what are they afraid of?

Please remember to vote for the Radical Beer Tribune in Continuous VFM.
– – – – –

Recently the Ubyssey published an editorial denouncing the Engagement Levy, which, while I once considered it “the sad little idea that nobody liked” has gathered enough Council steam and popular support to get over six hundred signatures on its petition and a Council resolution placing it on the ballot, after being passed through a quorate meeting of the late, lamented ahRERC (ad hoc Representation and Engagement Reform Committee). They claim that the fee is undemocratic. This is silly – we’re putting it to a vote, under the structures that were themselves democratically ordained by students, under regulations that are set by a democratically elected provincial government, which itself is governed by legislation passed by a democratically elected Legislative Assembly. I think the first undemocratic link in the chain is our dear old Lieutenant Governor, but I hardly think that the Engagement Levy is a good reason to throw out Responsible Government in the Canadas.

My personal feeling is that they don’t like us. They don’t like the VFMs, because it forces everyone to be better. If the Ubyssey wasn’t being nipped at the heels by UBC Insiders in analysis, or by AMS Confidential or the Devil’s Advocate in lulz, they could just kick back and be the Ubyssey that they were when I arrived at UBC – one that I couldn’t be bothered to slog through twice a month, let alone twice a week. Now, hardly an issue is put out that I don’t read cover to cover. I even read the sports reporting – it’s just that good. But they were made good by competition. And that competition was created by VFM. Whether students care about what the AMS is doing or not, they still reap the consequences of the actions of the organization. It is in both the AMS’s and students’ interest to incentivize voting, and the Engagement Levy does just that.

I like the fee because it is self regulating – in times when the AMS is particularly engaging, voter turnout will go up, and revenue will decrease. This will reduce the strain of engagement related projects on the sorely strained general revenue, and inherently recognizes the value in a student who takes an active role in the AMS. It provides sustainable funding for a program which has made the AMS more open and transparent, and has allowed a multitude of viewpoints to develop – viewpoints from left to right that would not exist without the support of the VFM program.

The Ubyssey clearly didn’t read the provisions of the referendum, which clearly establish regulations and provisos for the use of the fund, including making sure that an ongoing source of funding for VFM exists to create free market competition in media at UBC. Either that or they’re scared.

I think it might be the latter. Pierce Nettling, Ubyssey writer, complained to the Elections Administrator and VFM Administrator asking them to not allow Foxtrox into the competition. He went as far to call the Foxtrot writers monsters akin to the Myspace killer. The ridiculousness of this comment aside, it belies a desire for ideological purity in media by elements within the Ubyssey that is nothing less than an abhorrent assault on freedom of speech and conscience.

Foxtrot should have the right to say whatever it wants, just as UBC Student Media should be able to say whatever it wants. It saddens me that they aren’t competing in One Time VFM, as it means that, in their own passive way our media driven media censors won out. But keep on blogging, Foxtrot. Stay golden.

Senatorial Liveblogging – Jan 19

Please remember to vote for the Radical Beer Tribune in Continuous VFM.
– – – – –

12:35 – And, we’re done. Some candidates impressed me. Others very much did not. Especially those ones who DIDN’T SHOW UP!!! (I will give full credit to Alyssa Koehn, who apparently is laid up in bed and was reading the liveblog anyway.) And nobody won Bingo – oh well, two beers for the next race!

12:33 – What would you be willing to do to help individual students with individual problems? Johannes would refer you to the AMS Advocacy Coordinator. Ryan agrees with Johannes, but would also bring it up in Senate.

12:27 – A Tribune question about university rankings. Nader supports rankings, and thinks that admissions criteria are a way to improve rankings. AJ talks about the staff/student ratio. Johannes gives a very broad answer, reflective of the fact that he’s been living this for the past year. Joel gives a similarly knowledgeable answer. Ryan does not think it is important to look at our ranking as an international university, but rather focusing on the quality of teaching in the university – well done, sirrah.

12:21 – The candidates are asked what committees they want to sit on…

I’d love to sit on them all!
-Joel

12:15 – A question from veteran Senator Geoff. It’s one of the hand raising things. Also, who knows what’s on tomorrow night’s agenda? Ryan doesn’t know, but he’ll be at the meeting. Nader doesn’t know what’s on the agenda, but he says that this is emblematic of the problem. It’s a good political answer, but doesn’t really mean much. Spencer maintains his demeanor – on the attack. It’s working for him.

