what he has accomplished, and while these may be honorable feats, if students truly cared about these things then they would already know he did them (or that these things even existed!). When he is asked about the SFUO abandoning its members in favour of another union, he rests on his claim that the SFUO got busses for the students during exams, and doesn't own up to the actual question.

Seamus has not been a full-time student at uOttawa since (at least) 2006-07, which means that he also hasn't paid any tuition since then. As a member of the Exec, you can only take up to 7 credits per semester, and the costs from those credits is absorbed by the SFUO, so it’s a benefit/perk. How can he pretend to know what it is like to be a full-time student if he hasn't been one since 2006/07? Here is the quote from the fulcrum from Seamus: “It is time that the SFUO really actively outreach to students who are not involved and students who are not seeing all the benefits they can from the student federation.”

I ask you this: shouldn't he already have been doing this in his 2 years on the exec?It is time for a change, it is time for a new face, it is time for:

Renaud-Phillippe Garner (RPG)

Let's just ask ourselves what matters to us. Is it tuition fees or finals? A code of conduct or that paper we have yet to start? RPG wants to have the library open 24 hours during exams. RPG wants to change scholarships so they work on a sliding scale. If you marks go down, so does your scholarship, not like now, where if you marks go down you lose it all. These are things that affect a majority of students. While tuition fees and the code of conduct also affect us all, they do so in different ways.The SFUO has a huge mandate, and don't you want the person in charge of it to be approachable and accessible to you? I had a couple of extended conversation with Renaud, and the only thing he lacks is a sense of entitlement.

He will be receiving my vote, and he should also be getting yours.

The VP's (1)

So here we come to the important stuff!

VP Social
The Candidates: Alexandre Chaput & Jean Guillaume
This is a toss-up. I had class during their debate (I only actually saw two of the debates) so I am going on their written platforms and websites, etc. In that regard, I have to throw my support behind Alexandre Chaput. WHile neither of these two guys is putting out anything interesting or exciting, there is one thing that Jean Guillaume is proposing that I don't think is a good idea. He want to open up the u101 week events/shows to all students.

VP Finance
The Candidates: Roxanne Dubois & Maureen Hasinoff
The vp finance has arguable the biggest portfolio, as they are in charge of all the SFUO businesses. I talked with Maureen Hasinoff yesterday, and although she strongly supports the u-Pass, I feel that she is the best candidate. Maureen's idea for "goods surplus management" could, in her plan, lead to offering scholarships to low-income students, meanwhile Roxanne Dubois wants to give students a say through "consultations". Consultations is a buzz word for we tell people what the budget is going to be before it is implemented. Roxanne is also pushing "OHIP for all", which is something that I have strong hesitations towards. We get OHIP because we (or our parents) pay taxes! They should be able to receive OHIP without paying into the system.

VP Communications
There is only one candidate running, the current VP Comm, Julie Seguin. I would love it if she received more "NO" votes. How many e-mails have you received from the SFUO regarding events or campaigns? How many times have you stumbled onto an event, or found out about it the next day? Why is the only method of communication a poster on the SFUO office window? How come, on the SFUO website, there is a note saying that the online calendar will be up shortly, and the note has been there for as long as I can remember?

VP Student Affairs
There is also only one candidate for this position, Michele Lamarche. I don't see a problem with her platform, and she is the current vp-com. franco for Arts.

VP University Affairs
The Candidates: Ted Horton, Sydney Loko, Cameron Montgomery & Jeremy Stuart
On paper, I chose Jeremy Stuart, however, he was not present at the debate. I checked his website, and it appears he is still in the race, so he still has my vote. Ted Horton is just Seamus II, with an intonation that feels very condescending. If we are looking for new faces in the SFUO, and ones that are actually representative of who we are as a campus and students body, we only have two choices in this position, Jeremy Stuart or Sydney Loko, who help found the West African Youth Association on Campus. However, my vote will be for Jeremy Stuart, since his platform takes over where Seamus Wolfe ignored, by focusing on the student issues, such as maintaining entrance scholarships and working WITH the Admin and not against them.

To sum up:
VP-Social: Alexandre Chaput
VP-Finance: Maureen Hasinoff
VP-Communications: NO
VP-Student Affairs: YES
VP-University Affairs: Jeremy Stuart

The President Post is next!

