Many students like to ask question during a debate so that the candidates are held accountable the following year to their promises. Another good reason to ask a question during a debate is to directly compare what all three have to say.Due to the limited amount of time we had during the debate, many questions were left... un-asked.
All candidates have agreed to publicly answer any questions students might have. Eliz has asked a question on students with disabilities that I will copy in the comments section of this post. Please feel free to post your questions/comments and in theory, candidates should respond throughout the day/night.
UPDATE 19h59: Part I of the debate. Part II of the debate. (Thank you Zoom)
Photo courtesy of Jason Chiu. The SFUO2 Blog™ exclusive.
43 comments:
(From Eliz)
The question:
As president, you are the go-to position for any incidents that crop up during 101 week (as the constitution stipulates). The incidents include but are not limited to issues of harassment and discrimination. The president then assembles the 101 week council to decide on the course of action following such incidents.
As the former coordinator of the Centre for Students with Disabilities during 101 week, I can say that a variety of discriminatory situations were created that excluded the full inclusion of students with disabilities into the introduction to the university experience. While some efforts had been made, it is important to have a president who recognizes inaccessibility in its expansive and particular forms.
Inclusivity and diversity look good on paper, but knowing and identifying discrimination against this (and many communities) is central to a responsible President.
Some of the responses of the candidates on other issues trouble me.
On the U-pass, when Renaud suggests that walking is a solution, he fails to recognize students with mobility-related disabilities, or blind students who have quite a job just navigating snowy streets.
On the lack of posters, the other candidates fail to have an outreach strategy geared towards deaf students (how do they go to a website that they don't know about? not everyone, I'm sorry to say, reads the sfuo blog or the sfuo webpage)
On the creation of a central information board, not everybody is privileged to have the sight to see such things.
If the president is the first point of contact during one of the most important recruitment tools (101 week) of the fed, where friendships and common interests form, how are you going to ensure beyond mere phraseology and tokenism that you will take seriously the systemic exclusion of this and other constituencies?
On International Women's Day, I do not mean to downplay the various issues surrounding 101 week relating to womens issues and safety, but disability is ignored in ways that many people are not even aware of. Ableism crops up subtly in our responses to other issues. When someone's access to an event requires them to be lifted, do you consider this harassment? Is it discriminatory when the accessible spaces at a concert or event are only at the sidelines?
To the candidates: how will you ensure that you understand disability issues and recognize discrimination and harassment as they occur against people with disabilities?
Please, do not just say, "I'll talk to the CSD and they will let me know what's what" or, "I'll hold a consultation". An anti-ableist perspective does not happen through token conversations and attendances. It is a commitment to a social model of disability. How will you actively involve yourself in these issues? I am not excluding involvement at the centre, I am just saying that token responses will not be considered an adequate response to the otherwise longstanding and systemic discrimination.
FYI, a shameless plug for CSD, and an invitation to anyone who may be interested (especially the candidates: we would just LOVE to see you there on Monday)
Bonjour à tous,
Laissez nous vous montrez comment se déroule une soirée accessible au bar! Nous avons une compétition de jeux vidéo Wii, avec d'excellent prix et de la nourriture accessible. Le tout se déroule le lundi 10 mars, de 21h à minuit au bar 1848, votre bar étudiant.
Hey All,
Come on out and let CSD show you how a bar night is done! We have a Wii
competition lined up with amazing fantastic prizes and some awesome
accessible food. It will be on Monday March 10th 2008 from 9 pm- 12am at
your campus bar 1848.
Virginie Corneau St-Hilaire
Service Coordinator - Coordonatrice de Service
Centre for Students with Disabilities - Centre des Étudiants Handicapés
To JWR2:
On what sources are the statistics cited in your platform based? Are you absolutely sure that "90%" of students never engage with the SFUO? Also, this "status quo" you mentioned... the SFUO currently funds several services that directly target minority or disadvantaged groups on campus. Is this the "status quo" you seek to reject?
To all the candidates:
1. What, in your opinion, is the role of the president within the SFUO and the SFUO executive?
2. Describe your previous experience in leading a team made up of people with different personalities and viewpoints. What is the most challenging aspect of leading such a group? What strategies do you use to foster cooperation among team members?
Thanks for the question, Eliz:
Although you say I should not say it, as president I will need to have formal discussions with CSD, as well as all persons with disabilities on campus (as well as other interested parties). Up front, this is a commitment that I am prepared to make.
In my view, the first step of getting actively involved, is sitting down and talking. I know they say talk is cheap, but how else are we going to get a clear idea of the issues that are effecting us?
If I can be honest for a second, there are probably many specific areas surrounding this issue of which I am not aware.
As president, I, and I believe all the presidential candidates would agree with me on this one, would set a personal commitment to personally inform themselves on the issues that concern persons with disabilities.
When we do this, we will realize that these are issues are ones not just of a certain sector of our student body; rather, they are "our issues" - issues affecting us all, collectively.
I concur that we need to do more than getting involved in the centre (CSD). I would look at other large universities, and see what they are doing in this regard...as I always say, there is no copyright law regarding good ideas of public policy, so let's stop acting like there is one!
I would work with our governmental actors, to ensure full compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) (passed in 2005), and engage in strong lobbying to ensure the University of Ottawa achieves the necessary objectives before the year mandated by law (2025).
You ask two other questions, that I will take the time to respond.
1) When someone's access to an event requires them to be lifted, do you consider this harassment?
The legal definition of harassment precludes this act from being qualified as such (I'll refer to s. 264(2) of the Criminal Code). I do agree that it is blatant discrimination, and is absolutely wrong.
2) Is it discriminatory when the accessible spaces at a concert or event are only at the sidelines?
Yes, I believe so, and we have to do everything possible to eliminate these ableist actions. This involves two qualitative actions:
a) Lobbying the university, city, provincial, and federal governments to ensure that this does not occur (and playing a role in educating the public at large of these discriminatory acts)
b)Doing what we can on campus, to ensure that OUR events/concerts, etc. provide the ideal model, where other universities can look to for inspiration.
Conclusion:
To wrap up, I would just say that your comments as well as my personal contacts with family members who are disabled, have made me realize the extent of ableism in our society.
This is akin to discrimination based race, sex, or sexual orientation, yet it is true that it is often forgotten, which worsens the problem.
I am a lobbyist at heart, I believe in the fundamental principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the provincial human rights codes. Section 15(1) of the Charter precludes discrimination based on "mental or physical disabilities".
Sections 1 - 9 of the Ontario Human Rights code, specifically mention equality of treament in services, goods, and facilities for persons with disabilities.
Those who know me best, will call me a "pest" or other colourful words that are not appropriate for this blog.
The point I will make is that as president, I will fight against the discrimination of all types. This is the cause of my life, fighting for justice everywhere, and the central reason why decided to go to law school.
And in the words of Martin Luther King Jr,"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
Creating an anti-ableist society is a daunting task. Just like trying to create a non-racist society. Some would call it impossible, even. However, we must never stop fighting to achieve those perspectives.
To reiterate, I believe it does start with listening. Hearing what concerned parties have to say, and then acting.
I have a record of doing that. I have listened to the concerns of residents for the past two years, and am now in the process of drafting the first Residents' Bill of Rights. I know what it takes to rally people around a common goal; to push towards a sound vision, and bring about a working coalition to ACT on these issues.
We need a true leader, a person with a clear vision in order to do this, and I want to be that person. Hence, I am running for the presidency of the student federation.
I thus ask you, as well as all students at the University, to join with me in this campaign, to put an end to the status quo, and to say loud and proud, "I want a New Day, and A New Way"!
Thanks for the questions, "the Pirate":
1) I did indeed claim that 90% of students are not involved in the activities of the Federation. It is obviously not 90.0000% (and thus an estimate), but these numbers are well documented (through a combination of turnout at events, voter participating rates, etc).
2) The central theme for my campaign is fiscal responsibility. Check out my blog at www.jwr2.com to look at my principles for governance.
I want to bring about a systemic revolution, where we REFUSE to accept low voter participation rates, REFUSE to allow our surpluses to be spent without a detailed Surplus Management Plan, and REFUSE to reach out to the students not involved in SFUO activities. THAT is the status quo that I seek to put an end to.
-------
1. Being the constitutional nut that I am, I would first refer you to Bylaw #3 of the SFUO Constitution.
More generally, the SFUO president is the leader of the federation, and the ultimate student advocate. He or she must have a sound vision for the future. That is why I have a concentrated Three Point Plan for the Student Federation, because I do believe that leaders have to have priorities.
The president must be capable of inspiring students, and captivating them. Reaching out to the students who feel excluded (being in the law faculty, I have first hand experience on this point), and leading with certainty and conviction to provide a better tommorrow for our students.
We might disagree on specific policy ideas without being disagreeable. As I said at the debate, I am aware that some recently elected executive members might not agree on some of my ideas. So, we need someone as president who is willing to compromise, form a working coalition, to push forward a strong agenda.
2.
I cite my 4 years experience in the Residents' Association of the University of Ottawa (RAUO), which comprises almost 3, 000 students. I have held different positions in this association, and now I am the Director of Residents' Affairs. Let me describe just one specific example of issues I have had to deal with:
During the summer of 2007, I sat on my couch with a hot cup of cocoa and decided to go line by line through the RAUO constitution. I came up with, by September, 10 or so, significant constitutional amendements that I wanted passed.
Obviously, not all of them were passed. People have different viewpoints and ideas, as you previously mentioned. Most often though, I was able to get the people involved to understand the principle behind the idea - this is what is important.
This requires communicating effectively to attempt to persuade people to adhere to your view, OR in the alternative, compromising on your proposal, all the while ensuring the principle is respected.
Despite resistance from many residents during Residents Assembly meetings, I was able to push this agenda through, and most of my proposals were adopted (in some form).
Cooperation amongst team members is fostered with fundamental respect for different viewpoints, and through clear communication of one's ideals and values.
Again, thanks for the question!
To JWRII:
Being the 'constitutional nut' that you are, how to you reconcile:
Your commitments to both 'fiscal responsiblity', viz reducing spending of services and programs, bringing about a U-Pass Opt-Out, and making OPIRG Opt-In rather than Opt-Out,
With the fact that each of these was brought in by student referendum, in their current capacities, that is to say, the budget of every service, the U-Pass in its current form, and OPIRG as it stands, and can only be removed by such a referendum again?
Would you intend to hold multiple referenda, one for each service, asking students to each reduce their contribution by a matter of cents, or do you have an alternate plan to bring your promises into action?
I appreciate your response.
Thanks for your reply JWR2! (Sincere, not sarcastic)
I still object to your supposedly "well documented" statistics on student participation.
This is a question for Garner and Richards (I'm sorry if it has already been addressed, but I was unable to attend the debate due to classes):
You both clearly feel strongly about the direction of the SFUO and have some criticisms of the SFUO and passionate ideas about improving the SFUO, but where were you a month ago? Why didn't you run for the presidency in the original elections? Why are you only stepping up now?
Thank you Joseph for your detailed response. I would have liked to bring it up during the in-person debate, but CFS and bilingualism was the order of the day.
I will wait to go on further on the matter until the other candidates respond, so as to avoid stepping in too soon.
I would also like to know where Garneau and Richards were a month ago?
awesome two last questions
JWR2, just more of a point on clarification as to your target group for the opt-out:
Aren't the economically disadvantaged students benefitting from a reduced cost on buss passes? Seeing that the real opt out target group would be students who can afford apartments near campus and students with access to cars. Now this isn't to say that with in these groups are not students at an economic disadvantage.
As a student who leaves in the summer to work so he can pay for his tuition the following year and lives near the outskirts of the city, I see a affordable buss pass as a huge benefit to my finances, a resonable savings that can go to already overpriced textbooks or other regular semester costs.
Just to come back to my original question to make it clear: who are you targeting for your opt out suggestion?
Being a student who takes a bus daily, and seeing the massive numbers of my fellow students doing the same, is the target group for an opt out really that large?
Much thanks in advance. Comments from other candidates are also welcomed!
Perhaps, Ted, the referendum was not perfect. Would you ever concede that?
Students were given an option, and that option was better than no option. However, many students feel that the option is not fair. Therefore, perhaps the current situation should be rectified.
Or, in your logic, we are indeterminately bound to all decisions that are made by referendum? And, even if it required another referendum to modify it, why is this a problem?
Democracy works that way, last time I checked...
Just noticed that JWR2 is the only candidate who answered questions. And you keep questioning him rather than waiting the other candidates' answers. JWR2 shows he's willing to communicate with students, and he's sincere when he says 'I want to hear from you'.
When you don't put posters because you want to go to talk in person with the students, and do not answer their questions...
When you think you have so many people behind you that you don't have to answer...
Anonymous,
I will answer any questions; in this forum or in person.
Eliz,
Thanks for the question! I will be the first to say that 101 week and some activities/trips on our campus are not completely accessible (sometimes not accessible at all).
As chair of the Accessibility Committee for the SFUO, I believe it is extremely important for all events to be accessible to all students. There are funds available to student groups and associations that allow them to make their event accessible through the accessibility fund (whether ASL/LSQ interpretation or an accessible bus).
Although I do not think it was intended, I agree with Eliz that the exclusion of some students from their full university introduction is unacceptable and needs to change. We need to recognize that we cannot discriminate against students with disabilities, just like we cannot discriminate against any other group.
As President, I will ensure that we eliminate discrimination of any kind. I believe that there are solutions to accessibility discrimination, in particular:
-A comprehensive accessibility by-law will be a new part that I would like to introduce to our constitution.
-This by-law will include the CSD Coordinator as an ex-officio member of the social roundtable to ensure accessibility.
-Mandate accessibility requirements
-Working to ensure that the University of Ottawa makes all of its events accessible.
-Working to ensure that the University recognizes it needs to find ways to make its classes accessible during the winter months.
-Adding ant-discrimination (inlcuding accessibility) and sensitivity training to the orientation of all executives, board members, employees and volunteers.
In addition, I have asked Virigine, our CSD Coordinator, to go to the next social roundtable to discuss with the incoming VP Socials our accessibility fund, how to make events accessible and what it has to offer. ALL students should be able to attend and participate in ALL facets of their student federation.
I will ensure that we understand disability issues and recognize discrimination as they occur against people with disabilities by adding members at large to the accessibility committee (in order to make the committee more diverse) and creating a more active committee that recommends accessibility measures to the SFUO and lobbies the University.
Merci pour l'invitation Virginie-- je suis excité pour cet événement!
Wii!
Accessibility by-law....what a fantastic idea.
No...
What an AMAZING idea!
I look forward to working with the elected candidate on that idea.
The role of a President is much more than just the smooth operation of the federation—
The President is responsible for finding out exactly what our vision is and then leading the advancement and improvement of our vision.
The President is responsible for finding common ground and fostering cooperation within the executive.
The President is responsible for being the master coordinator of the SFUO who knows what is going on at all times and is responsible for filling the gaps wherever they may be.
The President is responsible for helping all executives with the projects that are important to students.
The President is responsible for ensuring that the SFUO and a student’s education are accessible and without discrimination.
The President is responsible for lobbying all levels of government for the best interest of students.
The President is responsible for creating cooperation between the SFUO and other student groups, and working with them on certain projects.
The President is responsible for holding the university accountable on all measures it puts in place and standing up for what students believe in.
The President is the one ultimately responsible for all events, campaigns, businesses, employees of the student federation. Basically every facet of the SFUO.
Being President is more than just being captivating and inspiring, it is about working hard and putting students’ interests ahead of your own. I have worked extremely hard this year and will continue to do so if elected President. I have worked within an executive and directly with the President. As VP Finance you work closely with all executive members' portfolios-from human resource to budgets to finance, it has been a pleasure to work with all executive members this year. The parallel between this position and the President's position is clear-as the President of the Federation you must work closely with all members of the executive to ensure that things get done! I have the leadership and experience to ensure that the SFUO runs in the right direction and our vision gets implemented properly.
This year I have led the SFUO Accessibility Committee, the Finance Committee and the Money Roundtable. I look to the Money Roundtable’s revamping of our by-law 6 (financial controls of the SFUO)—I worked with federated body finances to revolutionize and bring clarity to this by-law. Although they were all VP Finances, their viewpoints on finances came from many different backgrounds (a collage of students from different faculties). Of course there were differing opinions when it came to certain parts of our exchanges, that is what is so important to teamwork—positive conflict... it allows you to look at all possible scenarios and avoids the dreaded “groupthink”. But the strategy is to find common ground. I am a trained student mediator (2003) and can recognize where there is common ground and how we can use consensus to bridge gaps. In February 2008, this by-law passed with the unanimous support at our board.
FROM BECKY:
I am also very interested to see the responses from the candidates to Eliz's question, and I have one of my own :)
Some may have noticed a few of us circulating with free cupcakes in the Unicentre today and at the debate. These were courtesy of the Women's Studies Student Association, to celebrate and raise awareness for International Women's Day.
As the VP Academic, I would like to know what considerations will be given to improving the safety and inclusiveness of SFUO events throughout the year, especially in light of the unfortunate and unnecessary incidents that happened on our campus and many others during the first few weeks of the school year.
We have foot patrol, we have the Women's Resource Centre, we have support for the Step it Up campaign and a Student Advocate(/centre for equity and human rights).
But during certain events, the female students of this campus (and some males as well), are still vulnerable. Especially during 101 week.
How will you work to create a safe and positive environment for women and all students on this campus?
I would love to hear your thoughts/opinions on this matter, as well as on the following:
-WOMEN ONLY GYM HOURS! Pam was a supporter, let's keep the momentum going!
-More non-alcoholic events, like movie nights, craft nights, dance-offs, etc. use your imagination.
-More female bands. Please. They are out there, they rock, and they are just as fun as the boys.
Thank you gentlemen, if you wish to contact us further you can email us at: wssauottawa@gmail.com
(Website: http://wssauottawa.googlepages.com/)
I would like to address the question concerning the last elections.
Earlier this year, I was involved in two theatrical productions of the Theatre Department. I had practice 5 to 6 nights a week, this did not include line memorization, physical work and voice work. Therefore, I was unable to present myself for the elections despite my convictions. I had a previous engagement and decided that I needed to hold to my word.
I hope this answers any questions concerning my absence in the last elections.
Safety should always come first. As for the events that happened at the beginning of the year, unfortunately I think that it was due to a lack of clarity with regard to our By-law 13. The SFUO wants to give the federated bodies and associations independence when it comes to running events, however, where does that independence begin and where does it end? The answer is safety and respect for one another. It is our responsibility, as Executive members and as the President to ensure the safety of his or her student population. In modifying the by-law (as is being done right now) we will ensure clarity, where it is the responsibility of those in charge of an event to act, where it is just as much the responsibility of those in the SFUO Executive to act as well.
But, we need to take it to a new level as well— safety risks for students on campus have not gone away. We need to continue to build our awareness campaigns and use our services to do this (like Peer Help Centre, Women’s Centre and Foot Patrol to name a few)—this is why it is important not to cut service spending. I will also ensure that we increase the amount of safety ambassadors we have this coming 101 week.
I will continue to lobby for women only gym times. Exercise is a healthy part of life and we cannot discriminate based on convenience.
I think that we need to expand our social events and work with OPIRG to make sure their alt 101 students have an awesome university introduction as well!
I agree that we need to diversify our band choices… this can and will be easily be done!
What amazing ideas you have for accessibility for all you have Dean.
Renaud: thank you very much for answering my question. It may sound like an antagonistic question, but I truly believe it is an important question that needs to be asked in the case of a by-election.
I respect your dedication in honouring your commitments!
I'm still curious to hear from Joseph though...
@ Dissapointed I was Elected
The discussion here isn't regarding me, or my election, or even the U-Pass. It's for posing questions of the candidates.
If you do care to discuss the U-Pass, the legitimacy of SFUO elections, and other sundry topics, I would be glad to in another venue - particularly with regard to your U-Pass concerns. Since we're still working on the program, more input is always appreciated.
To answer Eliz,
I believe that all students need to be treated in a fashion which respects their intrinsic value as human beings.
I agree wholeheartedly with you when you say that it is difficult to spot discrimination in a system that hardly recognizes those needs.
More, I understand that I cannot be an expert on the subject and that I have no personal experience to bring to the table.
For these reasons I have stated severals measures that recognize this problem and the greater problem that the president is but an individual.
One, an indentity committee whould be able to push forward motions that touch on this issue.
Two, monthly assemblies will allow students with disabilities to affect the decision-making process and reach a larger crowd. This will also result in greater exposure and the ability to fight a system which is structurally indifferent to the needs of certain students.
Three, I believe that change needs to be bottom-up. A disability awareness week would bring this struggle into the limelight and allow for creative ideas and solutions to be brought forward. I believe that thousands of students confronted with a problem can invent more solutions than I can alone, or with an executive.
Now to answer certain concerns. I did not say there should be not bus-pass, or a preferential price. I simply stated that I am opposed to any partial op-out clause. This would allow for students with reduced mobility to access the more affordable pass, whilst being democratic and allowing a full op-out for others.
*For the sceptics concerning the economic aspects I invite you to read Tim Hartford's The Undercover economist.*
As far as 101 week goes, I believe in tandem-teams. If students do not consider activities from the perspective of a disabled student, then plans need to be presented to a consultation group. More, students with disabilities need to be an active part of elaborating activities and innovations which can include all students and help build relationships and a community spirit. I believe many students would be intrigued by activities that would allow them bond whilst discovering another perspective on life.
In conclusion, I believe that the best way to include and impower students with disabilities is to allow them to affect the system which is neglecting them. I will not claim to have all the answers, but I believe that by listening, working and especially funding initiatives put forwards by and for those concerned we can do the most for the common good.
I hope my response is satisfying and that from it some good may come.
Renaud
Some questions were asked, and the reason that I have not quickly responded, was that from Friday nights to Saturday nights, are holy days for me.
Regarding why I did not run in the first election:
I too had many prior commitments including finishing an important project with the Federation pour les communautes francophones et acadiennes du Canada (FCFA). Additionally, two important mid-terms fell right into that period as well.
Since I am supposed to graduate this year, those commitments were especially important.
I made my views in many circles known however, during that time.
Then, when the by-election was announced, and I looked at my schedule, there was nothing too hectic. As indicated on my website, I formed an exploratory committee, talked with some advisors, and realized that the federation was truly in need of a strong fiscally conservative candidate in the upcoming elections to offer a new vision for the Federation.
I also realized that I could not keep complaining about the status quo, without offering intelligent, pragmatic solutions.
And so I'm here, campaigning for the presidency of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa.
This is indeed an important question, and I am happy to answer it.
Will respond to the rest shortly...
To "the newfie", and regarding targets for the opt-out:
In my opt-out plan, I am attempting to strike a balance between maintaining a cost-effective system and providing equity to students.
I've talked to many students, and many residents in particular expressed their concern over the mandatory nature of the opt-out.
I've lived personally in residence for four years, so I definitely understand where they're coming from.
These students are concerned because they don't use the bus that often. Obviously, if they are FORCED to have a U-PASS, they are surely going to use it, but based only on necessary usage, many residents would not gain any necessary benefits.
Now, some will say: Well who is going to opt-out if it is only 50%, and at the end of the day, you don't get a bus pass?
I know that $125 goes a long way for a disadvantaged resident, in terms of buying groceries or other necessities. When you're living downtown, and all amenities are within a close range, then bus services are not all that necessary.
Please read my recent blog post (www.jwr2.com), which describes in detail my objectives in this plan.
In short, I want to see a 50% opt-out for all students, with an additional 100% opt-out for severely disadvantaged students.
My concern about only having an 100% opt-out for disadvantaged students is that it will most likely be a very restricted category of students that would be eligible for this.
What about lower-middle class persons, who might not be 'impoverished' per se, but are not far from that point?
For that reason, I support a universal 50% opt-out in principle, and as President, I will fight for that.
The idea of a U-Pass opt-out is simply unfeasible at this point in time.
Period.
An informed candidate would know and recognize this.
--
"To Becky"
I agree that security is a must.
We all aware of the increasing threats that are occurring on campuses and schoolsacross North America.
I would specifically lobby the provincial government to go above and beyond the $1.9 billion that it promised in an infrastructure fund that included a dedication to campus safety.
A greater part of the University's budget could be used in this regard as well. Better coordination with Protection Services would be ideal.
Regarding women only gym hours: I think this is a very interesting idea. I support it in principle, if it were accompanied with men only gym hours.
I am all for more non-alcoholic events, and the ideas you mention are great!
As for female bands, this is simply an issue of equality...I support it whole-heartedly.
The key in everything mentioned is really consulting with and listening to the students for their ideas. An emphasis in my campaign is grassroots leadership (down --> up, and not up --> down).
The Federation must be a reflection of the vox populi, and I would be committed to doing so, in order to promote a fairer, more tolerant campus. This would also create a Federation that students feel is more inclusive and relevant.
Thanks for the question.
To Ted Horton:
As President, I will initiate a review of the services you mentioned.
As I indicated at the debate, I am not adverse to democracy. The previsions of By Law#4, 4.17 are there for a reason, and I would definitely consider using them.
Following my belief in grassroots leadership, I would not seek first to have these referenda approved by the BOA, but rather through petition - 1500 students or 5% of student body, whichever is less.
I do believe in principle that OPIRG should be opt-in rather than opt-out, but for the time being, I would support increasing visibility for the opt-out option.
You are correct that multiple referenda would be needed to accomplish some of my objectives, but I would only do that after (a) conducting an initial review, and (b) using the petition provisions of 4.17 to add legitimacy to this grassroots movement.
My overall platform of fiscal responsibility is based on this fundamental notion: The SFUO is the sacred guardian of EVERY DOLLAR of the student levy, and where that money is not used in a judicious fashion, then something needs to be done. It seems as if we are so reluctant to propose a referendum to reduce the student levy, but gung-ho on measures that would increase the financial burden on students on the long-term.
And so, government gets bigger and bigger, students get poorer and poorer...and the world turns and turns. The SFUO loses all credibility when lobbying the provincial or federal governments regarding the desperate financial plight of students, as the student federation continues:
(1) to pass year after year referenda to increase student fees (knowing they will pass because of low voter participation)
AND
(2) to post record surpluses
This is unethical and immoral.
Some people might be scared of inititating referenda, but I am not. I believe in democracy, and I will defend the provisions of the constitution to the end.
More transparency and accountability are needed, and a clear and published Surplus Management Plan (a hallmark of my platform) is thus essential.
Under my administration, we will turn the page, and embark on a new era of fiscal responsibility, transparency, and participative democracy.
Mr. "the pirate",
I appreciate your question. Here is my answer:
I believe the president is first and foremost the pivot point for the students. The president must represent the interests of the students and incarnate the support they need to defend those interests. That being said, he/she is a member of the executive and is not only a leader for the students but a leader for his team. And the keyword here is "team".
The reason behind this is quite simple: leadership is about serving the needs of others, not our own. This is why I have consistently talked about the necessity of serving the common good. If the president is to lead the Student Federation, he/she must forget his/her own interests and must always aks himself/herself: "What do the students want? What do the students need? What will serve their common interest?" Therefore, the president's only legitimate claim is to be the number one proponent for the betterment of student life. And the only way a president can know these interests is by directly consulting the students: lending them an ear and giving them a voice. This is why I believe in direct democracy.
What is the difference between good management and good leadership? "Good management is doing things right. Good leadership is doing the right thing." Thus, the president must take a strong stance and ardently defend what is just, what is fair, and what is democratic.
As far as experience goes, I would like to give you one example among many:
Whilst I was in high school, I served two terms as a Student Trustee for my school board. Just ike a president, I was a spokesperson, a member of a team, and an agent of progress. However, unlike a president, I had no direct power. As I worked with my school board, teachers associations, student associations, the ministry of education, parents, and stakeholders in education I learned that one must lead by example, that one must inspire change, not demand it, and that the single most important tool is communication. I learned there is a time to speak out and, more importantly, a time to listen.
I also learned to take into consideration other peoples perspectives. I learned humility. I learned responsibility and integrity.
To lead a team, a president needs all these qualities. He needs them to gain the respect of his team mates. By building on respect, we can overcome our differences. A president who respects views other than his own, a president who encourages his team mates to take active roles, a leader who celebrates his team mates accomplishments: this is the president that need not fear diversity within his team. This is the president I aspire to be.
To "the newfie",
I would like to comment on the U-Pass debate.
There is a target group. But regardless of the numbers that make up this group, what I am defending is the principle that every individual should have the freedom of spending his/her ressources as he/she sees fit. We cannot begin a numbers game, where the majority consistently tramples the rights of the minority. We cannot deny an individual his/her right to choose an alternative mode of transportation.
Consider this: a student who walks to school is now being forced to pay for a service he/she will not use. More importantly, although public transportation is environmentally friendly, without an opt-out, the Universal Bus Pass systematically punishes those who have chosen to make even less of an environmental impact by either walking or biking. Suppose a student has just purchased a bicycle for that purpose. The U-Pass would invalidate his choice and double his expense. Also, on the subject of more fortunate students, it is still discriminatory to deny them their right to spend, as they please, their ressources.
The only argument for the "Universal" Bus Pass is the power of negotiation. However, we can still attain a less expensive bus pass with an opt-out. Currently, those students who need a bus pass have one. Those for whom it will never be a reasonable option, will not buy one. Therefore, the only way for OC Transpo to expand their market share (which is their goal) is to diminish the price enough to attract those who would like a bus pass but who presently deem it too expensive. We can offer them this extra market share while still protecting the rights and freedoms of all students.
I am part of the group of students who would like a bus pass but who cannot, at present, budget for one. Thus, the U-Pass would benefit me personally. But that is not the question at hand, nor is it whether it will bring some good to the students. The question is whether we can unjustly impose this cost on all.
RPG
You say that we need an ethics committee to look certain events. You cited the issue that happened during september and you stated it was unethical but constitutional. you stated that the ethics committee would watch for issues like that.
My question is, what will your committee do? will it just write reports and thats it? or will it by pass the constitution and make a decision, which would then question the purpose of a constitution to govern?
So which is? a useless committee that will have little to no effect, or a committee that will overturn the highest governing document, the constitution which that in itself is unethical?
To ramy s.:
I'm terribly sorry to disagree with you but legal matters (constitutional law) and ethical matters are not the same.
As I've already mentioned, I propose monthly assemblies, which would much resemble your own annual general meetings. During these assemblies, the ethics committee would submit detailed reports on questions brought to their attention and give their recommendations for action to the assembly. Those accused of unethical behaviour would be given the chance to understand the charges against them, to defend themselves and to suggest an alternative course of action to the assembly. Then, the assembly would vote.
This process has several advantages over the constitutional measures:
(1) This process allows a near limitless set of solutions. This is very important because the usual constitutional measures advocate black and white policies; either the behaviour is deemed unethical and is punished by impeachment or it is deemed acceptable and is not punished at all. With an ethics committee different solutions could be proposed that deal with the grey areas which are so hard to define and predict in advance. For example, the unethical behaviour may not be so severe as to warrant impeachment, however the guilty party could be asked to serve community hours with a student group or service on campus.
(2) The ethics committee would allow the focus to be shifted from the functioning of a group to the essence of what it represents and its responsibilities. I'm sure no member of PIDSSA was unaffected by the impeachment proceedings of last year and that the trust within and outside the organization was shaken by it. By allowing an ethics committee to concentrate on the values we seek to promote and the trust we seek to build, we put forth the image of a responsible and accountable student association.
(3) Had an ethics committee been in place last year, perhaps an alternative solution, one less severe and more constructive than impeachment, would have been considered. This would have allowed PIDSSA to maintain the trust of the students inside and outside the association. The trust of the students is a lifeline in student politics. If the students cease to trust their organizations, the organizations cease to be effective.
My proposal for an ethics committee is by no means an attack on PIDSSA. It is simply a solution to the shortcomings of a constitution.
In closing, I would like to remind everyone that there is an ethics committee holding our federal representatives in check and this does not belittle our constitution. After all, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney is appearing before it as we speak (ie. type).
