For the Union!
So here it comes. The moment of truth.
Like some cyclopean shadow, I’ve been watching the candidates from the darkest corners of campus all week long, my camera attuned to their every move. I’ve been to every debate. I polished off all of the excess sausages at the Candidate Breakfast. I slipped in Henry Whitfield’s bedroom window and stroked his hair while he slept.
Okay, perhaps you didn’t need to know that last part.
Point being, I’ve witnessed a lot. I’ve formed some very strong opinions. I don’t have the time to get a tenth of them out before the voting period opens though, so I’ll stick with the one that most of you will probably find the most interesting.
Last year I publically endorsed noted know-it-all and policy wonk Eric Snow for President.
That said, it’s probably pretty obvious that tomorrow I’ll be heading online, opening the DSU Elections website…
And voting for Greg Debogorski.
I will repeat that again.
I, John Hillman, pundit of minor note, am voting for Greg Debogorski tomorrow—and I encourage you to join me.
I realize that Snow has already implored you to vote anyone but Debogorski. We can all agree that “ABD” makes for a terrible rallying call though, so I urge you to at least hear me out. Pardon the length–I feel I need to make sure it is absolutely clear that I’m not making this endorsement lightly.
Eric suggests that everyone who is considering voting for Debogorski should be voting for Bailey. I beg to differ.
Greg may be a cantankerous SOB who doesn’t give a crap about whether people like him, but…well…he’s a cantankerous SOB who doesn’t give a crap about whether people like him. The DSU has a way of beating the individuality and ideals out of incoming candidates, and forcing them to conform to the status quo. On those rare occasions where likeable outsiders like Bailey get in, how many idealistic election promises end up getting abandoned, or watered down beyond recognition? Perhaps no one can overcome the problems inherent to the institution, but if anyone will go down swinging in defense of his ideals, it’s Greg Debogorski. He might end up impeached, but he’d make one hell of an effort to shake up the status quo along the way.
Now, I know that many of you are just peachy with the status quo. It’s hard to see the problem when you are as deep inside the belly of the beast as most of the pundits and fans of punditry.ca. Talk to some students you’ve never met though, ones who aren’t afraid to hurt your feelings because they don’t know how much work you have put into the union. Greg does it all the time.
There is a HUGE perception out there that the DSU is run by a small cadre of insiders who are more concerned with playing political games than looking out for the average student. This is fuelled in large part by the fact that most students have never (knowingly) had a conversation with a councilor. How can council effectively represent the will of the majority of the students if they have no reliable way of gauging their constituents’ opinions?
I’ve heard from a friend before that it’s not a councilor’s job to represent their constituents’ opinions, but rather to make the decision that they personally feel is in the best interests of their constituents. That may be the best you can do within the confines of a terrible system that has you representing upwards of several thousand students (only a tiny fraction of whom likely voted for you), but it is a pretty condescending attitude when you think about it. Whatever excuses we like to toss around about students not voting because they are happy with things, most apathy stems from the fact that people feel disconnected from the decision making process in their union, and God help me, I think Greg has the best ideas about how to fix this problem.
From my reading of his platform and listening to him in the debates, Greg proposes that we bring in an online system that allows the union to hold monthly referenda, and conduct monthly surveys. Direct voting on controversial issues, and a constantly updated stream of direct feedback from a large sampling of the student population. Empowering students and getting priceless input about their priorities—why is this such a stupid idea again?
Greg even proposes a way to draw skeptical students into this system, by rewarding voter participation with material benefits. In the debate, Bailey argued that there are plenty of students who would be willing to help move Dal forward sans-reward, and I agree to a point, but there is also a massive segment of the population that has written off the DSU altogether. You’ll never reach them without breaking through that invisible wall of skepticism, and the best way to do that is to offer them a tangible reward for voting. I think that once these newcomers realize they have a say in the decision-making, and are sucked in to the drama like those of us already here, they will be far more likely to extend their interest in the union to areas where there are no bribes.
