As Mike pointed out in his last post, the campaign period has (now) officially started and there is an organized “no” side for the Loaded Ladle referendum question, complete with the cheeky moniker “The No Loaded Levy Campaign.” Notice I said “organized” and not “official.” The reason for this is that the people behind the “No” side have decided not to register with the CRO, and instead run their campaign outside of the official constraints. There are pros and cons to this position. Read more…
There is indeed a no-campaign for the Loaded Ladle referendum question. They’ve jumped the gun a bit and launched their Twitter account and Facebook page a day before campaigning starts. Word is they aren’t an officially registered referendum campaign team, you can probably expect commentary to follow on what that means. There isn’t a lot of content; so far the argument is this:
Levy fees are wrong in principle and bad in practice. Forcing students to support a political cause by taking their money is NOT ethical.
Paying one of the highest tuition rates in the country, Dalhousie students should not be forced to fund political experiments.
The Loaded Ladle also has had a site for a while, and as of yesterday it talks about their campaign and how great they believe they are:
The Loaded Ladle is taking a leap forward in food alternative and we can only do it with our fellow students, like you behind us.
What are you waiting for…raise your ladle in choice.
It’s starting, folks. Short on facts, long on rhetoric – I smell an election in the air!
Ah, reading week. While some students escape to warmer climes, and others don PJs and curl up in front of the gently flickering television, and still others work feverishly at minimum wage so they can afford the remainder of the semester, the brave and hopeful contenders in the coming election are diligently preparing their campaigns. This year’s activities are typical: photo shoots in the SUB, meetings with stakeholders, poster designing, website crafting, and of course clandestine efforts to get a head start at campaigning while remaining under the CRO’s radar.
To occupy ourselves while we wait for the first day of campaigning, we pose to you a hypothetical question to foment a theoretical discussion. Consider the following fictional, not-at-all-based-on-a-true-story, scenario: A candidate, eager to identify the Will of the People and run an informed campaign that speaks to their issues, consults with his or her friends. Say, on Facebook, using a private group. With… I don’t know, 80-85 members or so. This candidate circulates a link to his or her public website among those members for comment and input. The link is not otherwise communicated, the only possibility for dissemination is via word of mouth.
Is this pre-campaigning? Why or why not? If yes, what fine would you levy?
When I posted the candidates list, I forgot to add the two referendum questions. They’ve already come up vaguely in conversation; here’s a quick rundown of what people are talking about. There were rumours of a “no” campaign for at least one of these; any news there?
Loaded Ladle
Loaded Ladle is a food cooperative; they are asking for $2 per student ($1 part-time) to support providing meals and workshops for students. You will be able to get a refund of the levy.
Grad Referendum
This question basically asks graduate students if they would like to join DAGS 2.0. Existing society fees would be replaced by a $60 annual fee ($30 part-time), split evenly between DAGS 2.0 and graduate societies. MBA students are not involved at this point.
The Loaded Ladle referendum would create an organization with ~$30,000 in student funding; the DAGS 2.0 question would create an organization with ~$175,000 in student funding (in place of a series of fees totalling ~$140,000). The former will raise student tuition by up to $2; the latter, by up to $30. Any bets on which one will get more air time?
(Edited to help avoid people thinking I am math challenged. The writing is now repetitive and boring. I blame Eric.)
The following are issues that were raised at the Candidate’s Cafe by the incumbents. They are not by any stretch the only issues that may arise, but this might help frame your mind around what candidates are likely to be talking about. Turns out I did pretty well in my earlier guesses, so either I know what I’m talking about or the current Exec are reading my posts. Either way, I’ll be taking 100% of the credit.
The candidates cafe started 53 minutes ago (pundit LeForte is tweeting updates), so the list of candidates is officially Out There. Below is our contribution to its ongoing dissemination. (Of course, thanks to the efforts of Eric and others, as well as the Free Beer contest, we’ve had very accurate guesses at most of the list for a few weeks now… plenty of prep time).
I’m so excited by this list I could Riverdance. A sprinkling of incumbents, a dose of people trying again, some new faces, and rumours of an unofficial slate. Notable in his absence, of course, is Gregory Debogorski. Gone from the list of candidates, but not from our hearts.
President
Sebastian Fiszman
John Hillman
Chris Saulnier
Vice President (Internal)
Christopher Connors
Kayla Kurin
Imad Mekhail
Vice President (Academic and External)
Sarah Bouchard
Karl Dempsey
Andrew Mecke
Evan Price
Vice President (Student Life)
Jamie Arron Hannah Dahn
Tom Dobbyne
Adam Reid
Undergraduate Senate (3)
Jonathan Michael Magill
Margaret Scrimegeour
Board of Governors (2)
Dustin J.M. Griffin Matthew Kutcher
Max Ma
Christopher Ross Rector
Recent Comments