That's Mrs. the pirate, by the way...
Thanks to all candidates for your answers.
Thanks to RPG and JWR2 for their answers on the U-Pass and my concerns, Dean... would you contradict anything that they have said as part of your argument in favour of the U-Pass?
To "the newfie",
Thank you for asking me to join into this debate.
If we add any type of universal opt-out system (whether it is 100% or 50%) then we will not be able to negotiate a proper price for students (which was mandated by the February 2008 referendum).
The 50% opt-out will be expensive to administer. Someone has to administer the opt-outs.
I understand Renaud-Philippe’s argument; however, I respectfully disagree with him. I look to the following examples:
we all pay for social benefits (take public schools as an example). Some of us choose not to have children, therefore not benefitting from this directly. We still pay for the service offered. Should citizens be able to opt-out of this?
We all pay for services of this University (health services levy for example), but not all of us use them, should we be able to opt-out of those services as well?
The point is that we are a community and it is important that we think like a community. I don’t use everything I pay for, but I pay the fees and if I need those services they are they for me to use.
There will be a 100% opt-out for those in financial distress. Although, a lot of students with financial difficulties will find this to be helpful for their finances, as they can now choose to live further away and save even more.
Students in residence will be able to use the bus pass for a lot of things: groceries, shopping, workplace, visiting friends, movies, and seeing Ottawa and Gatineau. This will really open up the area for them. In addition, they will continue to benefit through the rest of their university (whether they live near to or far from campus).
Overall benefits:
Economic Benefits
• An 18% income tax rebate is offered to all public transit users (this would include the UPass)
• A mechanism can be created to subsidize the program for severely under-privileged students
• Improves low-cost housing options by making it easier to live further from campus
Environmental Benefits
• Reduces green house gasses
• Reduces smog
• Encourages sustainable transportation practices
Social Benefits
• Provides more access to the city
• Public transportation is a safer mode of transportation than vehicle use
• Alleviates housing pressures in the community
• Reduces traffic congestion
Thank you Dean and Joseph, putting women's concerns on the table is important, especially in a male dominated election, and I am happy to see that both of you are very willing to listen to our concerns.
For clarification:
Joseph-the women only gym hours are for women who do not feel comfortable using the facilities in front of the men, whether for religious or personal reasons. For example, in first year I went to check it out and while doing some stretches was whistled at repeatedly amidst some lewd comments. I left and haven't been back since. This experience has been repeated with many women on campus, as a primary factor in why they do not use the gym, and thus why women only gym hours would be beneficial. Most men do not have this sort of experience, which is why men-only gym hours are not created, however, "unfit men" hours are sometimes commissioned for those who would rather exercise in a more supportive environment instead of beside the next coverboy for Bodybuilders.
That being said, we are all for equality, and if men are truly feeling marginalized by the athletic women out there then by all means, men only gym hours should be created as well, but not just as a tit for tat response to women getting something they require.
Also, Renaud I would like to hear your comments on the question as well, I think you may have missed it. Thank you :)
Becky,
I sent my response directly to wssauottawa@gmail.com. Perhaps you could post-it if you like, I sent it in last week. It was, I believe, the first question I answered and I sent it directly to the mentioned address.
Thank you,
Thank you Renaud, just checked the account this morning :)
Renaud's Response:
To the Women's Studies Student Association,
i would like to open by stating that I strongly believe in the intrinsic value of all human beings, and that no criteria of distinction should be used to bring disunion and conflict into what unites us all.
For starters, I believe in granting specials rights to the minorities, the marginalized and the disadvantaged, as I stated today. I encourage, nay, support and urge more participation, showcasing and celebration of women on campus. Frankly, I have never attended very few rock shows by choice, but I would definitely attend one that celebrates women who are passionate and talented.
As far as concrete measures, I would want a better lighted campus for safer circulation in the evenings. I would encourage the temporary hiring of professional security firms for special events for which extra security is needed. The well-being, physical and emotional, of all students is priceless.
As mentioned in my platform an anti-stress center can answer the demand for non-alcoholic celebrations and activities and the promote the use of alternative gatherings. More, I believe that there is a need for a more open culture and an Identity committee can address the issue of female identity on the campus and the obstacles or difficulties presented by the status quo.
I sincerely hope that I have been able to answer you questions in a satisfactory manner.
Cordially,
Renaud-Philippe Garner
Wow, I just wanted to give a little thumbs up to Dean for his comment concerning the U-pass. It is all too easy for us, as students, to forget that we are a community or a mini-society of sorts, and to forget that cooperation and social support are essential to our collective success. Thanks for reminding us of exactly that! I think that was one response that showed the spirit of leadership!
Post a Comment