While it has been awhile since C&M have released the second part of their platform, I decided to take my time before writing about the whole document. What I found were a few new ideas wrapped in a multitude of existing initiatives or truths masked as innovation. Let me go point by point to make my issues clear.
Reaching Students
C&M propose that theU is "struggling to adapt to today's networked world." I on the other hand would argue that theU is adapting relatively well and that C&M are trying to set up a Straw Man fallacy in order to make students believe the proposals by C&M are going to solve problems that don't exist to the extent they would have you believe.
C&M do have some excellent initiatives that further the direction being implemented by the current U executive. Ideas like streaming audio/video from council, video updates from the President, and many many blogs are all great. The problem is that all these ideas seem to develop from C&M's proposal for a full or part-time webmaster. This comes to an issue of money; and with theU currently running a $0 based budget, either a money-making proposal is in order or C&M are going to have to cut even more services.
C&M continue their money-spending suggestions by stating they will make the Xaverian Weekly autonomous. The only way for this to truly exist is fiscal independence. Under most circumstances this means we can say goodbye to the Xav. C&M also demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Fox by suggesting theU provide help to the radio station to cover union events and special lectures. The Fox is an alternative radio station that wants to keep programming interesting and entertaining, and while sound bytes from events (which we already do) may be sweet for listeners, complete coverage can guarantee a decrease in listeners.
University Administration
C&M suggest that "many feel that students interests are not defended." The truth of the matter is that theU does defended students, but not necessarily with the desired results. The problem is that as much as theU wants to stand for student rights, they still have to work with administration. As long as theU needs to maintain a working relationship they can't go and protest every action until admin caves - it is about give and take.
However, there is a group of people that can just put a halt on everything and protest until admin caves - the students! However, students don't do this. Students don't fight administration on serious issues. Many students whine and complain while doing nothing. C&M try to suggest they are going to change this, but the fact is that even while they stand for student rights (something I think they will do just as excellent as our current executive) they will still have to remain amicable with admin. Eventually the students will have to stand up themselves without any assistance from theU, and it is irresponsible for students to ask the current executive, Connors & Matheson, or MacGillivray & Clarke to do their dirty work all the time.
The executive does regularly meet with administration, maintaining an "open and cordial relationship." C&M think that because students complain about certain StFX Administrative actions theU executive isn't doing a good job. Reality is that there will always be necessary actions that result in disfavor from groups. I'm not saying any of administrations actions have or have not been necessary, I am saying that C&M can't please everyone and are ridiculous for framing initiatives in a tone that would suggest they can.
The only thing I can praise is C&M's suggestion to get BOG and Senate members blogging.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Brian, just go back to not writing. It took you 8 days to come up with that? It does nothing but misinform students.
I think you misrepresent what Scott and Pat are proposing to do.
I think there ideas are great. The union needs to do more to communicate and using the internet is just the way to do this.
They also need to fight for what students want. These guys are not only getting out there to find out what students want their Union to bring up with the administration but I think they also understand that it is a "give and take" relationship.
Brian, really, I don't expect an answer to this question because you have yet to respond to any responses throughout the campaign but where do you see them "framing initiatives in a tone that would suggest they can" do everything?
Brian:
I appreciate that you're spending so much time covering the election and on your blog, but I just have to say that by reading your blog, you come across as being strongly biased. Whether or not you actually are is still uncertain to me, but it just really seems that way.
Are you biased against the candidates you're covering, Brian? If not, then by all means you should continue to write.
You know what, this is exactly the coverage we need. Read the macGillivray & Clarke blogs and you'll notice they are getting equal or more criticism. I don't understand the need to personally attack the bloggers, if they were saying good things you wouldn't be. They are doing their job and I think are helping to inform the voters of what each slate is offering.
It is not so much that they are being nagative toward the slates, it is that, Brian in particular, is grossly misrepresenting the message PAt & Scott are presenting. He is cherry picking areas which he sees as faulty, typically based on his personal bias and inability to se ideas beyond his own.
I love how whenever this guy posts something he is called biased and a liar.
All the while those doing the name calling mever really explain how or prove him wrong but instead just say that he is.
No proof? No thanks.
Pat & Scott's official response to this post can be read on their website/campaign blog at votepatandscott.com. It's titled 'Miscommunication? I think not!' and can be found under the 'From The Candidates' category.
As explained in today's issue of The Xaverian Weekly, the Connors-Matheson campaign welcomes the discussion this blog is generating. Pat and Scott thank all the bloggers for the hard work they've put into covering the campaign.
From the perspective of another University Students' Union, the fact that members of your Union are even critiquing those running seems really unethical. Let the candidates platforms speak for themselves, and let students be the judge of what is and what isn't - regardless of how negative or positive your perspective may be.
Moreover, this isn't a time for the U to defend itself from the accusations made by those running for office. If those running see a problem, then there's a good chance that others see it as a problem too. Also, you've been in the job for a year, so there's no question that you're going to know more than these people going into office. They will grow into the position. Don't sit there and criticize them on every little detail - you'll never know the job until you're in it.
Finally, I'm sure that at this point, someone could run a campaign on how botched this whole election appears to be from the outside. Maybe after you learn to run a proper, and unbiased election, may you then critique the candidates and their views of the Union.
The Union's purpose is to represent the students, not to represent the opinions of your executives and those running the election. Please, stop being over active in your elections and just let them happen. Many more students will appreciate it and the Union after all is said and done.
For clarification this blog is being posted on by 4 non-executive members of the general student body. Some are writers, some are designers, all are just avid Xaverieans eager to play a part in educating students on the campaign. TheU Executive has remained unbiassed and un-participatory as possible.
Then if that's the case, the writer of this blog is an utter idiot. Enough said.
I posted this comment on the votepatandscott.com blog as a response to their post miscommunication.
Hopefully they will let critical comments stand on their blog but in case they don't here's what I said.
So many words so little content.
Ok, I'll leave criticizing the wishy washy language out of this comment and get to the meat.
This post only highlights how little Scott has been paying attention to the realities of the Union and the Job he his running for. He offers up the analogy of the hiring the accountant for the union while completely forgetting that how the money was "found" to hire her was by cutting the yearbook from the union budget. That was the action that was taken to find the money to pay for this position.
The next thing the XW will become autonomous only "if no extra cost is to be incurred by the students" or if "it looks like the paper will fold not long after it gains autonomy". The first question that begs to be asked is what the XW actually wants? Does it want editorial autonomy?(which it already has) or does it want fiscal autonomy? If it is fiscal then what plans are there to pay for it? Does the XW want to be sold to students? Does the XW want to no longer have monetary support from the union? I think not!
But this whole idea of the XW gaining autonomy looks good on paper but a) will never work and b) never meet the conditions that Pat and Scott have set for themselves. Those only if's are a nice way of making promises that sound good but have no substance.
I thought last years election was bad enough with only one viable slate but this year where neither slate is worth voting for makes me sick!
But I am tired and am probably making many egregious spelling mistakes and gramatical errors that the Connors and Matheson "supporters" seem to love to criticize but like the candidates that they support fail to provide substance either in their critiques or platforms.
I believe Connors and Matheson wrote at one point that they spoke to the XW and, yes, the XW does was full autonomy.
You're right, anonymous #7. Pat & Scott have discussed autonomy with people at the Xaverian Weekly. In fact, they state this fact in the same post anonymous #6 is referring to. It's the sentence immediately before the one anonymous #6 quotes in his post.
"In regards to the Xaverian Weekly going autonomous, our decision to include this in our platform was based on our discussions with the individuals over at the paper. It is what they want, and therefore we are going to act on it. However, the Xaverian Weekly will only become autonomous if no extra cost is to be incurred by the students. In addition, if Pat and I are not completely satisfied with the separation agreement - i.e. it looks like the paper will fold not long after it gains autonomy - then we will look at other options."
Why won't 'going autonomous' work, anonymous #6? Have you been following what other University papers across the country have been doing in recent years? Do you have any suggestions of your own?
Pat & Scott's response to the comment anonymous/Wishing For Substance posted at votepatandscott.com can be found in the comments thread of the post 'Miscommunication? I think not!'.
As the above comment shows the response is posted on their website... a little sketchy if you ask me. This is what I posted hopefully the "moderation" won't deem it inappropriate.
Comment by anonymous on 16 February 2008:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I’d just like to point out the fact that the Xaverian annual was not actually brought back by the union but by a separate group of students. The union didn’t get the accountant and the annual, they simply dropped the annual. To me this shows a lack of understanding on your part of what is actually occurring in the union and thats concerns me.
I also can’t understand why you aren’t posting responses on the blog on the union page? Posting here in the safety of your own website where you can screen responses and change things so they show you in a favorable light is not the same.
PS If this post happens to be screened like other that I’ve heard, I’ll be sure to post it on the blog.
Anonymous
I posted this on the C & M website, I figured it should go here as well.
There seems to be a misunderstanding or misrepresentation here of how the changes to the Xaverian Annual took place, and how all related funding worked out. Let's look at how the discussion revolving around these issues has transpired here, and on the elections blog.
Pat and Scott (platform): Let’s hire a full time webmaster!
Brian Cauley (on election blog): The budget is maxed out, how are you going to pay for it?
Scott (response on their site): “If the Union can figure a way to hire a full time accountant, then there may be a way to hire a full time webmaster.”
Wishing for Substance (on votepatandscott.com): The Union could only hire the accountant because they cut the yearbook.
Scott: “…due to student disapproval, the Annual was reinstated. Meanwhile, the Union has been able to keep the accountant. There are always Innovative solutions to unique problems.”
Is there anything missing from this discussion? If you guessed, “students now have to pay cash for a yearbook, which they didn’t before,” you’re right! The only way that the accountant position can exist, and a yearbook can also be provided, is an increase in cost to some students.
Therefore, the “innovative solution” that Scott refers to is charging students more money. Which makes sense, because when an organization increases spending, the money has to come from somewhere.
What’s the problem? Pat and Scott have been stringently against increasing costs to students throughout their campaign. Even in the post above, Scott, who has campaigned on the principle of respecting students’ concerns, explains that “the last thing students want is more fees.”
There’s a contradiction here. Pat and Scott want to increase spending but don’t want to increase charges to students, and haven’t specified whether they’re going to cut anything to make their plans happen. Either these candidates have completely misunderstood what happened with the Xaverian Annual and the Union accountant position (innovative magic money appeared to pay for it all?), or they’re trying to whitewash over the fact that an increase in spending did result in an increase in cost to students.
To Pat and Scott: Brian Cauley made a legitimate point when he said that you have to account for your spending increases. It’s an insult to the intelligence of everyone following your campaign just to respond by saying “we’ll come up with innovative solutions” and expect we’ll just buy into it. Tell us what you’re actually going to do, or admit that you have no idea. It’s particularly ridiculous when your one example of an “innovative solution” to a money problem was taking more money out of students’ pockets, something you stand against. Give us the real deal here guys, not just a bunch of fluff.
I know this is confusing as hell for anyone who just wants to read the blog and not go to their website, but the qoutes are from their response to some of the above posts.
"Had Pat and I been in the leadership of the Union during that time, we would have endeavored to Communicate the issue to a better degree to the student body."
I imagine by having one of those open forums you suggest or posting about it all over the website right? Oh right the union did those things and no one showed up to their forum...
"Namely, with our tiered system for societies, some societies will get more money."
From what I've heard this system is already being developed by the current union, are you going to start all over or just use what they've done to fulfil this promise?
"Should Pat and I be elected, we will go through the infrastructure of the Union with a fine tooth comb and try to squeeze every dollar out of any inefficiencies while not compromising any services, activities, etc."
That - BS = Budget cuts! (Look out services)
"Consequently, hiring a semi-professional for full time or part time work (perhaps a student) would certainly be an option"
I beleive what we currently have is a part time student; isn't that the problem.
"Also, I kindly encourage comment authors to post using their real name as it will give more credibility to our productive discussions."
I don't understand why this is necessary? So you can hound me for causing trouble if your elected?
"Finally, I blog/post/comment here because votepatandscott.com is a one-stop-shopping area for everything they need to know about us. Pat and I strive to maintain continuity in our campaign and the best way of doing this, is for the majority of our comments to appear on our own website."
Well, the first part of this is BS. The second just doesn't make any sence, how is this continuity, I need to read whats on the blog and instead of simply posting there have to wander my way to you silly website. Just post on the blog like everyone seems to want you to.
Just to clarify a few things...
"Had Pat and I been in the leadership of the Union during that time, we would have endeavored to Communicate the issue to a better degree to the student body."
-This refered to the handling of the yearbook.
"Consequently, hiring a semi-professional for full time or part time work (perhaps a student) would certainly be an option"
-This refers to their 'plans' for hiring someone to run the website.
Post a Comment