The Referendums (1)

The main issue with our election is that they lack the overall accountability that everyone demands in their platforms. For instance, if we were to compare our elections with those held by our city, province, or country, we will find several glaring omissions. For starters, we have very relaxed poster rules when it comes to clarity. Each and every poster should have a line documenting who is responsible for said poster, i.e. "This poster is authorized by Seamus Wolfe"; even if the poster is clearly a campaign poster for Seamus Wolfe. While this may not have an immediate effect on clarity, for posters supporting or against referendums it can help students see past the paper poster and realize the thoughts and motives behind the referendum.

Referendums

Personally, I think we need a new approach to how we decide referendums. I feel it is too easy to get one passed. I would be happy if we instituted a minimum voter turnout for the referendum to pass. i.e., need at least a majority of 30% of students voting. But onto the actual listed referendums!

Ban SFUO Tobacco Sales: While this may seem to be a great idea and will surely pass, we need to stop and think about this. The Pivik already has some high average prices, what will happen if we take away something that in most stores makes up for a majority of sales? And will not selling tobacco at the Pivik actually do anything good? It's not like someone will walk into the Unicentre and say, "Oh Great, the Pivik doesn't sell cigarettes, I'm gonna have to quit!" They are just going to walk the 5 minutes to the Mac's and buy them there, along with the drink and snack they were going to buy at the Pivik. My Vote: NO

Smoke Free Campus: This is more along the lines of what we should be implementing. However, looking at the platform and plan, it does not seem to be as "Smoke Free" as one would think, after reading "Smoke Free Campus". There would still be smoking on campus, just in designated areas. However, in the end this could be a good thing, although I have my doubts about the project's success: the language in the platforms leads me to think that the original plan was a lot harsher against smokers and it was made much more lenient. So if we vote yes and it passes what will the final plan even look like? My Vote: YES

Student Life Services: At the beginning of this post, I mentioned the need for clarity and accountability. I really have no idea the true meaning of this referendum. If you look at the SFUO levy, we have $1.18/$0.64 per year per student for something entitled the SLS General Fund (SLS=Student Life Services). According to the platform, 7 years ago, there was a referendum that created this fund and 4 of our already levied services gained access to the created fund. And according to the platform, this fund is rarely used to capacity. I would like to know their definition of rarely, because it’s only been around for 6 or 7 years, and if it’s been used to capacity even once that would make it 1/7 (or 1/6) which I would not describe as rarely (1/7 is the equivalent of once a week in relative terms). They do say that this will cost us "absolutely no money". My issues with the SLS Fund go deeper than who gains access to it. I think it is a slippery slope. They want to allow access for 6 new services (all currently levied), which would bring it up to 10. What happens when the money undoubtedly runs out, then they start asking for more. And remember, ALL these organizations are ALREADY in our pockets for a levy each and every year. My Vote: YES (but hesitantly)

BON APPÉTIT!: Speaking of in our pockets :). This one I can somewhat support though. I have issues with tier platform, as it does not mention a cost at all, and from reading in La Rotonde, it is going to be $0.75. While I support the food banks and other endeavours such as this, I have problems with OUR food bank. They supported some events this year, like the Hunger Awareness thing. I hope they didn't spend money on it, because I could think of things that are a higher priority to spend money on (FOOD!). According to the platform, the extra money is going to be used to hire a third part-time employee. I would like to see an option where students could opt out of the levy by provided a canned-food donation. In canned food drives where there is some sort of incentive, i.e., admission to an event or the Purolator Grey Cup photo op they run with the CFL canned food can be used as an alternative to money (the Grey Cup event a canned food is the equivalent of a $2 donation). My Vote: YES

The Aboriginal Counselling Resource Elder Service (ACRES): To be honest, reading the platforms was the first I heard of this one. While the platform does not indicate a cost associated with this, I am going to assume there is, since one of the points is to: Be accountable to the SFUO and students who fund its services. While this may be cultural significant, I feel as though this will just a program that is not used by the majority (99%) of students. My Vote: NO (unless it’s free :))

Millennium Villages: This one is NOT on the website, so I am going from memory from what I have read in La Rotonde and the posters :). I will say right of the bat, I do NOT support this. One letter in the Fulcrum conveyed that we should not be told what charities we should support (and then be forced to support them if we disagree!). We also need to remember that next year’s student levy will already be up a whooping $14 for the CFS levy, and this Millennium Village one is slated at $6. So at least $20 more for next year if this goes through and it’ already at a 10% increase over this year (with just the CFS levy). But is it just about the money? Nope. I support charities, and I like the freedom to choose what charities I support and gain a small sense of pride knowing that my contributions go towards programs I like. Do I like supporting villages in sub-Saharan Africa, sure, but right now, I would rather support projects in Ottawa, or even just on Campus. My Vote: NO