This blog was created on a whim at 2am.
25 hours later, I can happily state "Mission accomplished."
25 hours.
92 posts.
0 hours of sleep. (In roughly 48 hours)
Dozens of guest interviews.
Over 30 high quality images, all courtesy of Jason Chiu.
Over 150 comments.
Over 40 emails.
UPDATE: In 25 hours... SFUO BLOG got over 300 unique visitors from 19 cities across Canada... and two in the United States. (Houston Texas and New York), 8000+ viewed pages, average stay time on the site: 22 minutes... (Source: Google Analytics)
I enjoyed the interaction. Both with candidates and with readers. I want to thank Jason Chiu for offering his help today... And who probably delivered our biggest scoop. Thank you to the candidates who agreed to join in on the concept. Thank you to readers who decided to comment/email. And finally, thank you to scrutineers, volunteers and other well connected students who kept me informed throughout the entire day.
Thank you all. Enjoy your reading week and thank you for making this experience so memorable.
What is The SFUO Blog™ ?
The SFUO Blog™ is your one-stop website for all of your Student Federation of the University of Ottawa news. We have interviews, debates, podcasts, photos, analysis and insight on everything that happens during these elections.
Lost? Start here.
The SFUO Blog™ encourages you to post any opinions you have, but please read the Commenting Etiquette.
Inspired by Kady O'Malley, Wassim will be liveblogging throughout the elections from
Lost? Start here.
The SFUO Blog™ encourages you to post any opinions you have, but please read the Commenting Etiquette.
Inspired by Kady O'Malley, Wassim will be liveblogging throughout the elections from
Contact information
For any comments, questions, tips or requests, please do not hesitate to contact me:
Email: sfuo@wassim.ca
Phone: +1.819.208.4237 (call/text)
Email: sfuo@wassim.ca
Phone: +1.819.208.4237 (call/text)
Which platform appeals to you most?
Bilingual Debate (video)
Bilingual Interviews (audio)
Renaud-Philippe Garner
Dean Haldenby
Joseph Wesley Richards II
Bilingual Platforms
Official websites
Past Posts
© 2008 The SFUO Blog™ Inc. All rights reserved.
13 comments:
Fuck, amazing. Take that Joey Coleman.
Great job guys, now just wait for the gauntlet that will be the presidential election.
Fantastic initiative - this needs to continue!
Just wanted to say that the voter turnout in my race (Arts BOA) was 13.8% (though not overall...). My prediction was 13.7%. If this were the Price is Right, I would have won the toaster.
But in all seriousness, I really enjoyed this. Throw up a poster or two before the Presidential and BOA by-elections, engage the students as another form of media and it may even move people to the polls.
Wassim, tu devrais discuter des résultats des questions référendaires!
Why is it that the Women's Ressource center got the lowest result of all three?
Are 35% of the student population truly against spending an additionnal dollar to fund a much needed space? Doesn't that display the dire need we have for proper information regarding gender related issues?
I find the results of that part of the vote highly worrisome.
I totally agree! when i heard it, I actually felt disappointed, and then extremely thankful that the yes committee worked so vigerously to ensure they earned those votes.
I think this is a clear indication of the utter neccessity of having such a centre to address the lack or awareness, or even prejudice, towards women's, and gender, issues.
There is a lot of work, and progress to be done, but thankfully the team there is more than up to it! Congrats!
Les Latulippes,
Merci pour votre participation sur le blogue. Je vais tenter de répondre à votre dernier commentaire du mieux que je peux... (Et dans la langue dans laquelle vous me l'avez demandé)
Firstly, it is not 35% of the student body that is against an additional dollar per semester to the Women's Resource Centre. It is roughly 3-4%.
And full disclosure: I voted in favour of the Women's Centre, but I will try to elaborate on reasons why someone would have voted against.
1) There already is a Women's Centre.
The question stated the following: "Do you agree to contribute $1.00 per full-time student and $0.50 per part-time student per semester in order for the Women’s Resource Centre to operate as a service of the SFUO?"
It is possible that some students simply do not want it to become a service of the SFUO. The Centre is running and operating and some might wonder why they would have to pay an additional sum to have it become a service of the SFUO.
2) Why not a SFUO service?
Though this might surprise certain people, many students are unsatisfied with current SFUO services for a variety of reasons. I include myself into this category.
I will give one example, which is not the most problematic, but still shows why SFUO services are not necessarily more effective than University of Ottawa ones. Most directors of SFUO services are not bilingual. That would be unfathomable for U of O services. That alone, to me, would justify a student hesitant to vote "Yes".
3) The "political" aspect
During the campaign, many supporters for this Referendum question stated that it would allow the WRC to be more "political" and take part in SFUO campaigns. Is this really desirable? Should a women's resource centre become a Women's advocacy centre? Are they both one and the same? Should they be? Those are legitimate questions that were not raised during the campaign but that many felt should have been.
4) By being political, you become political
What I mean by that title is simple. By acting as a "Political" body, you get exposed to criticism. That is all fair when it comes to student politicians, but is it really necessary for a "Service" to be subject to political games? Imagine if the WRC decided to support a controversial campaign against/for abortion. (It does not matter which side). And imagine student politicians debating whether "students funds should go to promote political views". Imagine the table at the BOA discussing what we should be doing about the WRC. Is this necessary? Was this the point?
Even less controversial. Imagine a Director of the WRC who does not get along with a member of the executive. Of course we can assume that people put personal differences aside, but seriously speaking, if someone looks at the Pride centre, and the games that were played at the BOA table concerning purchases made by this SFUO service, it is easy to realise just how vulnerable these "Services" really are.
And it goes both ways. Service directors seem to always get involved politically, especially during SFUO elections. A typical "Service director" tradition is to grill candidates during debates for not consulting with them before the campaign. Is this really appropriate? Is this the purpose and mandate of SFUO services?
5) The SFUO does not need the money
Yes. It is only 1$ per semester. What is the big deal right? Well I have become annoyed with these types of referendum questions.
Every student gives 23$ per semester to the SFUO. Per semester. That sum goes directly to the SFUO and has no strings attached. This 23$ does not include any SFUO services.
The SFUO has a surplus of 300 000$ this year. Last year's was well over one million dollars. What is the 23$ for if not to fund services? What is the SFUO doing with these surpluses? And more importantly, how is it acceptable to ask students for more money when the SFUO is rolling in it?
I understand the philosophy behind it. By running a referendum, we are ensuring that it is a permanent levy, that it keeps going strong, that it is not subject to political will, etc. But there is more to this story. Services actually generate... profits. Most services do not come close to using their entire budget. The 1$ is a shiny round number that is applied across the board for SFUO services but that is not at all thought out. Why 1$? Why not 88 cents? The bilingualism centre, for instance, is scrambling to find ways to spend money. I am wondering what other services are doing, but I am assuming they are in similar positions.
The reasoning is simple. If the SFUO were to ask for an increase in their levy, it would most likely be rejected. It is easier to ask students for 1$ for the creation of a service. But enough is enough already. The SFUO has more than enough funds to create these services and still generate a surplus.
6) No clear plan on what they will do with additional funds
The WRC is under funded. Everyone agrees on that point. Fair enough. How under funded? What kind of increase will 1$/student represent?
No one presented ideas on to where this money would go. No one explained to me if these sums would be invested in "resources" such as books and staff, or whether they would go to posters and campaigns.
7) We already pay for this service through our levy to Community Life Services (A U of O service)
Students give roughly 20$ per year to CLS. CLS is supposed to take care of the UniCentre, but they also run the WRC and offer other services. The WRC is funded through a minuscule portion of the levy given to CLS each year. Where will those funds go? In an interview with La Rotonde, Marc Duval, CLS coordinator said they would invest it elsewhere "to the benefit of students". Basically students will keep paying the previous levy to CLS… And CLS will not put those sums towards the WRC. Was this the best strategy to adopt? Would it not have been wiser to transfer that sum and ask for a reduced levy corresponding to the exact sum that was required?
8) Students are tired of referendums.
To a first year student who sees a SFUO ballot for the first time, 1$ will seem insignificant. I remember feeling the same my first year, voting in favour of the referendum questions presented to me, without having heard of them previous to that day.
But as the years went by, I feel that the SFUO looks for reasons to ask students for money. I know for a fact that executives meet to discuss which referendum questions they should submit to students. It is generally assumed that if you ask students whether they want a service, in return for a measly dollar, it will pass.
Well, I, for one, am sick of it. I am annoyed by it. It seems improvised and it seems like a way to make the SFUO surplus grow. Some questions have no bearing (U-Pass, Referendum, Reading Week), thus making students vote on questions thinking they will receive a service... Only to find out a year later that they were hypothetical.
Some students are sick of it.
***
It is easy to refute some of these arguments. I can refute every single one of them. But in the end, these reasons add up for certain people. Not to mention that many students have reasons of their own. For some, one reason will be sufficient. There is virtually no debate on campus, which is usually good for the "Yes" side, but it also hurts them in the sense where if there was a debate, they would be able to answer these questions head on, whereas now there are students that still have unanswered questions.
I also agree that there is a (relatively) large portion of students who are "hostile" to a Women's Centre. I think that is what your comment was insinuating, and it is definitely a factor to take into account when reviewing the reasons for the (relatively) low support to the WRC. But it is not the only reason, and supporters of the WRC should keep that in mind.
***
I think there is a problem with the way the SFUO runs its Referendums. I also think there are simply too many questions, too often. Students are getting the automatic reflex of checking “No”. I think that was a factor for students opposing the non-binding, no-costs associated question of Ombudsman. When you see the ballot and read these referendum questions, some just get the reflex to vote No. Others simply abstain. These are not necessarily against the Centre itself.
I hope I was able to answer your question/comment.
C'est très intéressant ce que tu emmènes à la discussion !
(En passant, c'était moi, Maxime)
J'étais un peu surprise par les résultats, et je suis contente de pouvoir voir le revers de la médaille que tu as présenté. Je trouve que tu as soulevé des points très intéressant, et comme tu l’a dis, souvent réfutable, mais toutefois importants à considérer.
Your example about a campaign for or against abortion is a good one; I don’t think I would want to see that kind of debate funded by all students, since it is so controversial (not to say we shouldn’t have controversial campaigns, but this sort of moral issue is a bit much to take on).
As for the funds, again, it is so surprising that these things haven’t been looked at (unless someone tells me otherwise?) I assumed that this new money would go on top of what they were already getting, but CLS will be withdrawing their share?
Maybe the SFUO should have referendums about the intent, like “Do you want the WRC to be turned into an SFUO service”, and the money would come out of the regular SFUO budget as you said. This time around it was a double question: become an SFUO service, and give 1$ more.
As you said, we can’t necessarily imply that all the no’s were voting against the idea of the WRC in general. Maybe because I had never heard any “no-side” arguments or discussion, I felt those results showed up out of the blue!
Thanks for the discussion, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
C'est très intéressant ce que tu emmènes à la discussion !
(En passant, c'était moi, Maxime)
J'étais un peu surprise par les résultats, et je suis contente de pouvoir voir le revers de la médaille que tu as présenté. Je trouve que tu as soulevé des points très intéressant, et comme tu l’a dis, souvent réfutable, mais toutefois importants à considérer.
Your example about a campaign for or against abortion is a good one; I don’t think I would want to see that kind of debate funded by all students, since it is so controversial (not to say we shouldn’t have controversial campaigns, but this sort of moral issue is a bit much to take on).
As for the funds, again, it is so surprising that these things haven’t been looked at (unless someone tells me otherwise?) I assumed that this new money would go on top of what they were already getting, but CLS will be withdrawing their share?
Maybe the SFUO should have referendums about the intent, like “Do you want the WRC to be turned into an SFUO service”, and the money would come out of the regular SFUO budget as you said. This time around it was a double question: become an SFUO service, and give 1$ more.
As you said, we can’t necessarily imply that all the no’s were voting against the idea of the WRC in general. Maybe because I had never heard any “no-side” arguments or discussion, I felt those results showed up out of the blue!
Thanks for the discussion, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Do some services run surpluses in certain years, yes. Do some services run deficits in certain years, yes. This year the services are exactly where they should be -- at the around eighty percent of their spending to budget. In years past this type of financial control was not in place-- but this year I think you will see that the spending will match the revenue.
For the record, because I do not know where this fact came from, the bilingualism centre is not "scrambling" to find ways to spend money... in fact they have spent exactly what they should have at this point and they will definetly have spent to 100% by year-end. This service is appropriately funded.
As for referendums and their numbers, we looked at the bilingualism centre to see what would be appropriate for funding... this is a comparable... the comparable's budget was realisitic and the size, operations and staffing (largest budget cost of any service) of the WRC is similar.
Referendums give the SFUO a mandate to spend money on certain projects and services important to the students. When budgetted and spent in the proper way this model works quite well. There is still work to be done, but I think we have done better in trying to achieve that goal. No matter how the political landscape ends up next year, we owe to it students to keep on working towards that goal.
Dean:
Thanks for clarifying the general situation. Maybe I was referring to past years where most services were generating more money than they needed. Like you said, this is the first year where measures were put in to avoid that, which was long overdue, but I will still wait to see the final numbers before I give the VP Finance a passing mark.
But I will still take you on your question. I do not want to single out the Bilingualism Centre, or any Service for that matter, as they were all created in this culture... But you are right, Services do have a Budget. And when they realise that they have not spent that budget, they try to organise a large-scale event to spend those sums. "Bilingualism day" for instance. Projects that are interesting, perhaps, but that are still rushed because "the money is there".
When I say scrambling to spend the money, it is not always on ridiculous purchases. It can also be on rushed large-scale events, end of year-end splurges, etc. Maybe I was not clear enough, but I would be incredibly surprised if you would be able to tell me that Services don't sit around and say "We have X thousand dollars. What should we do? We have to spend it before the end of the year." I have been witness to many of these meetings.
Finally:
"As for referendums and their numbers, we looked at the bilingualism centre to see what would be appropriate for funding... this is a comparable... the comparable's budget was realisitic and the size, operations and staffing (largest budget cost of any service) of the WRC is similar."
It is this type of cookie-cutter solution that bothers me. Why would the Centre for Students with Disabilities have the same exact budget (minus indexation) as the Bilingualism Centre, Pride Centre, Peer Help, etc. If anything, this shows why Services have surpluses. Because we assume that they all have the same needs and prefer to "Err on the safe side." In reality, certain services should have a larger budget than others. If anything, there should be budgets presented before we ask students for a levy, to show that there is an actual plan on the use of those sums.
Something that has never been done.
I think it is important for the service to be run by students (i.e. SFUO) rather than the university (i.e. CLS).
The main point is that whatever criticism you might have against SFUO services (their budget is too high / too low, they are too much / not enough political, employees should be more bilingual, etc.), these criticisms can be addressed within the democratic structures of the SFUO which is an autonomous organization run by students.
By contrast, CLS is often acting like a pawn of the central administration and its only role is to make sure student-paid resources (i.e. the university centre) is not controlled by students.
---
Of course in some past years there were just too many referenda, and too many of them were SFUO levy increases through the back door.
I'm not sure if it means the idea of giving separate levies for services is a bad one. One the one hand, services are often safe spaces for minority or disadvantaged communities and their budget should not be increased and cut at the will of the yearly elected executives (let's be honest, some groups are clearly underrepresented at the SFUO executive and BOA). On the other hand, it is important that services are also accountable to the constituency they are serving.
I think it is possible to find creative democratic forums to reconcile the need for independence from the elected representatives and the need for accountability to the individual students for who these services exist.
Jason Chiu,
"Fuck, amazing. Take that Joey Coleman."
Did I miss something?
-------
Amazing job guys, I am impressed.
Wassim, you did more blogging in one day than I ever have. The posts were great.
Jason, nice photography.
Glad to see you had good traffic and that you were able to get visits from across the country.
-----
I am thinking of flying to Ottawa for the federal budget - we will have to grab drinks this Saturday if I do.
-----
Again, well done.
Coleman,
First, your blog won't let me comment on your comment.
Second, what did you miss? The entire blog. As one of the first people to hear and write about the SFUO Blog exclusive I expected you to be weighing in on posts, not shopping for schools at the auto show.
Third, if you're coming to Ottawa, pack shorts. It's warm here.
Fourth, thanks for the comments.
jasonchiu
Post a Comment