As for the constant stream of criticism directed toward Greg’s lack of technical knowledge and perceived personality flaws, as far as I can tell, he is a smart guy with a degree in management. He may not have the detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the DSU, but I’m sure he can figure things out pretty quickly. I’ve talked with him several times at the events this week, and he’s also a surprisingly nice guy when you get to know him – a little blunt, but he doesn’t seem to hold any personal grudges against people who have belittled him for years, which is more than I would be able to say if I were in his shoes. He has a great sense of humour about himself, and its 100% genuine. As he says in his video, he’s rough around the edges, but he’s real, and I like that in a politician.
Do I think Greg can win? He’s a long shot, granted, but I’ll give him better odds than some of the others have. He had engaging performances in the debates—and he actually showed up for all three. He speaks to issues that average students care deeply about. He has a strong video and bio. He isn’t actively scowling in his picture this year. He managed to win me over at any rate, so who knows what effect he’s had on others. I guess his odds depend on if average students actually come out and vote—a crazy thought, but who knows, right?
To paraphrase his video yet again, I’m going to take a chance on Greg. Here’s hoping he fights like hell for me.
John, as always, I appreciate your perspective. Though I admit that I’m surprised, I find you as creative and articulate as ever.
I may come back later with a major rebuttal. But for the time being, I’ll state the key point: I don’t think there’s anything you’ve said that Debogorski can do that Bailey can’t do better.
God help the Union if your message actually gets through.
@Eric Snow
I don’t want to make this about Bailey, because I like him. I just think Greg has more chutzpah. He has a dramatic vision of what the union could be, and I know he has the guts to fight for it tooth and nail. The Union would be fine—the president isn’t a dictator after all—and I think having a president so utterly passionate about fighting for student empowerment and engagement would make for a banner year in terms of student interest in the union.
and potentially lawsuits… ha-ha.
I disagree. You are NOT a pundit of minor note. Good post.I very much respect your opinion. I blatantly disagree with a grand portion of it but you are a far greater master of the written word than I Mr. Hillman.
As far as councilors not representing their constituents opinions but rather making the decision in what they think is in the best interest of the students. Sometimes it happens that an issue is relatively small and therefore we do not get a chance to consult with people before the vote. If a decision affects a small portion of students it does not get the lead time. Otherwise if it is large like the “secret contracts motion” we get two weeks from a notice of motion and theoretically we should be consulting with our constituents if even by talking to sample populations. I know several councilors that do so, John Doucette is a good example of that.(So I’ve heard) Unfortunately I see the problem and I agree maybe it is not the best method but I don’t think monthly online referendum will come with any less bureaucracy or issues. For Debogorski’s proposed changes I would like to know who is going to sit down and hammer out all the details and specifics and make it happen. On another note I like that in a council meeting I can hear a perspective from the international student’s rep on an issue that will affect them or hear the concerns on issues from Carlton campus because we have minority representation of groups. If we have these so called monthly referendum is there going to be an opportunity for the little guy to have his voice heard by everyone before they vote?
I agree Greg may be eccentric but I have never doubted his intelligence I personally just don’t hear any concrete solutions.
Also, John, IF Debogorski loses and we are left with the status quo you should apply to be the graduate senate rep.
@Zhindra Gillis
Hey, we’re all one happy pundit family, even if we disagree.
I get the impression that Mr. Doucette may be the exception. Even if everyone had the same dedication, having direct input from students seems like it would be preferable.
Far be it from me to put words in Greg’s mouth, since I’m sure he’s thought about it much more extensively than I have, but perhaps hammering out the exact specifics of the referenda questions is a role that council could play, much as it currently does with big end-of-year referenda questions.
From what I gather, Greg plans on adding some sort of interactive discussion feature with this online system. I have no idea what he means by that, but if it’s anything like the comment section on punditry,ca, I think it could be fantastically fun.
Aside from that, I bet the Gazette would be all over covering the referenda issues–they gripe about council constantly, so if the Union stepped up and offered students a chance to get involved like this, it would be a black mark against them if they did not devote serious time to covering these referenda.
Greg’s plan is vague, I’ll give you that, but it sparks my interest in a way that 99% of politicians never manage to do. He’s on to something, and I’d like to see him with a chance to give it a shot.
I’ll second Zhindra in saying Pundit Hillman is no minor pundit.
All the more so because of this post.
I’ll break the pundit mold by saying I don’t completely disagree. I started a post called “10 ways the DSU would be better off with Debogorski as President”, but only came up with 5 ways before I got bored. In brief, I agree he has some good ideas, and levels some criticisms at the DSU that are deserved. I’ve never seen his real-life shenanigans, but on punditry.ca he and I debate issues all the time, and we communicate sporadically through email as well. I respect him, and (most of) his ideas.
Random thought: God help me, I’d love to see him in on the MOU negotiations, or attend a BoG meeting where they raise tuition.
The reason I could not vote for him is two-fold. First, I believe in building. “Throw it out and start over” doesn’t work for me, because I was mostly well-served by the DSU in my day. Oh I bitched about all sorts of things, but the DSU does a lot of things I think need to be done. My fear is that an exclusive focus on getting students involved would neglect the things we rely on presidents to do. Getting more students involved and knowing what they want is valuable, but work has to continue. For example, I’m pretty confident in students mostly wanting lower tuition, not higher tuition, so like it or not he’d have to be doing advocacy. Second, the executive power of the DSU president is somewhat limited, as is the ability of one person – no matter how hard he works – to implement revival. He’s going to need the support and time of student volunteers, and the support and time of full-time staff, and both pools (volunteers and paid staff) have been pretty alienated by him over the years. (If I were his campaign manager, I’d suggest he switch from “you aren’t doing anything” to “you’re trying but it’s not working, my turn.” People hear that much better.) Fundamentally, the president is not an island, and without help he can only achieve so much.
What I’d like to see is someone give him a position and a budget, and ask him to execute some of his ideas. The monthly online student consultation would be an interesting starting point. Do an online referendum. Solve the perfectly valid problem that Zhindra raises (it’s not a new one, pick an existing solution and use that). See how that goes.
In terms of the predicted results, I think this is the best campaign he’s ever run. I think a lot of students will find him appealing, and I’ve predicted a 50% increase over his best to-date performance. But the students I expect he would appeal to most won’t be voting.
Finally, my apologies to Greg for talking about him as if he doesn’t read these comments, like this is somehow behind his back. I know he reads and I’d say all these things to him.
For the guy who wanted to have a beer with Greg, the last time I told him the same thing here, he told me beer made him flatulent. You’ve been warned.
You did.. what… with.. my … hair?
Fatigued at the stubborness
In my honest and humble opinion. The group I refer to as the insiders, deeply dislike the notion of systemic change because of the ambiguous social & economic impacts of said reform/progression that will result.
The individuals most involved with our union are those that have a vested interest in the DSU- vested interest can be altruistic. In other words, they care more about the details of the unions operations than the average student. I agree.
This does not justify charging student fees for an institution that cannot reaffirm its existence by making its operations a concern for a large majority of students. This argument rests on the premise that a majority of students do not perceive the union’s operations as a personal concern; this I believe is common knowledge.
And before I make my second last post, I take personal offence to questions of my professional ability. Without reasonable proof, its “chicken head talk”.
Hhhmmm…Judgment passed on me by individuals who have never spoken to me for more than 10 minutes in total. I have never met Mr Smit face to face, nor discussed anything but the possibility of reforming the union’s decision making process; yet, Smit et al claim to know me intimately.
“I know Greg is this…”
“Greg is that…”
Where is the basis for these assumptions? There exists a lack of “real” information on punditry about any candidate at a person level. “Hey it’s the best we have.” I enjoy engaging in occasional banter with pundits, offering alternatives to current DSU issues, or defending the alternatives I propose. This is there anything wrong with this? I think we have already answered that.
None, but a select few, know me beyond hear-say and subjective interpretations of my words & actions by bias individuals.
Core 1: If an involved independent student who is passionate about social progress cannot even access common respect from politically incumbent peers, why do students want to even bother with their union? ROS
After the last debate, I believe Miss Conrad witnessed a freshman student discussing the state of student culture with me at a picnic table. I had never seen this particular student before. She asked me why I thought there was a lack of student interest groups at Dalhousie, and whether I
thought this would change. She questioned whether she would attend Dal any longer if the student culture/life didn’t change. In other words, do student apathy related externalities stem from the students or something else?
She went on to tell me frosh week was horrible. And intensely questioned my position on her issues and dissected my solutions.
The point of the story is…will this student voice her complaint to her reps or before council? How many other students “silently” feel the same way and won’t bother to engage in receiving the share of the welfare the DSU is mandated to create.
Smit, Snow, Amyotte, Ghillis, Conrad et al-
the current system of decision making is old, inefficient, and ineffective in achieving the goals set out in the beginning of the DSU’s constitution. This is obviously a subjective judgment of the union, but something obviously isn’t working optimally within the DSU as an organisation. Otherwise, the fine people that entered & left office, over the last four years, would have fixed the issues with their incremental remedies. Believe it or not, I hold respect for those who have served the last four years. This is not to take away from past representatives efforts; it’s to point at the real
issue facing our union- systemic issues. ***”Oh my god that sounds crazy!”***
The student population changes yearly, and still the same issues have faced the union over my four year attendance at Dalhousie.
The issue of a student’s disconnection from their union can only be solved by taking larger samples of student’s preferences in services offered by the DSU. Every service! Not just a few! This does not entail the corporation/union telling students what their options arbitrarily are, but what the union members/students/shareholders demands are.
I have said it before. The shareholders of the DSU are the very customers it serves. Our union is technically a corporation (conversation with VPOP Boyle, 2009). Therefore, return on investment (ie return on fees) is almost exclusively valued by Dalhousie student perception of whether the union is doing its job-ie an investment that is paying dividends-. The corporation/union/organisation has a duty to commit a majority of its resources, used by nonessential overhead costs (ie council costs=$90000), to engage stakeholders in order to maintain its corporate social responsibility. The first priority stakeholder is the immediate public (employees, and mostly students). The second- shareholders (students). There are others, but I will stop here. Does the DSU as an entity have a responsibility to proactively engage students to ensure it is maximising both shareholders “wealth” and its corporate responsibilities? In my opinion, yes. Is this an irrational or crazy opinion?
The whole reason for investing our fees stems from a need to collectivise our preferences. Otherwise, why wouldn’t students spend their student fee elsewhere? Oh wait. I forgot. Students do not have a choice in joining the DSU, and paying fees. This creates an even further dynamic.
The student population at Dalhousie changes yearly. As we have seen in the last four years, the politically incumbent individuals sway the succession of the next generation of incumbents. If I really have to explain how I will, but I believe it is self-evident to even readers of punditry. I am only human, and may be wrong.
Students have no say in whether they are forced to pay fees. They face a political crowd of people who have vested interests in maintaining influence over the organisation that collects their fees. Average students face stark disparities of information in comparison to those already involved. I can speak to the difficulties in obtaining information from my union. And the very institution students fund disregards them due to a principle-agent problem.
The DSU has much bigger issues than “which policy to amend this year”. The DSU faces organisational identity crisis similar to that felt by American car manufacturers. The difference here is the DSU has constant revenue almost regardless of how it operates. There isn’t any market mechanism to mitigate principle-agent problems experienced by the DSU.
The only way to bring the DSU/organisation back into line with shareholder preferences is to take temporary, direct control. Students need to have a direct say in their union in order to solve its organisational malady. Students will generally experience negative economic surplus from paying student fees until such measures are taken.
This isn’t crazy; like most arguments it’s based/premised on assumptions.
That’s my two cents.
I have never made this claim. If you or anyone has thought I have made it, I apologize. I only know what I read, and any commentary is based entirely on that. I feel I have covered at length what I am able to speak to and quite specifically identified that as words written on punditry or various websites. I assume the limitations of this are obvious.
You seem to have taken personal affront to some of the comments here. In case you have misinterpreted mine, let me summarize: a) I think a number of your claims about the DSU are true and that you have some good ideas; b) we disagree on the need to discard everything and start from scratch, as I do like SOME of the things about the DSU, and c) your comments have alienated the people who are the obvious candidates to help execute your goals, which presents a substantial hurdle in achieving your agenda.
I’d be hard-pressed to describe those as insulting to your professional ability, or as reading beyond the written word.
@Gregory Debogorski
I really, really want to correct this “Council budget of $90,000-10,000″ thing…
The DSU budget used to have a line that was called “Council”, which contained the budgets for each member of the Executive, the funding for external organizations like CASA, and a number of other things that didn’t fit together anywhere else. Unless you’re really grasping, none of it had anything to do with Council (with the exception of honoraria for the chair and secretary, which is far from $100,000).
In fact, as far as I’m aware, Council doesn’t have any budget for discretionary spending at all. There have been a couple of times when motions have come forward to try to allocate money, and it basically came down to doing it in the budget.
Criticize the way the money is spent if you’d like, by all means. But be specific, because it’s a strawman and one that doesn’t even exist anymore (the line is called Governance and External Organizations, or something).
Let’s not evoke images of fat men in suits smoking cigars and laughing hysterically while they through fistfuls of $100 bills around the room. That’s not how Council works. Though, there are times when I think this is probably something buried in the university’s strategic plan…
@Gregory Debogorski
e-mail me – thetimbot@gmail.com
You have a lot of ideas I can get behind, as someone new to the issues I want to learn more about the history from your perspective.
@Henry
Hush now. It’ll all be over soon.
You have a point. Some of the councillors are women.
@Mike Smit
Ah shucks, I feel like I got compliment from the teacher.
Thanks Mike.
I can see why Greg scares so many people at first, but I think that if people were forced to coexist with him, they’d realize that he’s not nearly as polarizing in person as he comes off in “debate mode.” Of all the people I showed Osmond’s Debogorski impersonation to, none laughed louder than Greg himself. I have a gut feeling that he’d be able to work out the interpersonal relationships, even if it meant apologizing for the harshness of his tone in the past. Also, he might not be the strongest candidate when it comes to experience within the system, but given his degree in management, I have the feeling that he’d probably be able to figure out how to get the essentials of the job done while still pursuing his main objectives. If by some stunning upset Greg were to win, I would be first in line to volunteer my time to help him out.
This debate was not one I envisioned having in my lifetime, so I guess anything is possible. I think Greg promised free beer on his poster, so perhaps that will be the issue that finally speaks to the masses and delivers the miracle turnout we’ve been waiting for. Should be an interesting few days at any rate!
This goes back to the issue I pointed out in an earlier comment, which you chose not to respond to with anything more than “arm-flailing” types of arguments (i.e. not argument so much as assertions that I’m wrong for no particular reason).
It is entirely possible (likely even) that the reason you see so much discontent amount the students to talk to is because they are talking to you. You may be framing the discussion, asking rhetorical questions, or even just subtly, unintentionally, asking questions that betray your opinions. The point is, this happens to all of us, especially when we’re talking to strangers in ways that might indicate we have power (e.g. walking up to random people on the street and asking them about their union suggests a politician, even if you aren’t one). Your anecdotes are meaningless, and will remain so until you do a real, blind controlled, study.
This is also how it is that, Eric, you, and I can all be right about the sources of apathy. Students all tell us what we want to hear, because we all frame our discussions with our opinions, whether we like to or not. Thus none of us knows for sure what the “real” issue is with apathy. Probably it’s some combination of all three factors: poor communication, genuine contentment or lack of desire to get involved, and disillusionment or knowledge asymmetries.
The point is, just because you experience it, doesn’t mean it’s actually the case. Especially where social sciences are concerned. It happens all the time that people think they know something about others, and then don’t. So I say again, the premise your platform is based on is utterly flawed. Do some research (it’s _that_ hard), and get some real data, and maybe even I’d vote for you if you were right.
Have you ever tried to talk to me Greg? Do you know anything about me? What basis do you have for the generalizations you make about all councilors? Have you tried to see any progress the Union has ever made? That’s my problem with you. That I hear you making claims about what I’m “doing up in council chambers” but to my recollection I have seen you but once a year for the past tow years and you have never directly spoken to me. I however write on here about things I have directly heard you say.
Here is an example of how much you don’t know anything about me Mr. Debogorski. Yes the current system is inefficient I will give you that. I actually have written an entire post on radical change versus incremental change for the union. Do I think online voting and referendum will make it more efficient? Well if you’re bringing out your educational background all the time I will tell you my ENTIRE degree(Industrial Engineering) revolves around efficiency and we have THE BEST industrial engineering program in the country. (Actually. We have been told by the National Certification board and we win in IE competitions every year)
So from my point of view as an IE your preposition has no statistical or experimental verification to prove that online voting and referendum would be any more efficient than the current system. In fact I would hypothesize that the metrics you are proposing would be slower as you would have a greater demand for input and a bottlenecking process where decisions can only be made monthly. What about issues with a time constraint or outdates? The DSUSO board tried only having monthly meetings and it put a strain on the system with regard to efficiency.
The truth is the preferred solution when it comes to organizations is small incremental change. You may not see immediate results but there are results. Radically changing the system is often thought to be outdated since the experience has been that the learning curve associated with it brings just as much inefficiencies as the current system.
Radical change and reengineering the system from the ground up sometimes needs to happen.In this case it may be the best course of action. I just personally don’t believe you are the man for the job.
Saulnier has already changed a process that was widely thought to be inefficient and ineffective which was the Executive Review Committee. He made it a productive leadership oriented learning experience rather than a public flogging. Bailey has already held a forum for students to give input during the elections. He already has a lot of input from students and the knowledge to make change. What have you done? I know you say you have spoken to the individuals who are apathetic and feel distanced from the union but what have you done with that info besides use it as ammunition to tear down councilors?
I know the DSU is not perfect. The inefficiencies of it all bother me a lot. If I had the time I would tackle every issue that bothers me but I don’t so I concentrate on the things I can change.
@John Doucette
I’m wasting valuable schoolwork time defending Debogorski. I must really have lost my mind.
http://www.dsu.ca/campuslife/imagine/imagine-2009-what-else-can-the-dsu-do-for-you/
This is a painfully small and distorted sampling, but if 36% of the respondents to this DSU-administered survey were people who considered themselves actively engaged in the DSU, and the best the DSU can do in any of the categories is to barely meet expectations, then I think that might indicate that there is reason to suspect a deep dissatisfaction out there amongst a large segment of the student population.
There are a million reasons why this survey is not very helpful for drawing any conclusions about the actual thoughts and priorities of the student population, but I think that is why Greg has a point about needing to collect better information. Perhaps you can be the man who helps him figure out how best to do so when voter turnout hits 100% and the tide of Debomocracy surges over the DSU on Wednesday.
I agree that Doucette, greg, and eric are all correct about the source of student apathy (so is every other student). Now let’s all realize that the goal isn’t to find the one true answer (it doesn’t exist) and find a way the three of you can work together to tackle the issue.
The nice thing about the way to union is right now, anyone can just decide they want to solve an issue they see and work towards it. Again, lets all sit down and make a plan:
thetimbot@gmail.com
@John Hillman
The average is better than 4 out of 7 in 16 of 17 categories. It’s better than 5/7 in one, and the worst one is still over 3/7. The data appear normally distributed or positively skewed on all but 1 on the 17 categories.
I’m doubtful that this means anything, since it is, as you said, “a painfully small and distorted sampling”, but if it says anything, it’s certainly not that the DSU is doing a terrible job. I agree that we need more data.
@John Doucette
In addition, I also feel the need to point out that Punditry exemplifies the concept of the “vocal minority”. We probably draw in some of the angriest and most frustrated people in on campus, alongside some of the most devoted defenders of the current system.
The debate we have here is hardly indicative of the students at large in most cases, for that very reason. And that’s not an “insider vs outsider” thing, unless you start including people like Debogorski who want to shake up the status quo as “insiders”.
I don’t think it does. Punditry exemplifies the concept of the “former DSU wonk who just can’t let go.”
SMAC exemplifies the “vocal minority.”
@ ONE ANGRY MAN
Don’t go making generalizations about Punditry.ca… There are some of us that have done their time and maintain an interest and have the knowledge to make educated comments and ask questions from experience. I’d be willing to bet that there is a multitude of readers of this seasonal gem that keep their comments to themselves – many of whom could be members of your precious SMAC.
@Tired of Some People’s SoapBoxes
That whooshing sound you hear is the sound of the joke flying over your head.
@ ONE ANGRY MAN
Ha Ha. One should not make comments before one’s morning coffee.
Touche