|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
| uws online Feds election forum 2003 (Ryan Chen-Wing) |
Contributed by: uws archive on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 09:35 AM CST
|
This is an archived story posted by Ryan Chen-Wing. You can view the original
here. Post questions for the candidates for different positions to answer. While andidates are welcome to answer these questions directly, uws will send the best questions to the candidates for them to answer.
Below are listed links to each candidates answers to a uws election questionnaire.
Candidates for President
- Dan Colquhoun — Feds is a corporation. I'll make sure we get better management, less politics, more agreements, and more for your money.
- Andrew Dilts — To effectively communicate with students about the issues that matter most to them, and provide leadership in resolving those issues.
- Chris Edey — Providing opportunity to students, I want to provide opportunities for better housing, more democracy and for a better federation.
- Alex Matan — Helping students get the total university experience they deserve.
Candidates for VP Administration and Finance
- David Capper — I want students to see where Feds fees are spent, and how they benefit from the spending of this money.
- Tracy Haynes — I’m dedicated to improving student life by means of fiscal responsibility, business expansion and growth, and strong leadership.
- Robert Robson —
- Rob Schmidt — I will help you do what you want by making Feds' businesses relevant to you.
Candidates for VP Education
- Liam McHugh-Russell — I have a coherent vision for Education, for defending it at Waterloo, and the experience to help make it happen.
- Aaron Lee-Wudrick — I will: minimize non-tuition costs; ensure maintenance of academic quality; and build better dialogue between students and CECS.
Candidates for VP Student Issues
- Leo Dominguez — I want students to be proud. To be proud, we must be involved. To be involved we must be informed.
- John Fedy — Creating new means of communication, providing information to students in an effective and efficient manner in turn raising awareness of campus activities.
- Janna Hickson — Helping students do what they want by recognizing their needs and efforts.
|
| |
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 10:10 AM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Kangaroo. You can view the original
here. The links in the story don't seem to be working, at least not for me.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 01:02 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by from the curious. You can view the original
here. For any candidates:
What is your view on deregulated tuition? Do you think it is fair that some student must suffer a 15% increase every year and others only 2%?
Do you think all tuition should be deregulated?
In your position - how would you ensure that university remains accessable to as many people as possible? Do you see this as a priority?[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 02:13 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by J. Ryan Stammers. You can view the original
here. Feds has received an annual budget windfall of $80k. This money can ONLY be used for the creation of a new executive position and associated costs. What would be the new job title? Briefly describe what this new exec would do.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 04:38 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by still curious. You can view the original
here. David Johnston gets a little Leggatt-fever and proposes to the Ontario gov't that he would like Waterloo to be a test model - where ALL tuition in ALL programs would be deregulated. (Note - this is what happened at Queen's last year).
What would you do? Would you oppose this or support it?[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 09:57 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Alex. You can view the original
here. With rising mid-east tensions - incidences of censorship have occured at both Concordia and York univeristies. With this in mind - are there circumstance under which you would prevent an event (mid-east related or otherwise) from taking place, or posters from being posted? [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Saturday, February 01 2003 @ 11:32 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Alex Cassar. You can view the original
here. In the fall - I asked the executive and my fellow councillors for a definition of a FED service. What I thought was a straight-forward question has resulted in little more than blank and confused stares in terms of a response.
One ticket - Matan, Hickson, Schmidt - has advocated for greater club and service funding.
My questions:
For all candidates - do you believe "services" to be more important than "clubs"?
If yes, what is the dividing line between a "service" and a "club"?
If no, will you advocate for a reclassifation of services as clubs?
Thanks,
Alex Cassar
Arts Co-Op councillor
alex@feds.ca
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Saturday, February 01 2003 @ 11:38 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Alex Cassar. You can view the original
here. One your goals is: "Continuing to Orient Feds’ Services towards the Future"
Can you please explain what this means? [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Sunday, February 02 2003 @ 01:02 AM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Matt Strauss. You can view the original
here. Whoa!
Edey, Capper, and Fedy are all planning student
Matan, Schmidt, and Hickson, are (or were) all engineering students
Dilts, Haynes, Dominguez, and McHugh-Russel have all been OCD leaders.
I think that really damages the credibility of these elections. No wonder there's low voter turnout, if I want to vote for a non-engineer or planning, non-OCD candidate, where do I turn? How am I supposed to believe that any of these candidates can reach out to all students and UW admin, if they can't even reach out of their own faculties and frosh groups to form a cohesive ticket?
With tongue only half in cheek,
Matt
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Sunday, February 02 2003 @ 10:25 AM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Danielle J.. You can view the original
here. Your life as President is busy and hectic. Please rank the following major student issues from 1 to 4, 1 being your highest priority, and please give your reasoning behind it, and what your plan of action is.
The issues are:
- Deregulation
- Universal Bus Pass
- Incidental fee referendum
- Bombshelter Pub and Federation Hall closings
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Sunday, February 02 2003 @ 03:54 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Jesse Helmer. You can view the original
here. Liam,
I posted a question for you over at feds2003.ca. I am posting it here so that you have a better chance of seeing it.
In your platform on feds.ca, you write, "Much worse, in order to make ends meet, the university [UW] has felt so cornered by the paucity of public funding that it has fallen to accepting tainted private donations that compromise academic integrity, as we all saw in the C# fiasco."
Question: Can you please provide a list of the "tainted private donations" that UW has accepted to date? Thanks. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Sunday, February 02 2003 @ 04:17 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Anon. You can view the original
here. There are a lot of good ideas from all the candidates. In the end only one for each position gets elected. Do you see good points in your opponents' platforms that you would work towards achieving if you won?
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Sunday, February 02 2003 @ 05:31 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by big man. You can view the original
here. i find it interesting that many of the new candidates say that they would look at getting the feds there own liqour licence. Do they actually think that the feds have not looked in to this before? There are 3 reasons why the feds could not obtain there own liquor licence
1. contracts that prevent the feds from holding it. The university must hold the liqour licence.
2. the univeristy is the landlord for the space and could designate it for other use it if the licence was granted for the feds.
3. Why applying for a liqour licence it is put up for review for the community. The university being considered a neighbour the the facility could log a complaint against the licence. Being the university the licence would be squashed.
witht that being said the feds and the uni must work together in order to get the problem solved[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Sunday, February 02 2003 @ 05:58 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by big man. You can view the original
here. i have just finished reading the lastest imprint edition and cannot believe some of the things that i am hearing.
Dan made numerous points on the the bar issue that are just plain silly. He states that he would not have closed the bomber for food service. Why would you want to run a business that would be operating at a loss at all times? Ground zero just sells food and look at the struggle it has to be a viable business. Why have two businesses that essentially provide the same service operating at a loss? The bomber makes its money on liqour sales not on food.
Second you obviously do not know the circumstances surrounding the fed hall management situation. My question for you is to what degree do you think that uni admin could help out the management. No one in the university runs a bar. What makes you think that some joe schmoe from the university would know how and what its takes to make a bar viable. Having worked at fed hall in a student management position let me assure you that the best people to run that place were the student managers. The student managers have worked there way up through the system and know how everything works. By putting a uninformed and unqualified person in charge would not help FED at all. It would make it only worse[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Sunday, February 02 2003 @ 06:11 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by big man. You can view the original
here. Many of you discredit the actions taken by the current feds exec on the issue of the bars. i am curious on what actions you would have taken in this situation. i would like to hear what you would have done, not what you wouldn't have done.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Sunday, February 02 2003 @ 06:11 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by big man. You can view the original
here. Many of you discredit the actions taken by the current feds exec on the issue of the bars. i am curious on what actions you would have taken in this situation. i would like to hear what you would have done, not what you wouldn't have done.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Monday, February 03 2003 @ 03:22 AM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by with-held. You can view the original
here. Wow, look at these guys. Looks like Edey's the only candidate for President that gets any sleep.
Candidates in the Feds pres race -- committed or crazy? Little bit of both, no doubt.
Get some sleep, boys...
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Monday, February 03 2003 @ 10:57 AM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Tamara Levine. You can view the original
here. Chris Edey is the most intelligent, committed and enthusiastic individual I know. I can not think of a better leader for President. Many of you may think that this is an obvious and biased statement coming from someone who seriously considered running on the same ticket. The reality, however, is that my respect for Edey preceeds by desire to run with him. I am writing this letter despite objections by Edey and others that it will appear to be biased campaigning because I want to clarify why I chose not to run for VP ed and inorder to share with you the Edey I know.
I first began to consider running for VP ED last summer while working with Chris who was completely committed to the idea by early May. Andrew Dilts and Chris both asked me to run with them at about the same time. Although I greatly respect Dilts, I had already had a close working relationship with Edey and felt confident that we could work well together both through the election and in the following year. In August I told Edey I would run with him. My selection of Edey's ticket over Dilts is not a testament to our friendship. (Dilts I hope you can forgive me). I simply felt Edey was better for the job.
In January, a few days before the all candidates forum, I came to realize that I did not have the time or energy to run and that perhaps, Harvard or Sussex were better options for next year.
I will never foget how Edey reacted when I told him about my desire not to run. We were sitting in the ES coffee shop with John Fedy and Dave Capper and I said, "Chris, I respect you more than anyone else in the world, if you need me to run with you, I will, I made a promise and I will keep it. But I have come to realize that it would be better for me to drop out." Although Edey clearly realized running without a full slate would weaken his campaign he said "I can not think of someone I would prefer to work with for next year but your well-being is my first priority. I completely understand if you can not run." This is what I admire most about Edey - his commitment to friendship and his selfless interest in the well-being of his friends.
Everyday that I watch the campaign I wonder whether I made the right decision. I wish that I could be up there supporting Edey, Capper and Fedy. I can not be there on stage debating beside them but I can say that I strongly believe Edey is the best candidate.
I first met Chris in May while working for the Canadian International Development Agency. We worked together doing research, going to meetings, and developing policy documents. He seemed to be a very intelligent, fun loving individual with a desire to make a difference in the world.
The first thing I noticed about Edey was his knowledge of current events both at Waterloo, and around the world. Everyday he read several newspapers, chatted about world politics, school issues and FEDS. I do not think any of the other candidates who know the issues as well as Chris. He has made knowledge of Waterloo his priority for the last year.
Chris is also passionate. He is fundamentally committed to improving our University and our world at large. He believes that more people should be aware of what is happening around them and the decisions that are being made that affect our lives. He is running for President not for his own ego gratification but because he truly wants to be a strong representative for student interests. He believes in promoting a student voice, in ensuring affordable housing and in getting people involved.
After working with Chris for over a year, I am in a good place to say that he is well qualified for the position of president. He has a diligent work ethic. He is innovative and creative. He has integrity and keeps all the promises he makes. He has never left a project or work unfinished. He is organized and incredibly hard working (has even been in school full-time, while working for CIDA, writing for the Imprint and being in various positions). He is careful, however, only to commit himself to a reasonable number of tasks so he can complete all with quality and he does not allow work to take away from his humanity. He knows how to make anyone laugh, how to strike up a conversation, and how to have a few drinks and have a good time. Most importantly he has the rare combination of genuine humility and confidence required for a good leader.
That said, I hope everyone makes an informed decision about who would best represent their interest.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my decision.
Cheers
Tamara[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Monday, February 03 2003 @ 05:14 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Rob Ewaschuk. You can view the original
here. Candidates,
First, yes, I'm associated with Team Orange. These questions may be biased in their favour since they all know me, but this is not intentional.
Second, these are some haphazard questions. Please don't feel obligated to answer them all to satisfy some appearance of being a good campaigner. Answer those that interest you and that you think you have something interesting to say.
Anyone who feels like answering,
How do you feel about people posting under aliases on uws?
Rate the following in order of importance to your campaign:
- posters
- imprint coverage
- talking to people
- participating in uws
- reading uws
- election fora
- discussing strategy with your ticket-mates (if applicable)
- discussing platform with your ticket-mates (if applicable)
Compare and contrast "Being fresh and having new ideas" vs. "Having experience and knowing the right people". Which is better? Can you have both? What do you have, what does your ticket have?
Ticket-people,
What is your biggest weakness as a ticket? What is your biggest strength?
Non-ticket-people,
Explain why you are not on a ticket. Which tickets do you think you would work best with, and which worst?
VPAFs,
Does Feds have any experience hiring co-op students? Do you think there are roles in the organization for full time students, either for short-term projects or as a permanent position? Describe.
VPEds,
I have been helping to develop StudentFORCE. CECS has been tentatively helpful with this project, though it's currently sidelined as I haven't found much time to work on it. Give some examples of what you think is reasonable to expect from CECS in helping out with this project. Would you consider jointly funding a full-time position (see hiring co-op students, above) for someone to develop this project? Why or why not? (Note: don't bullshit. we'll all know. :-) )
Presidents,
Do you believe that the Feds/admin relationship is naturally adversarial or antagonistic? Since you're probably all going to say "no," please explain using the current Bomber situation as an example.
Thanks for your time,
Rob[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Tuesday, February 04 2003 @ 12:48 AM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Joe Nethery. You can view the original
here. I just want to take the opportunity to publicly thank the candidates for coming out to the Colleges Forum at St. Paul's. I know the turnout was bad and the weather much worse, but the whole of St. Paul's ALC (residence council) appreciated your coming down here.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Tuesday, February 04 2003 @ 01:46 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Jin. You can view the original
here. You've mentioned the issue of clubs several times in your cadidate profile, and I am curious as to why you're doing some of them. I am speaking as one who is involved in a club on campus.
A better FEDS Volunteer Recognition System
- include club memberships and a points system
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Tuesday, February 04 2003 @ 05:27 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Raymond Lai -- VPAS MathSoc W/F03. You can view the original
here. On behalf of the Mathematics Society, I would like to thank all candidates for taking time out of their busy campaign periods to attend our forum. The professionalism and seriousness that the candidates have shown will assist Math students in making their decisions in the coming days.
In addition, the Math Society would like to express sincere appreciation to Bradley T. Smith for moderating the debate and keeping the event rolling smoothly.
Lastly, we would like to thank everyone who came out and participated in the forum. Their enthusiasm fueled a healthy and fruitful debate.
Raymond Lai
VP, Activities and Services
MathSoc W/F 03 [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, February 05 2003 @ 10:59 AM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by alex. You can view the original
here. After some technical problems with www.thefedsparty.com, which are being reviewed, for easy and quick access, another site has been launched.
www.theparty.ca
Thanks for your patience.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, February 05 2003 @ 01:30 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Yaacov. You can view the original
here. When students receive needs-based Millenium bursaries (95% of the total funds available), or claim up to $3,000 instead of $500 in scholarship and bursary exemptions on their tax returns, they are benefitting from CASA lobbying.
When students in regulated programs breathe a sigh of relief that their tuition increases are capped at 2%, they're benefitting from OUSA lobbying.
When students in deregulated programs both curse their 15% increase, and give their thanks that it isn't higher, like some other deregulated programs in the province, they are benefitting from FedS lobbying.
Why is it that in the year when the Double Cohort will focus unprecendented media attention and public pressure on universities and the government policies that determine their fate, do you feel that you lack the ability to do what so many previous FedS execs have done: lobby successfully on behalf of students?
Sorry it took so long to post this Aaron, internet access is hard to find here.
All the best for a good rest of the campaign to all candidates,
Yaacov
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, February 05 2003 @ 04:50 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Greg Hines, Math Co-op Feds Councillor. You can view the original
here. Hi, this is an question for the VPE candidates and for any one else who has an opinion on this subject.
Yesterday, at the candidates forum held in the MC the question about hiring new lecturers vs professors was raised. Both of the VPE candidates said that in the current climate of fiscal shortfall, lecturers should be hired over professors. This would help deal with the lage increase in class sizes seen across campus (espcecially with the double co-hort approaching).
I then asked a follow up question about wether or not there was any need for hiring professors at all. Both candidates seem to indicate that the only factor that should be taken into account was dealing with class sizes. I would like to say why I feel that hiring professors is still so important.
Probably the most important reason is Waterloo's reputation. Although we are known for our strong teaching ability, Waterloo is known even more so for our research. It is this research that has made the university so well known through out the world, despite our short history. We get the big grants from companies and governments for this research, not the teaching. This reputation also helps all students when they are looking for work (for both co-op and after graduation). The number of research-active faculty at this university is an other major help to our reputation.
Secondly, the idea of hiring just lecturers focuses too much on just the first year of university. After that, when class sizes start to drop off we must have qualified people to teach the more advanced subjects. People with the education nescessary to teach those upper year courses are usually not willing to take a job just teaching, we need something else to offer them at this university (eg. the ability to do research and become a professor).
Just as hiring lecturers focuses too much on first year, it also focuses too much on the average student. Waterloo must continue to attract the best and the brightest students around. These students will be looking for that something extra at an university. The chance to do research with a prof, take specialized upper year courses or even a grad course and attend lectures by profs on their research. Few of these things can be offered by lecturers. These students will be able to find those things at an other university and thus will have little reason to come here.
Finally, there is the idea of what a university is. As we focus more on the basic teaching we come more a college. We will start to shove students through this university with out the same chance to explore and grow. This defeats the whole purpose of an university.
Although, I completely agree with the need for more lectures the need for more professors must not be forgotten. The idea of a balanced hiring policy will be better recieved by the administration. I hope the VPE candidates and others will consider what I said, and thus not advocate actions that would cause such damage to the university.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, February 06 2003 @ 04:10 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Jesse Helmer. You can view the original
here. One thing that has emerged as an issue during this election campaign is autonomy. More than a year ago (wow, I am starting to feel old) I posted a comment about autonomy, specifically about a clause in the Feds charter that prohibits it from modifying its objects without the approval of University of Waterloo.
I have two questions:
- What do you think about this clause in the Feds charter?
- What do you think about the objects set out in the charter? Would you work to modify the charter? Why or why not?
Here are the current objects of the Federation of Students, as approved on 27 April 1967 and revised on 16 July 1980:
- To act as the representative of the undergraduate students of the University of Waterloo, in the City of Waterloo, in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, those students of various constituent faculties, schools, institutes, departments and colleges, both affiliated and federated, which are or may be from time to time a part of or associated with the University of Waterloo;
- To promote and maintain responsible student government;
- To administer the affairs of the members of the Corporation, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the receipt and administration of all funds which may accrue to the Corporation from subscriptions collected and remitted by The University of Waterloo and such other funds as may become the property of the Corporation by donation, gift, return, legacy, bequest or in any manner whatsoever;
- To promote and co-ordinate student participation in athletic, cultural and social activities;
- To promote and maintain communication between the student body and the duly elected and appointed authorities of the University of Waterloo;
- To encourage and promote interuniversity co-operation and communication;
- To initiate, sponsor and promote activities in which the interest of the member students at The University of Waterloo are involved, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing and for the objects aforesaid, the granting of loans to students who may be members from time to time of the said Corporation;
- To promote and assist in maintaining good conduct and proper discipline of the said member students of The University of Waterloo in all activities of such students;
- To sell and publish books, papers, journals, reports, periodicals and printed material generally; and
- To enter into agreements with The University of Waterloo with respect to the carrying out of any or all of the objects aforesaid
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, February 06 2003 @ 04:47 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Narina. You can view the original
here. These are questions for all candidates.
1. Do you support having a UW campus organization like WPIRG which provides a place for UW students to do work on environmental and human rights issues?
2. Give one example of a campaign or project that the FEDS and WPIRG could and should work on together.
3. Do you support having a referendum on making all refundable incidental fees strikeable upon registration on QUEST?
4. The proposal for an online opt-out system for refundable incidental fees will increase UW's operational costs, which are covered by tuition fees. How would you justify students paying more for tuition, when it is already increasing, to create and maintain this new system?
5. In a post-September 11th environment, there is an increased fear and misunderstanding of Islam. Considering we have a large Muslim student population, what steps would you take to ensure their safety and security on campus?
6. Of the 14 candidates running for FEDS executive positions this year, 2 are women and 2 are people of colour. Do you see this as a fundamental problem that the FEDS should address?
Thank you.[ Parent ]
|
| | |
