punditry.ca — uncovering DSU elections

My friend and fellow pundit, Jen Bond, and I met in 2002 when we both arrived at Dalhousie as undergraduate students. That year, we had three of our five classes together, as well as a seminar. Though we travelled in different social circles, we both found our way to Council Chambers at the Dalhousie Student Union. Jen would go on to become Vice President (Education) of the DSU while I became a permanent fixture on Council. After completing Pre-Schulich Law School together, Jen and I have, for the most part, retired from student politics, but maintain a keen observer status.

Until now, this has been the truth.

In fact, Ms. Bond and I met much earlier on that world wide network known as “the Internet”. We got to chatting about the usual things that interested high school students at the dawn of the millenium. One night, after a spirited discussion of race relations as portrayed in Bring It On and fuelled by far too many cans of Jolt Cola (this was in the days before Red Bull; we got by on what we had), we devised our plan, and in the summer of 2002, we met covertly in the great state of Maine.

That is when we built Mike Tipping.

It was a summer that tested both our friendship and our commitment to the project, but by the end of August, our dream became a reality.

To ensure no connection among the three of us was suspected upon our arrival at Dalhousie, we applied to live in different residences. I moved into Shirreff Hall, while Jen lived in Eliza Richie, and the Tipping-bot in Howe Hall where he learned the social graces of the average undergrad and developed a tolerance for alcohol. To further our ruse, Tipping was presented as an American while Jen and I made sure to have audible “getting to know each other” conversations at parties and around the Council table (i.e. “Oh, you went to Sydney Academy? Do you know fellow SA graduate X?”)

We enrolled the Tipping-bot in our Political Science class where Dr. Robert Boardman unknowingly aided us in developing the bot’s knowledge of Canadian government. Jen oversaw the development of Tipping’s skills as an orator by involving him in debating. During our time in Maine, I performed a comprehensive survey of what the typical American teenager was wearing those days. Hence, I looked after the bot’s wardrobe, which was to consist of inoffensive, occasionaly namebrand t-shirts, just slightly oversized denim jeans (in order to appear comfortable and approachable, but not unkempt nor like a hipster), and your standard running shoe.

As for Tipping’s political aspirations, as well as our own, we started small with each of us taking a position on our respective residence councils. In order to get the bot some “hippie street cred”, he founded a grassroots organization called Halifax Action. These activist roots were necessary to counterbalance his conservative haircut, especially when faced with a shaggier opponent like Pelley.

After my colleague was made the benefactor of alphabetical election ballots, Jen and I became aware of a fundamental flaw in our plan. Our would-be candidate’s surname was far too close to the bottom of the alphabet. That year, under the name “Elections Review Task Force”, we spearheaded a major re-write of the election rules of the DSU Constitution. With the assistance of our confidant, Ezra Edelstein, and our unwitting fellow committee member and future campaign opponent, the alphabetically-advantaged Ms. Beringer, we ensured that candidate names would from that point forward appear in random order when presented to voters. This proved effective, as our bot successfully won two elections against opponents whose surnames would have otherwise given them an advantage.

Finding himself unchallenged by his human competition, Tipping, with the assistance of Ezra, took it upon himself to build a political adversary. What we neglected to do as guardians of the bot was show him that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where Data’s Moriarty figures out how to leave the Holodeck. Had we done that, perhaps he might have reeled it in a bit when programing Deb-bot’s antiestablishment protocols.

Throughout his time in Halifax, the Tipping-bot spoke often of Maine and his fondness for the place where he was born. So, when the time felt right, we let our creation return home. We miss him dearly.

Lisa Buchanan Uncategorized

It’s time again for me to arbitrarily distribute “awards” to candidates based on the content of their candidate videos in a little piece I call the 2010 Election Candidate Video Awards (ECVAs).

In past years, the Elections Committee recorded a video under the direction of each candidate. This year, the committee left candidates to their own devices, and those without the necessary devices or know-how will apparently have to go without. (So much for a level playing field, eh, EC?) So, the videos have been trickling in over the past couple of days, and I’m tired of waiting for new ones, so without further adieu, the ECVAs go to…

Best Use of an ABBA Song Title: Gregory Debogorski for “Take A Chance On Me”

After three campaigns, if we change our minds, he’s the first in line.

Most Testosterone in an Ensemble Cast: Neil Bailey

With his four-member cast (and by that I mean both that there are four people in the video and it’s a sausage fest), Bailey does a good job perpetuating the stereotype that not a single female can be found on Sexton. This one would have gone to Whitfield if not for the girl walking in front of the SUB and the two girls in the Quad, who I suspect had no idea what was being filmed.

Best Music: Rob LeForte

Seriously, who doesn’t get little pangs of nostalgia when they hear “Bittersweet Symphony”. This award, too, could have gone to Whitfield for using a Spoon track, but I couldn’t really hear it or what he was saying.

Best Homage to School Picture Day: Evan Price for that shot with the bookshelves behind him, especially when combined with the necktie.

Best Concrete Idea: Glenn Blake for “Give the Diversity Committee a budget”. As former chair of said committee, I can confirm that this would be much appreciated. Glenn also wins the award for “Most Improved Location Scout” following last year’s recording in a bathroom stall.

Best Backward Walking: Ben Wedge

Be careful, Ben. I recently received an e-mail from Occupational Health and Safety highlighting the workplace hazard that is walking backwards. I know that seems like a joke, but I actually did receive such an e-mail.

Most Colloquial: Carley Nicholson for her list of “things” relating to “stuff”.

Most Annoying Cameo and Worst Sound: The wind in the Studley Quad

You would think that in the age of YouTube, people would realize that those on-camera mics are no good if you are in the wind or more than three feet from the camera. Nicholson, by some miracle, managed to find a relatively calm day for her shoot in the Quad, but those days are few and far between.

PROTIP: I know what the Quad looks like, and I know what the wind sounds like. I want to hear your ideas. If that means sitting quietly indoors, so be it. Some great videos have been shot at indoor locations (see last year’s ECVA-recipient, Shane Simms – I’d post a link, but I can’t seem to find last year’s videos). Ideal locations include, but are not limited to: the library, or one of the multitudinous empty classrooms on campus.

As always, I welcome further ECVA submissions in the comments.

Lisa Buchanan Uncategorized

I am going to attempt live-blogging the meeting tonight.

11:30 – Motion Fails 215-237. Posse out.

11:26 – The ballots are being counted.

10:37 – Building hours will be extended long enough for us to finish voting and hear the results. The line to vote is still very long. I’d say there might be over 100 people waiting to vote.

10:25 – Still voting. I’m now getting reports that we have to leave the room before 11:00 (the meeting was extended until 10:45), but I suspect an attempt will be made so that we can stay later.

9:30 – My friend John Hurley has kindly let me use his laptop for the past three hours. The battery is going to die in 13 minutes. If somebody in the McInnes Room would like to let me blog from their computer, I would appreciate it (Don’t get out of your seat during the vote; just leave a comment). Otherwise, I’m going to have to type on my iPod Touch, which is fine with me, but will slow down my productivity greatly.

9:28 – We will have to present our DalCards to receive a ballot.

9:25 – Chair has asked Dan Boyle, Daniel Pink, Alia Saied and Jane Kirby to act as scrutineers.

9:23 – It is freakin’ close. Shannon Zimmerman has moved for a ballot vote (Chair asked that if someone was going to do it, do it now to pre-empt his hand-count). Mark Coffin has requested a role call vote, but Zimmerman wants the ballot vote to preserve some anonymity. Everyone has been asked to find a seat. (According to the Chair, “A seat is not the ground.”)

9:20 – Okay. This might make it a little clearer: We can make Council collaborate with NSPIRG. We probably can’t make NSPIRG collaborate with Council. So, if NSPIRG doesn’t want to collaborate, Council can go ahead with initiating a referendum so long as an effort is made to collaborate first.

9:18 – Chair’s interpretation is that this wording of this motion requires Council to collaborate with NSPIRG when drafting an appropriate question. At the same time, it requires Council to draft wording of a referendum question…Does that make sense to everyone?

9:16 – Debate is over. Now we get to vote!

9:14 – VPFO has raised a point of order regarding whether the current wording is within the spirit of the original motion because it requires collaboration between NSPIRG and DSU Council. His concern is that nothing may happen if NSPIRG does not agree with the wording of the referendum. Only one minute of debate left…

9:09 – Speaker took a couple of points of information about NSPIRG elections. When Ben Wedge raised one, she refused to take his question. (I suspect his question was going to be in regard to her comment that any Dal student can run for a position on the NSPIRG Board. A Dal student who has opted out of the NSPIRG fee, as I’ve been told, is not eligible to run for a Board position.)

9:05 – Speaker is saying that Stop NSPIRG is not a Conservative Party conspiracy. He feels we should put this to a referendum.

9:02 – Steinberg objects to the speaker’s reference to “leaders of NSPIRG” as they are a non-hierarchical body. Chair is trying to explain when a point of personal privilege should be used; it is not meant to clear up technicalities. Only use it if somebody impugns your honour.

8:59 – A member of the crowd has taken issue with some of the speaker’s comments. She objects to the term “Dr. Cluster Bomb”, but if the individual the speaker is referring to refers to himself by that name, it’s not out of order. The person raising the point of personal privilege did not speak into the microphone, so I missed a lot of what she said.

8:56 – