To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
Lets Election
Question 1: Fee for Sustainable SFU
Are you in favour of a new fee of $2 per full time student per semester and $1 per part time student per semester to be levied for the benefit of sustainability-related initiatives on campus through Sustainable SFU? (Sustainable SFU past projects include a Sustainability Festival, the SFU Local Food project, and the Sustainable Advisory Committee.) (Yes / No)
Question 2: Exception to Terms of Space Expansion Fund
Whereas the SFSS has a mandate to provide services and support for its members;
Whereas the new SFU Woodward’s campus has no student controlled space;
Whereas the SFSS has an opportunity to acquire student space in W2 at Woodward’s;
Whereas the SFSS space expansion fund is limited to use for SFU-owned property;
Do you support an exception to the terms of the Space Expansion Fund to allow the acquisition and maintenance of Student Society space in the W2 Community Media Arts Society space at the Woodwards development in Vancouver? (Yes / No)
By-Law Change 1: Polling Hours
Whereas By-Law 14.18(b) states that “Polling for all positions shall occur between the hours of 9:30am and 7:30pm”, the introduction of online voting makes it unnecessary to impose such time limits. It is likely that an increased number of voting hours will lead to a higher voter turnout since students can vote on their own time at any place with internet access.
Do you agree to amend by-law 14.18(b) to read “Polling for all positions shall occur at least between the hours of 9:30am and 7:30pm”? (Yes / No)
By-Law Change 2: Ombuds office
Whereas this bylaw is now redundant because the SFSS jointly funds the university Ombuds office with the GSS and SFU;
Do you support the removal of By-Law 19 "Ombuds Office”? (Yes / No)
Are you in favour of a new fee of $2 per full time student per semester and $1 per part time student per semester to be levied for the benefit of sustainability-related initiatives on campus through Sustainable SFU? (Sustainable SFU past projects include a Sustainability Festival, the SFU Local Food project, and the Sustainable Advisory Committee.) (Yes / No)
Question 2: Exception to Terms of Space Expansion Fund
Whereas the SFSS has a mandate to provide services and support for its members;
Whereas the new SFU Woodward’s campus has no student controlled space;
Whereas the SFSS has an opportunity to acquire student space in W2 at Woodward’s;
Whereas the SFSS space expansion fund is limited to use for SFU-owned property;
Do you support an exception to the terms of the Space Expansion Fund to allow the acquisition and maintenance of Student Society space in the W2 Community Media Arts Society space at the Woodwards development in Vancouver? (Yes / No)
By-Law Change 1: Polling Hours
Whereas By-Law 14.18(b) states that “Polling for all positions shall occur between the hours of 9:30am and 7:30pm”, the introduction of online voting makes it unnecessary to impose such time limits. It is likely that an increased number of voting hours will lead to a higher voter turnout since students can vote on their own time at any place with internet access.
Do you agree to amend by-law 14.18(b) to read “Polling for all positions shall occur at least between the hours of 9:30am and 7:30pm”? (Yes / No)
By-Law Change 2: Ombuds office
Whereas this bylaw is now redundant because the SFSS jointly funds the university Ombuds office with the GSS and SFU;
Do you support the removal of By-Law 19 "Ombuds Office”? (Yes / No)
Comments
ERO: Kyle Acierno
URO: Arry Dhillon
IRO: Panther Kuol
And the referendum should be mentioned:
Question 1: Fee for Sustainable SFU
Are you in favour of a new fee of $2 per full time student per semester and $1 per part time student per semester to be levied for the benefit of sustainability-related initiatives on campus through Sustainable SFU? (Sustainable SFU past projects include a Sustainability Festival, the SFU Local Food project, and the Sustainable Advisory Committee.) (Yes / No)
Question 2: Exception to Terms of Space Expansion Fund
Whereas the SFSS has a mandate to provide services and support for its members;
Whereas the new SFU Woodward’s campus has no student controlled space;
Whereas the SFSS has an opportunity to acquire student space in W2 at Woodward’s;
Whereas the SFSS space expansion fund is limited to use for SFU-owned property;
Do you support an exception to the terms of the Space Expansion Fund to allow the acquisition and maintenance of Student Society space in the W2 Community Media Arts Society space at the Woodwards development in Vancouver? (Yes / No)
By-Law Change 1: Polling Hours
Whereas By-Law 14.18(b) states that “Polling for all positions shall occur between the hours of 9:30am and 7:30pm”, the introduction of online voting makes it unnecessary to impose such time limits. It is likely that an increased number of voting hours will lead to a higher voter turnout since students can vote on their own time at any place with internet access.
Do you agree to amend by-law 14.18(b) to read “Polling for all positions shall occur at least between the hours of 9:30am and 7:30pm”? (Yes / No)
By-Law Change 2: Ombuds office
Whereas this bylaw is now redundant because the SFSS jointly funds the university Ombuds office with the GSS and SFU;
Do you support the removal of By-Law 19 "Ombuds Office”? (Yes / No)
Question 2: Yes
Bylaw 1: Yes
Bylaw 2: I don't know what Bylaw 19 even is, so until I find out more information I'll remain undecided.
ERO: Sam Reynolds - for making a better case in the Peak interview.
URO: Arry Dhillon - for not being a crazy Linux advocate like the other guy. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux too, but a computer operating system really shouldn't be your student politics platform.
IRO: Panther Kuol - for not being Andrew Fergusson.
Edit: oh, and NO on Sustainable SFU - they don't even know what they want to spend the money on.
And I wouldn't vote for Reynolds for two main reasons. One, he talks about how he'll lobby and not use publicity stunts, when we all know that's bullshit. The guy is all about causing a scene and drawing attention to himself, regardless of whether it's positive or negative attention. Secondly, he seems incredibly self-centered and pushes the fact that he is a conservative on everyone. Everything he does is all about him and what he supports. How can I be sure he won't just carry out his own agenda and not act in the best interests of the students?
On lobbying vs publicity stunts: I'm fed up with the "More Buses Now" style publicity campaigns for more buses. They've been going on for years in one form or another. We've had pamphlets, stickers, posters, giant advertisements asking for better transit, etc. But why rally the students? We're not the ones who need to be informed. Chances are, if the bus service sucks, we already know about it. It's not as if we can do anything about it either. Translink is already strapped for cash - they asked the gov't for money last year (and were denied). No amount of student whining is going to change that.
Instead, a better solution is to convince the government to increase Translink's funding so that they can provide better service.
Still, I based my decision mostly on the fact that Acierno's platform was vague and fluffy, whereas Reynolds' was more concrete.
On lobbying vs publicity stunts: I'm fed up with the "More Buses Now" style publicity campaigns for more buses. They've been going on for years in one form or another. We've had pamphlets, stickers, posters, giant advertisements asking for better transit, etc. But why rally the students? We're not the ones who need to be informed. Chances are, if the bus service sucks, we already know about it. It's not as if we can change the situation. Translink is already strapped for cash - they asked the gov't for money last year (and were denied). No amount of student whining is going to change that.
Instead, a better solution is to convince the government to increase Translink's funding so that they can provide better service.
Regardless, I based my decision mostly on the fact that Acierno's platform was vague and fluffy, whereas Reynolds' was more concrete.