The Peak

The battle for votes begins

By Kendra Wong

After a relatively uneventful election period, the Simon Fraser Student Society’s annual executive debate kicked off last Wednesday in the Atrium. The debates for contested positions, however, lacked candidates’ cutthroat approach to winning and relevance to the student body.

While there were four contested positions for this year’s executive board, including that of treasurer, external relations officer, internal relations officer, and university relations officer, all executive candidates were in attendance to present their arguments.

The debate, which was moderated by the Independent Electoral Commission’s Deputy Commissioner David Dyck, allowed candidates to present their platforms, ask their fellow candidates questions, and answer audience questions, in one of their final attempts to gain student votes.

However, the event lacked intensity compared to debates in previous years, as reflected in the considerably lower amount of students in attendance, with less than 20 students present, including the candidates themselves. While all the candidates seemed passionate about their potential positions, it was the fight for internal relations officer in which the most heated arguments between candidates ensued.

President

The debates opened with prominent university figure, Ali Godson, who is running uncontested to be the Society’s next president. Godson, who has experience serving on Senate, the Board of Governors, and the SFSS as university relations officer, claimed the Society needs to work with university administration and other universities’ student unions in order to lobby the government. She intends to stop post-secondary funding cuts and work “in the general interest of students to [ensure] the best education and experience at SFU.”

Treasurer

Treasurer is regarded as the position with the longest lasting impact on the future of the Society. Lucky for students, they have the choice between two qualified candidates, as both Anna Belkine and David Hughes have experience dealing with SFSS finances.

Belkine and Hughes took a more friendly approach during the debates, not asking any hard-hitting questions, each claiming they are just as qualified as the other, and Belkine even commented on Hughes’ “awesome” hair.

Belkine served as the faculty science representative from 2007 to 2008 and SFSS treasurer from 2008 to 2009. She claimed she is running again because she has “unfinished business,” and wishes to “hold the Board back from bad spending.”

She highlighted the main projects she would give priority to including turning the accessibility fund into an endowment fund to benefit disability advocacy on campus, working towards a standard of financial accountability and democracy for autonomous organizations, and help turn the IEC into a group completely separate from the SFSS.

While Belkine admitted that her and Hughes could do that same “day-to-day jobs,” around the office, she asserted her ability to execute large-scale and important projects that “focus on accountability and proper financial governance,” differentiate her from her opponent.

Hughes reiterated his two years of experience with SFSS finances, including his involvement on the Policy Review Committee and the Finance and Administrative Service Committee. His platform strongly argued to make cuts to non-service areas and restore funding to areas that students use most, in order to reduce the SFSS’s deficit.

When asked about the referendum question regarding the terms of the Space Expansion Fund, both candidates urged students to vote ‘yes’, claiming it would give the Society, and therefore students, access to more student space at the Woodward’s campus.

Member Services Officer

The second uncontested candidate was Diego Reyeros, running for member services officer. Reyeros focused on his long-time volunteer experience with the SFSS through sitting on committees, such as the Constitution and Policy Review Committee, and his involvement with clubs.

His platform centred around building a sense of community within SFU, increasing student involvement, and improving undergraduates’ non-academic life.

While he was vague in describing how he would expand the goals of previous MSOs, he focused his attention on increasing the role of Forum, which would “align students’ needs with their wants,” and establish cohesion between SFSS clubs.

External Relations Officer

The debates began to heat up between ERO candidates Kyle Acierno and Samuel Reynolds, both presenting seemingly opposite platforms.

Reynolds’s platform promised to promote “real lobbying, not stunts,” differentiating himself from current ERO, Alysia MacGrotty, who has been criticized for her methods of lobbying the government. He claimed rather than being a “noise maker,” he would meet with TransLink and Minister of Advanced Education Moira Stilwell on a regular basis to promote students’ needs.

Acierno’s platform focused on direct interaction with students to find out what they want and educating students about the challenges of post-secondary education. “I want to make a difference by talking to students [to see] what can be done . . . students can make a difference together.”

During the candidate question period, Acierno questioned how Reynolds would get students involved without using publicity stunts to attract attention. Reynolds rebutted, claiming few students partake in these non-cost effective events, but would instead turn to other sources of public media to create awareness on campus.

Reynolds then questioned Acierno’s “idealistic goals,” arguing that he presented no real concrete plans for change in the immediate future. Acierno asserted that his first goal of getting students involved, raising awareness, and “making them want to help” is the key step before any plans can be set in stone.

University Relations Officer

The two candidates running for URO include Richard Vickery, who ran for the position in last year’s election but was unsuccessful, and another prominent university figure, Arry Dhillon.

Dhillon advertised his relationship with higher-level administration, which he believes will be crucial in implementing change throughout the university. Similar to Godson, he suggested a collaborative approach with the Senate and the Board of Governors to solve students’ problems. He also argued that his position on Senate and BoG would enhance his position as URO because of the overlap of policies, allowing him to make changes with the SFSS and push decisions through all the way to BoG.

Vickery noted his involvement with the Muslim Student Association, the Canadianized Asian Club, the Women’s Centre, and students with disabilities. His platform urged “involvement with other post-secondary institutions [and] . . . putting public policy and students first.”

During the candidate question period, Vickery stated the conflict of interest between the BoG and the SFSS, and questioned how Dhillon would handle such conflicts. Dhillon claimed, should such conflicts arise, he would step aside from the voting process and let others have the final vote.

Internal Relations Officer

The most heated debates were held until the end, between Andrew Fergusson and Panther Kuol.

Fergusson, who is currently running for re-election to serve his third term as IRO, focused on finishing the “most important agreement” between staff known as the collective agreement. He further noted his continued working relationship with staff members, experience with sophisticated management systems, and his capability to deal with on-going negotiations.

Kuol, former IEC chief electoral commissioner, claimed his real world experience, his two years of work with the IEC, and the fact that he is an “outsider of the Society,” would help him “change what has been done wrong.” He would create better working relationships with staff members and ensure the SFSS is providing students the best services for their money.

Fergusson and Kuol also differ in their opinions of renovations to the Highland Pub. Fergusson argued that the Pub’s deficit will not go away and that renovations are still important in convincing students to stay on campus longer, and thus spend more money. Kuol, however, presented a different approach, stating he was against further renovations because it does not attract students. He argued that Pub marketing would increase the flow of students.

Tensions continued to rise during the candidate question period. Fergusson put Kuol on the spot by asking him if he understood how collective agreements worked and how to achieve them. Kuol rebutted stating he would use his real world experience to fight for students and what is fair for staff members.

Kuol dropped the next bomb, asking Fergusson why the IEC’s policies haven’t been changed, despite the fact that the IEC sent their policy recommendations to Fergusson weeks ago. When he replied that there are “no secrets,” and that the changes are being made but they are taking time because he is “following policy,” the debate persisted with Kuol continuing to argue over the moderator’s objections.

Students can cast their ballots online from March 16 to 18.