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!

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.

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.

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.


2 Responses to “Senatorial Liveblogging – Jan 19”

  1. January 19, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    Hey, Another Senate candidate here. I just wanted to sign on and apologize for not making it to the debate today. I’m currently in bed, with out a voice, trying to fight off a serious cold. =(

    I wish I could have brought a bit of gender equity to this debate!

    But I will definitely answer all question asked of me if you want to look me up on facebook or send me an email. Alyssakoehn at gmail.


    Alyssa Koehn

  2. January 21, 2010 at 4:15 am

    The importance of the governance issue needs to be discussed outside of closed Board. The Senate is probably the best mechanism to bring the discussion more light, as the University Act clearly states it needs to be consulted.

    Some rationale (second half of post): http://blogs.ubc.ca/ubcinsiders/2010/01/19/debate-senatorial-quarrel/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Voter Funded Media

Blogathon Button
January 2010
« Dec   Feb »

RSS RBT Twitter

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License, except for the exclusive commercial use of participating in the Voter Funded Media competition.

%d bloggers like this: