I should provide background. I served in 2009-2010 as the student Senator for Pharmacy, and then in 2010 as the AMS representative for Pharmacy. Over my tenure in the latter position, I did not contribute much to the AMS. I spoke up about three or four times at most, did not participate in any working group, and in my few comments, noted my disdain for the political games being played in the AMS. People close to me know that during my service, I was not particularly optimistic of what the AMS did for students.
I know that originally (before any involvement in student politics), I was extremely cynical of student politicians. I felt that not only did they not know what they were doing, but that they were serving their own agendas (pursuit of their own politically-charged ideals and for jobs after UBC) and were not serving in the best interest of UBC students. With regard to AMS fees, I felt that the AMS was being hypocritical when it criticized UBC for tuition fee hikes while also increasing our AMS fees. Money out of students' pockets is the same as money out of students' pockets.
What does the AMS do? The AMS is a million dollar organization. It funds essential student services, such as advocacy for smaller student groups to prevent their marginalization, counselling, and a hub for student clubs and organizations to run their operations through. It runs the Student Union Building with all the food and retail services inside it. It advocates for student interests with the bigshots at UBC. And it runs some specific events or services, such as FirstWeek, the UBC Art Gallery, the Whistler lodge, CiTR, etc. etc.
So, now that I am several months removed from my involvement with the AMS, what are my thoughts with regard to student fee increases and the AMS in general?
1. should AMS fees be increased and tied to inflation (ie. the referendum question)?
Yes. I believe that if you look at the big picture and just at the dollar amount, our student fees are reasonable. I believe that it only makes sense for student fees to be tied to inflation. What I would argue is that we are not getting enough value for our money, and that is the crux. Rather than us paying too many student fees, the issue is that we're not getting enough, and we're not getting enough financial help for students (which should ostensibly be one of the items the AMS would be advocating for). In order to have a "strong" AMS (the term often used in the news, but one that I dislike), we need to have a Society with adequate financial support. We also need to make sure we don't blame our current executives for the mistakes of their predecessors by hampering them with financial issues. We want them to focus on the reason they got themselves elected - ostensibly, student issues.
As part of the Pharmacy Undergraduate Society, I've been through financial challenges there, and although thankfully, it wasn't a big part of my portfolio and we had excellent support from our VP Sponsorship, Kory Hu, financial challenges are an unwelcome part of student political service.
The other argument, that student incomes do not increase with inflation, is not really a valid one. It is unreasonable to expect a student society to find economies on a continuous basis to offset the cost of inflation. Rather, it would be more reasonable to ask your student society to address the real challenges - for example, "job creation" or bursary and student grant support for students who work. Being a student is expensive, and it should be. What is disappointing is when you graduate with a UBC degree with an ineffective education and no job prospects.
2. what is not working in the AMS? what should be done?
Here I need to focus on the big concerns I have with the Society. Efficiency, integrity and involvement.
Efficiency. Expenditures should be as conservative as possible, since funds are derived from students. Jobs done should be done well. Here's a short list of things that I've noted:
- quite a few legal opinions, costing in the thousands of dollars each
- some ridiculously slow and unmotivated staff that work for the AMS. I understand the challenge HR has in hiring competent staff, as it might not be a very attractive place to work; but seriously, it was pathetic. And when I learned that the AMS staff are unionized, that makes it harder for me to believe that they're working as hard as they could be.
- red tape. It's tremendously complicated, for example, to be an AMS-affiliated club. I'm not naive - I know there are issues with risk management - but there must be a way to decrease administrative procedures and oversight. It's not clear to me exactly why we need to have certain staff in the AMS.
- value at AMS businesses. I question how competitive the AMS businesses are. Over my five years at UBC, the quality has declined while prices have gone up. We should reassess aspects of the AMS that cost more than they bring in.
- wasting money on certain initiatives. Perhaps I am cynical of social events, but I am happy that the Block Party got changed, and I wish Firstweek would follow. And as for building a glass box in the SUB as a workspace for the new SUB - someone needs to explain to me the rationale for that decision.
- and of course, AMS general meetings are ridiculous. There is so much at these meetings that I feel did not require me to be there for.
Integrity. What I mean here is to address the "politics" inside the AMS. As I alluded to before, I am led to ask whether the people in the AMS are the right people. And to be fair, I don't think that I would satisfy my own criticism here. But what do people in the AMS need to be?
- put their agenda aside. It doesn't matter if you are homosexual, Liberal, female, or an engineer. If you're serving on the AMS, you need to make decisions on behalf of the entire student body.
- be actively inclusive. This is harder than it sounds. You need to consider not being as flamboyant as you are used to being, in order to reach out to students who don't hang in the same groups as you do. You need to go out of your way to get people's opinion, and to have proactive discussions with people of opposing opinion. AMS general meetings, for example, are held with the perspective of efficiency. However, we end up using Robert's Rules in order to cut off the opinions of students who are dedicated enough to show up to these meetings. They want an audience with voting AMS councillors in order to have their views heard. How can the AMS accommodate this without slowing down the meeting? There must be a way.
- work together. I fully expect this of the executives and the councillors. It should be a given that you have people skills and want to cooperate with others, before you run for office.
- stop the political games. The attacks and colourful language used in "voter-funded media" and other student publications is ridiculous. For example, in the small little world of pharmacy students, I would never write a commentary disparaging our President's work. Let's get some level-headed writers and columnists contributing to these publications, rather than having students with such extreme views dominate the discussion.
- put in the effort. This is where I am guilty. But if you attend an AMS General meeting, you will observe the majority of councillors on their laptops, browsing Facebook or completing their homework.
Involvement. The AMS is moving, for example, to decrease quorum at annual general meetings. Rather, it should be seeking to improve its "engagement" of students. I dislike the term "engagement" because it is often used to describe a more passive process of "survey," which is what usually happens. We need to find meaningful ways for students to contribute direction to the AMS. Even within the "inner circle" of the AMS councillors, it is a select few who are involved with most of the discussion and the committees. When we have elections for members-at-large positions on committees, for example, the positions usually go to people who are well-known in the AMS, such as past councillors.
It's a difficult process, and I don't profess to have all the answers. Clearly, over the years, the AMS has tried to ask students what they want, and it has tried to pursue those avenues. As Ben writes in his editorial to the Ubyssey, the AMS (and even the UBC administration) is less powerful than thought when it comes to pursuing the change that most students want. I would argue that it is equal parts substance and perception. Substance as in improving the ability of the AMS to satisfy student needs (through improvements to its businesses, efficient and more flexible handling of student requests, advocacy) and perception as in not filing complaints to the UN, not questioning each other's integrity or motives, and listening to students rather than just rebutting their criticism).
Another question worth exploring in the future is asking what needs students have. Maybe next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment