Blog
October 30th 2008 | 2
Get out and vote!
Today is the final day to vote in the UWSA by-elections. You can’t miss the poling station in the Riddell Atrium adorned with festive pink balloons. Nine director positions are open. Clearly (see my article in last week’s Uniter) there are some issues surrounding clarity on what exactly directors do, especially when it comes to the general student body. Basically, they represent different groups of student on the UWSA board of directors, liaise with various groups in the interest of their constituents, and do a bunch of other stuff if they feel like it. This ambiguity may be one reason there are so few positions being filled—6 out of 9 to be exact. Some might say that isn’t so bad, but then again, none of them are contested. There’s something a little unsatisfying about voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on a ballot—you have to be pretty incompetent to get voted down in a ‘yes no’ situation.
Then again, in the case of Sabrina Deforest and Kyle Warnica, who are both running for Education co-director, they wouldn’t have it any other way. Initially planning to run against each other, they thought, ‘why go through the stress?’ and chose to run together instead. So is it better to have contested positions and a race to the finish, with campaigns that really matter due to competition? Or should we appreciate the co-operative spirit these two are embodying? I can see how it might seem futile to go to all the trouble of a competative campaign when it seems so few students care.
At the by-election speeches, which took place outside of Eckhardt Grammate Hall on Oct. 24, there were about 20 spectators. I counted at least 10 to be UWSA staff, election staff or candidates. Ten regular people from the whole student body. Wow.
I can understand why students find it hard to make time to participate in things they don’t see affecting them in a significant way. I was about to write that admittedly, I can’t think of any way I am affected by the actions of directors, but then I remembered the subject of my last blog—the U Pass! This is something near and dear to my heart and I know that Stephanie Chartrand, the enviro ethics director, is directly involved in the campaign to get the U Pass back on the school’s radar. Directors represent students, and that is important, especially when we all pay into the UWSA. The UWSA is ours, and it can’t grow if no one gives it any attention. So go vote!
Discussion
-
I believe that having non-contested positions damages democracy, period. We can gush all we like about the spirit of co-operation this embodies, but it basically comes down to the fact people are too nervous to run against each other so they compromise - and what kind of a choice does that give us, the electorate?
Furthermore, what kind of student politicians (or future politician wannabes) do we have, if they seem to lack the courage or ability to run and perform as a director on their own?
If the UWSA and its affiliated organizations are meant to serve as training opportunities for real life jobs, that’s great - but then they should be treated as such.
I would also like to pose a question to all the UWSA representatives who may be watching - why do we need a byelection anyway? Isn’t it time to decide that if people care so little about these positions, maybe we shouldn’t waste time and student money on trying to fill them with (un)able bodies?
– Ksenia | November 1st 2008 at 2:57pm | Link
-
I feel that this is a problem with our organization. Unfortunately the phrase “two heads are better than one” doesn’t apply to political positions, also there is no need to have co-directorships. If you look at the by-laws the duties that directors are to carry out are tailed to be able to be completed by a single individual. In fact, a person could easily have a full course load, part-time job, social life and still be able to carry out their director duties as outlined in the by-laws. Granted they would not be able to do any special projects, but these are not required to be done by a UWSA director.
There are also potential problems that could happen with co-directorships. The workload could not be equal, one of the directors may attend more of the meetings and or might be more involved with the organization, yet they both get paid the same honorarium amount at the end of their term. All directors are required to sit on at least one committee (most directors sit on more than one) and what if one of the co-directors were to attend one meeting and then the other co-director were to attend the next meeting.?Now if they didn’t communicate with each other prior to this second meeting and if we had forward business from the first meeting to the second meeting, the co-director in the second meeting won’t know what’s going on and this could create a few problems. Also, what happens if one of the co-directors decides to leave? Suddenly the other co-director (who was used to doing half the work) is now responsible for the entire position. What if the director that left had projects going that the other director wasn’t involved in? Now that other director has to pick up these projects and try to lead them blindly. And let’s hope that they don’t have different view points on subjects, because they share one vote and if they can’t agree, they can’t vote.
This also doesn’t help with our elections. During elections we have two or more people fighting to win a spot in or board. They will lay out a platform, give tons of reason why they deserve the position and expose weakness and problems with their opponent(s). They will do what ever it takes (legally) to get your vote, and that’s what we want. We want people who will fight passionately to get on our board. When I see co-directorships, and I apologize to any co-directorships we have on the board currently, I see people who we’re either lazy or scared or both to run against someone. So instead they join up, sit back, and wait to be elected. I am no stranger to that feeling, last general election, I almost had an opponent. I was scared, I had all these projects I was working on, and I loved the position and didn’t want to lose it all. But after talking to many people I came to the realization that if people felt I did a good job as the LGBT* Director they would re-elect me and if not they would elect my opponent. And what if there were three people running for a position and two of them join up? Not exactly fair, one against two. We can’t fear competition and we have no right taking away students right for choice, and I’m sorry but yes or no is not a fair choice.
Now, I’m not saying that all co-directorships will end in chaos; I’ve seen some that worked out perfectly. But there is always a risk that a co-directorship will fall apart, and it’s an unnecessary risk. These positions on the board don’t require two people, and if you don’t have the time to show up to a meeting and express your thoughts, work with the executive on campaigns relevant to your position, and talk with your membership, then don’t run. Find another position in the UWSA more suited to your time schedule, you could assist a director, or just volunteer.
So for anyone who is about to run in the next UWSA election, stop an think for a moment. Do you really want this position? Are you willing to fight for this position? And do you have the time for this position? If you can’t answer yes to all three, then being a director is not for you.
– Jonathan Niemczak | November 3rd 2008 at 4:27am | Link
