Earlier today the Connors and Matheson Campaign released a 4 page document that outlines the precise initiatives in their plan to increase participation in the Students' Union. This document is the first of 3 - with the communication and innovation objectives to be released in the coming days. By slowly unveiling their plans C&M have made it easy for students to fully comprehend what it is these two have planned if they are elected. Furthermore, it allows students to observe just how well C&M have listened to the vast amount of input they have received from their various meetings with students.
So far it seems like C&M have listened well to the people they have come in contact with. However, as I alluded to in my last post these two have not consulted all the right student bodies that affect theU. Yes, C&M asked the most important people what they want - the general populous. But what about the individuals who are already enacting many of the initiatives that C&M are attempting to stand on in their campaign platform? I of course am talking about theU Executive and the informed Representative Councilors.
I'll take a step back here and go through the key elements of the Participation Platform to fully outline where C&M have either suggested a good initiative, one that isn't a new initiative, or one that is likely unfeasible or irresponsible.
Issue: Societies
C&M have identified that "despite a $12,000 budget [it is actually $15,000 -ed.], many societies struggle to survive." They hope to change this by suggesting both monetary and advertising support to any society that demonstrates a benefit to the StFX community. Currently despite all societies have the opportunity to request funds from the $12,000 budget of theU twice annually, as well as fully utilize services under the VP Communications problems still persist. One reason for the problems is that there are many societies who provide no substantial or measurable benefit to the StFX community and take funds and resources from the hands of more beneficial groups. Now C&M have alluded to only giving societies that provide a demonstrated benefit money, but I ask: "What kind of benefit?" and, "How, and if, will you better allocate these funds?"
C&M have made a few suggestions to better assist societies that include BBQs and access to theU website. As for the BBQ I hope C&M have both accounted for the Sodexho contract that prohibits any non-Sodexho food sale on campus with minor exceptions (i.e. bake sales). Furthermore, after-Inn BBQs run a massive liability issue for theU which is entirely irresponsible to embark upon unless there is proper supervision. C&M's proposal for a calendar of events for societies is a great idea that I applaud the two for suggesting. However, C&M go on to suggest a space on the website for societies to give full descriptions. Web access, provided by TSG, to societies through theU is something that society Presidents are polled about and offered every year with minimal response. This is an old idea that just hasn't stuck with societies.
Finally, C&M attempt to address the major issue with societal support - society financing. Twice a year societies submit requests that are poured over by the VP Finance along with 4 councilors that make up the Budget and Finance Committee. C&M have tried to suggest their "tiered system" as a new and more efficient way of allocating funds to societies. While it is more efficient it is in no way new. This "tiered" system is one that was devised by myself and the Budget and Finance Committee two years ago when I was a Business Councilor. It was then the first step in a long road to improving societies. Certain steps have been made in the promotion and alternative support areas that C&M seem eager to continue. However it is the finance area that needs real innovation now, and C&M seem to only be able to come up with ideas that were innovative way back then.
Issue: Traditions
As former Burke aficionados C&M seem eager to ensure house traditions are maintained. This issue is a constant one that dwindles from being a primary to secondary concern for any of theU's Executive. Recently some drastic changes have been announced regarding the Residence Life Structure. I am glad to see that C&M have mentioned that appropriate changes in the Community Code need to be made in lieu of this announcement. Yet when it comes to concrete stances that C&M will take in the face of StFX administration they flounder and meekly only state house names as the issue they will bring to the table with admin. While house names are important, it is a much smaller issue in the big picture of student equity. I hope if C&M are ever responsible to fight for student rights as Pres and VP they fight for more serious concerns than just house names.
C&M also propose increased training for House Presidents which is a good idea in theory. But once again they fail to suggest any "how" to their proposal. I am surprised that C&M haven't approached or mentioned the LEAD program as possible additional training.
Issue: Apathy
Students have always felt marginalized by theU. For once I feel that C&M may be two candidates who can really follow through on their promise to better engage students. Part of my faith comes from the leaps and bounds made by theU Executive over the past 2 years. What I have an issue with is that C&M have not once mentioned theU Representative Council or its members as a way to better engage students. Councilors' sole responsibility is to hold theU Executive accountable to student demands and desires. If there is one group that should be making sure theU is working hard for the students it is Council. Based on the structure of theU these 16 individuals have the ability to collectively veto any decision by an Executive member (including the Pres and VP), make changes to policy, affect any and all financing, and even impeach any member of theU. There is no collective group that has more power than Council.
C&M have missed two things: 1) Council's ability to affect real change; and 2) Council is massively under utilized and does not (on an overall basis) currently represent the StFX student body the way they should.
This first part of the Connors/Matheson Official Platform demonstrates their desire to make positive changes and their ability to listen to students. It also demonstrates their ignorance to some of the most important operating procedures, past and present initiatives, and key elements of the Students' Union they say they can run efficiently and effectively.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
You should be ashamed of yourself. I don't know how you can honestly feel proud of the quality/content of your blogs that you post so maliciously for the Xavieran family to read. Taking great ideas and claiming them to be "unfeasible or irresponsible" is just a bitter, pathetic interpretation of their proposed efforts to improve our community. Don't bother with part 2 and 3 of your “critique”, we know sure enough it will just be more of the same idiocy. Your latest attempt to discredit C&Ms ideas and 'stir up controversy' is not any more successful than the last. However, you did succeed (again) in proving that your perspective is pessimistic and your blogging style is not nothing to be proud of.
Hold up, let me correct the last statement. ... "Your blogging style is not Anything to be proud of." Don't worry, we all know what you meant. :)
Once again, Cauley has published a blog that contributes little to this election. His under-researched, biased reporting does not help students make an informed decision about this election. I thought the concept of this blog was to provide a space where students could access information on the campaign, not a venue for a childish, incoherent, and jealous person to present his one-sided views on just one of the slates.
This latest post actually causes me to question whether or not Cauley actually took the time to read the Participation platform that Connors and Matheson released. If this guy ever meets with these two candidates he should ask them for help on research.
He claims that C&M are just going to copy the formula that he devised when he was on council. Obviously what you did Brian didn’t work. Societies that deserve funding still don’t get it so what these guys are proposing is obviously something different.
He also criticizes these guys for not talking to the executive or current members of the Union. First, have you even bothered to look into that? Do you know for a fact that these two haven’t met with anyone? Or have you once again made a baseless and misleading claim? Brian, yesterday you were hurling accusations that the Union was mired with issues of “inequality, [a] lack of ethics, and corruption.” Why would you want these guys talking to such horrendous individuals?
I would appreciate a response to these questions. You seem to be able to hurl the first stone but when anyone refutes your claims on the site (or even when C&M do it on their site) you have no response. If you aren’t going to respond, you should just admit what everyone else is thinking…you are wrong.
I’ve heard many people – friends and acquaintances – comment that they are happy to have candidates that actually seem to be listening to them, and reaching out to grasp real student issues. People are interested in this campaign, and care about what will happen. Brian, the student body is taking this election seriously. It’s time for you to do the same, or to stop writing.
Brian, what do you feel should be done about council? or i guess you cant really answer that in ablog such as this
What I still can't understand is why you seem to think it's so important that they discuss their ideas with the current U exec.
Why would someone running ask the current U if they think their ideas can be accomplished? The idea of having new people in charge is for new ideas, and to try and figure out different, more innovative ways for things to be accomplished.If they were to ask the union exec now if these things were possible they would most likely say no; The current U were most likely incapable of inniating the same type of ideas. The idea of a new exec is to try new ways of accomplishing things, seeing what hadn't worked in the past - not dwelling upon the fact that some methods did not work, and not trying to improve these methods.
I also agree with other comments about your negative blogging. You seem to act as though you are the " All Mighty" and know about everything, so shouldn't you be giving constructive criticism to their platform rather then picking out every fault?
If you are going to cover this campaign, you should be informing us of the good and bad. Not just that you think you put out fabulous, innovative ideas yourself and that they are naive for trying to improve them (seeing as yours obviously didn't work out according to plan - funding for societies specifically).
After reading your blogs it seems as though your only opinion is that YOU would be the best candidate. I could be wrong, but are you not covering someone else's campaign and not your own?
pwnd.
I've noticed you are very quick to throw the "ignorance" punch in your blogs. Maybe this term is a regular part of your vinacular, but it is a serious charge in a forum in which one is being judged on their ideas. I have read Pat and Scotts platforms and have noticed they are building on the input a wide array of students have provided. Not only do I think these are good ideas, I commend the manner in which they are going about forming them.
It is really too bad you are not putting the same effort into these blogs as Pat and Scott are into their platform. The only ignorance I have seen in this entire campaign have come from your words, not those of the C&M campaign. I also suggest you sit down and read each of your blogs in order of their posting, because not only do the smell of ignorance, but contradictions and pompose self promotion. It is actually kind of sad that I can predict what I am about to read in your blog simply by reading the title.
I have to disagree with the notion that including the current U Sub Execs, Execs, and Councilors in the research of this platform is unnecessary. One of the biggest detriments to Student Unions is year to year transition. Pat and Scott have expressed some wonderful ideas; however, if they have failed to research new projects that were created this year, that do hold value, then they risk losing that work in the transition. While I am very impressed with the initiative these two have taken in researching student opinion (which is absolutely the most important) I think perhaps they would have a stronger platform if they had a greater understanding of current projects. As a result I agree with Brian's comment that they should do more research with current Councilors, Executives, and Sub-Executives.
To everyone who has chosen to criticize Mr. Cauley’s blog posts, I ask that you please keep a few things in mind:
The role of the writers in this election blog is to provide as much information to the electorate as possible, which includes pointing out any and all potential flaws in a candidate’s platform. This is not done maliciously, but as a service to inform students and provide them with an additional perspective when deciding who to vote for.
Brian has significantly more experience working with the Union than any of the candidates in the President / VP Exec election. Might you consider that some of his concerns are valid?
If any of Brian’s claims are patently false, however, then it will be no trouble for Pat and Scott to refute them. If they are elected President and VP Executive of the Students’ Union, they will have to answer for their actions on a regular basis. Shouldn’t the challenge of proving oneself be just as important, if not much more important, during an election campaign?
Remember that both slates in the election are being held to account in this blog, not just Pat and Scott. Brian’s post isn’t a one-sided, biased attack, but rather part of a larger project to report on the real content of the election campaigns. The positive voice on the campaigns is coming from the candidates themselves, but the other side needs to be heard. We value hearing in-depth critiques of politicians through the media, so why should we shun the same type of coverage in our Student Union elections?
If you choose to lambaste Mr. Cauley’s reporting, then, and you feel that all of your concerns are entirely valid, why not attach your name to it? If you really believe that you are justified in what you’re saying, you shouldn’t feel a need to publish your attacks anonymously.
Sincerely,
Matt Edmonds
Arts Councillor
Post a Comment