Vote like Nick and win: SU Elections 2007

Monday, 5 March 2007 — 8:42pm | Studentpolitik

I apologize to those of you expecting a clever and indirect post title akin to my Students’ Union endorsements in years past. This post is being syndicated on Facebook, see, and I need people to take notice.

So, in case you attend the University of Alberta and are at all taken by surprise: polls are open Wednesday and Thursday, 7-8 March. Ballots are preferential: you rank your candidates from top to bottom until you hit “none of the above,” which actually means “none of the below,” as a vote for NATB means you would rather have an invalidated election and a subsequent by-election for the vacancy instead of one of the remaining candidates. I exercise this option often, and so should you.

While I’m not as up to the minute on SU issues as I used to be, which means I won’t be quick on the trigger to call out the candidates for lying about the extent of their accomplishments, I’ve done my share of research and you should listen to me. Without further ado, I’ll begin with the referendum/plebiscite questions and then proceed to the electable positions.

Coke Plebiscite: I’m no fan of monopolies, but I will be voting Yes in support of a renewal of the SU’s exclusivity agreement with Coca-Cola. On principle, when a company gives you stuff in exchange for a concession that’s going to happen anyway, take it. For example – to be (only somewhat) hypothetical – if some diamond company wants to buy us a new engineering research lab with their conflict diamond money for the price of putting their name on it, the result of saying Yes is that you get the building, and the result of saying No is that you don’t get the building. There is no ethical impact either way, unless you really, really put a lot of stock in making yourself feel better at the material expense of the student body. Similarly, with the Coke plebiscite, a No vote has no effect on Coca-Cola’s corporate practices, or even its presence as a campus monopoly. It does mean that the SU’s access to a whole lot of money disappears. Is this organization here to serve students or not? Vote Yes.

I’m going to do something very unorthodox here, and direct you to the thorough coverage already provided by Ross Prusakowski, who has kindly saved me the effort of doing the research on what the relevant numbers are and how the money is spent. Given the disingenuity and misconduct of the No side throughout (and preceding) the campaign season, they’ve earned a slap in the face.

U-Pass Referendum: I am voting Yes. I voted No to the U-Pass plebiscite in the 2004 election, but circumstances have changed, and it is time to go back and evaluate all of the relevant questions. Will a Yes vote produce binding results? Yes. Is the exemption scheme sufficient? I believe so. Is the price acceptable? About as much as it could be: I don’t imagine that they could ever get it under $75/semester, so one should only vote against this to throw out the deal altogether, not to hold out for a cheaper fare. Is public transit in Edmonton and the surrounding area worth paying for? Actually, it’s a shambles, but the added revenue and incentive for investment will only serve to establish better transit service for all Edmontonians.

The only reason to oppose this would be on a matter of principle: if you are fundamentally against the idea that the many should pay for something for something that will only be used by the less-than-many. While I typically hold that position myself, this is a special case simply because of the sizable benefits, and because of a certain circularity that would be broken: individuals are primarily as dependent on vehicles as they are because the transit system does not meet their needs. Solve the latter, and you address the former. If you’ve already paid for a U-Pass, that’s a positive incentive to get your money’s worth. Consider this: I estimate there is already massive fare evasion on the LRT on the part of students who just need a quick hop down a few stops, especially those who live in residence and are already overcharged elsewhere. ETS may as well be empowered to cover the costs. Vote Yes.

President: There are no fewer than four joke candidates for President: Chuck Norris, Ursa Minor, the disembodied voice of George Rho, and Cody Lawrence. With one exception, none of them are substantial enough, or even funny enough, to merit a rank preceding None of the Above. (I am rewarding Ursa Minor with third place for effort, a formidable Myer Horowitz performance, and my personal vested interest in a robot-friendly campus.) We are left, then, with a choice between two candidates of considerable experience and erudition.

On one hand, we have Michael Janz, who is, on paper, the model populist imported from Lister Hall (who will, therefore, probably win) – and that quick description perhaps disguises the fact that he has been, over two terms, without question the most effective LHSA President I have seen in my five years on campus. Moreover, his skills are transferrable. Lest anyone mistake him for a token Student Life-centric residence candidate à la Jordan Blatz, Janz is not an outsider to the SU’s operations: he has the relevant breadth of experience on Council, committees and student groups.

On the other hand, we have Amanda Henry, who has two years of SU experience in the Academic portfolio and all the requisite connections and bargaining positions already in place. Her year as VPA has been, to my knowledge, unproblematic. I don’t question her grasp of how the SU works, or her willingness to take a strong bargaining position in relation to the University to ensure student initiatives and ideas get through the hoops.

So it comes down to platforms. I don’t expect all of Janz’s initiatives to unfold: TA language proficiency comes up every year and nothing has been done, and I don’t see that we’d be much closer to a usable, profitable Powerplant even with a massive study space conversion, as much as I like the idea. At the same time, I don’t think anybody ever expected headway to be made with respect to the Aramark contract either, and Janz was the guy who managed it. His commitment to student groups is a major point in favour, and his focus on small, achievable initiatives instead of idealistic lobbying is understandable.

Henry, however, has shown that advocacy at the University level can work. Her platform is nothing if not robust, and acknowledges that many of her opponent’s more local initiatives can be delegated to the SU’s hired staff. She is experienced in navigating the apparatus above the Students’ Union in the capacity of a representative and negotiator, not only in relation to her opponents, but even most of the past Presidents I can remember. I am wary of her being the more confrontational of the front-running candidates, but it may just be part of the election rhetoric, and I do believe she will produce results where others have failed in the past. A Henry-led SU may be a status quo SU, but an improvement nonetheless in practical terms.

My ballot: 1) Amanda Henry, 2) Michael Janz, 3) Ursa Minor, 4) None of the Above/Below/Others. With one of those three, the SU is in good hands, and I hope whoever wins incorporates the ideas of the other two.

Vice-President Academic: Wow. I’m not sure what to say. I knew my elementary-school busmate Bryant Lukes was throwing himself on the hot coals crotch-first without any pants on, and I suspected he would deliver the standard speech about how having no SU experience is an asset because he’s a fresh face with an outside voice (there’s one every year). Fine – that kind of error is usually remedied by a crushing loss in the election followed by a disillusioning year or two on Students’ Council.

But when he started blithering about, well, virtually everything outside the VPA portfolio up to and including the survival of the human species, and did so with utter seriousness and conviction, his speech gravitated beyond the surreal and into the domain of the legendary. Identifying his primary credential as being a Dion delegate at the Liberal leadership convention was the icing on the cake. I feel sorry for the guy: The Gateway is going to eat him alive.

Bobby Samuel’s Myer speech was not as strong as it could have been, but from his campaign materials, goals and SU experience, I can tell that he is a typically deserving, if not spectacular, VPA-winning candidate. I also admired his tact in not burdening (dignifying?) the Lukes campaign with a question at the forum. He even managed to take his opponent’s oddball question (“How will you address climate change?”) and bring it back on topic. He knew what he was running for, and he knew why he was there. Here’s a hint: it wasn’t because some ex-hack he asked thought Pierre Trudeau might have been good in the position.

My ballot: 1) Bobby Samuel, 2) None of the Above (i.e. not Lukes). I expect this to be settled on the first ballot, and I’m really curious how big the margin will be.

Vice-President External: Dollansky has the experience. Under preferential balloting I’m willing to throw my vote at the joke candidate as long as it’s good enough, but Dollansky also took on his opponent directly, and delivered Soundwave a decisive defeat. He would be a winner any year.

1) Steven Dollansky, 2) Soundwave. And I’m curious as to how the margin of victory will compare to that of the VPA race.

Vice-President Operations/Finance: So let me get this straight: a guy named Gamble runs for the Finance position, and doesn’t leverage the obvious. For shame.

That said, the VPOF race is relatively straightforward: if you know what the hell you’re talking about, and you know what the budget looks like, and you don’t seem to have an established record of stealing money from student groups, you might just be qualified. By this metric, one of these candidates is not like the other. Eamonn Gamble knows what he’s dealing with, even if he doesn’t have a clue what to do with it; Jesse Hahn doesn’t. I’m going to park my vote with experience. I know I did exactly the opposite last year when I voted for Cunningham over Chapman and Lewis, but let’s ignore that for the sake of this argument. If Jesse Hahn doesn’t know enough about the SU to respond to questions about his lack of experience with a simple “see Chris Cunningham,” he clearly hasn’t done his homework. I should note, however, that I have extreme reservations about Gamble – as with Janz, his Powerplant plan forays deep into the woods of let’s-try-this experimentation – and I’m only placing him first because I still prefer him to the other guy. Even if Gamble doesn’t get anything done, he would be the preferred status quo caretaker.

1) Eamonn Gamble, 2) None of the Above (i.e. not Hahn).

Vice-President Student Life: Like Steven Dollansky, Chris Le would probably make a solid run for my vote even if this election were properly contested, making this an easy acclamation. Chubby Puff Ball didn’t show up.

My ballot: 1) Chris Le, 2) None of the Chubby Puff Balls. (The real race, as we all know, is between Chubby Puff Ball, Soundwave, and Bryant Lukes.)

Board of Governors Representative: I’ve been given assurances that Prem Eruvbetine’s past performance on Students’ Council has been stellar, if sporadic. Of the three candidates, he is the one with the most credibility in terms of his background in student politics. To me, this race is between him and Adam Guiney. Whereas Chiswell doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and his grasp of the position extends to the usual clichés about how as an undergrad rep he’ll cheer for undergrads over research, Eruvbetine and Guiney have specific ideas about what to bring to the Board level and how to bring it.

I was tempted to give the edge to Guiney, in spite of his horrific posters: he came off at the Myer forum as the better spoken and better researched of the two, which bodes well considering what the position entails. I also have concerns about Eruvbetine’s passive stance on how the Board of Governors rep should communicate with students, which came up in a forum question: it seems to be reducible to website feedback and an open-door policy in his office. But after sifting through the campaign literature, I remain convinced that Eruvbetine is the one with the more comprehensive record and the one most likely to show up prepared to be effective. The initiatives he intends to bring to the Board are also broader in scope, yet achievable. To him, student advocacy is more than just a money issue. Guiney won the Myer Horowitz, but after looking at his limited campaign materials, I’m not convinced he’s even wholly literate. Chiswell isn’t a factor.

1) Prem Eruvbetine, 2) Adam Guiney, 3) None of the Above (i.e. not Chiswell).

And just for the heck of it, I’m going to rank Myer forum performances: 1) Chris Samuel (U-Pass Yes) for possibly the best speech since Mustafa Hirji’s eviscerating U-Pass No in 2004; 2) Steven Dollansky, for answering Soundwave’s challenge in style; 3) Ursa Minor, for one of the more elaborate joke candidate performances I’ve seen, though the stilted and incomprehensible question to an absent Chuck Norris fell flat. Honourable mention to the memorable Bryant Lukes, because if this was all some kind of sick joke, it was brilliant.

Between Chris Samuel’s speech and Chris Jones’ public admonishment of the forum questioners for being so blatantly planted, I think we’ve seen the last hurrah of the legendary Hack Club 7. For the first time since its inception, it wasn’t quorate at the Myer Horowitz. Next year, it is likely that its only attendee will be Gateway Business Manager Steve Smith, who sat in the shadows today and presumably manipulated the proceedings from afar. They went out with a bang, though, and it’s a fitting end to an era.

Previous:
Next:

submit to reddit

2 rejoinders to “Vote like Nick and win: SU Elections 2007”

Say something interesting: