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