I don’t really care about these matters often.
-Gary

12:14 – AJ says that the Senate should be presenting a governance plan to the BoG. The RBT says NO!

12:09 – Governor Duncan asks a question on governance again, and wants a clearer answer. According to Johannes, the senate should bring the academic perspective to the debate. In my particular opinion, neither the candidates nor Mike are wholly right in this case – the issue on academic zoning is going to be important for the Senate, but a strong focus on this by the student senators would also be misdirecting their energy if this was a major driving focus of their year.

12:04 – Ryan actually addresses the question, outlines the rationale, and agrees with the policy. Way to make a stand, one I agree with to boot! Spencer also takes a stand, but doesn’t think that the policy should be implemented until a broader consultation can take place – kind of loosing sight of the trees for the forest, in my opinion. Johannes and Joel… say something reasonable, particularily Joel’s comment on structurally disadvantaging underrepresented groups.

12:00 – Open questions – Mr. Lougheed asks about Policy J-50, which gives Alberta student a 2 point boost in terms of admissions. AJ basically bullshits on the question, but mentions that he would prefer broad based admissions. Nader wants to … blah blah blah … doesn’t answer the question either. Gary actually disagrees with someone, which is a first in the debate. Although, he doesn’t really answer, and goes overtime.

11:58 – Johannes mentions that the Education Committee is putting together a list of student rights. I love the committees.

11:52 – I miss AJ’s moderation… Come back, AJ. The question on academic discipline and Senate Appeals Committee is dry. To move on to something more interesting, the beer that is the prize for Buzzword Bingo today is Pranqster Belgian Style Golden Ale. I generally like Belgian beer best. One gem from the question:

I probably wouldn’t want to sit on this committee, because I would probably be too strong against some of the students.
-Nader

11:48 – Ryan is passionate about the exam hardship issue. Spencer says that the trade offs are too high, in terms of a longer exam period and earlier exams. Johannes pivots into an ode to consultation, and Joel mentions that the University does try and schedule things to avoid hardships. He mentions that perhaps the definitions could be improved.

11:45 – A question on Exam Hardship. I am having real problems hearing the moderator.  AJ just went up in my books by putting a couple of the buzzwords in, including “A Place of Mind!” Nader doesn’t think that exam hardship is a priority issue. I don’t really think he’s accurate in terms of how much this would affect the university. Gary, at least, is honest about the fact that he didn’t know about this issue.

11:43 – Ugh, this was a terrible question, with all the candidates basically saying that this is actually a Board issue.

11:39 – There is a question on zoning. I don’t really get why this was a Senate question, as the Senate doesn’t do governance. Points for those candidates who refer to the place where this decision process will actually be taking place, the Board of Governors. Johannes does mention that good academic zoning, which the Senate does do, would help in the discussions with MetroVancouver.

11:34 – Introductions: AJ is running for senate because of personal reasons, not political ones. Nader is running because of issues, and he has solutions. Gary wants to help people adapt to university life and … help people get better grades. Ryan … is anti hack. Grrrrrr. Spencer has a polished speech, and cute hair. Johannes talked about his experience, and so does Joel.

11:32 – The candidates are arriving. They are … all wearing basically the same thing. Also, all the candidates here appear to be male. Gender equity fail. The amount of pinstripe shirts with one button open is simply mind boggling.  Apparently only seven of the twelve candidate are here.

Senate Buzzword Bingo

Please remember to vote for the Radical Beer Tribune in Continuous VFM.
– – – – –

It’s back, by popular demand. Debate Buzzword Bingo is here, and all you need to do to participate is find me and ask for one of the sheets at the debate. I’ll be the tall one in the flat cap and the RBF shirt. The prize, as always, is BEER.

Also, check out the liveblog of the event later today. UBC Spectator is also hosting a ‘liveblog’, though I really would, after reading through them, call them more of a ‘chat room’. If you want analysis with a healthy dose of snide, the only choice is the Radical Beer Tribune.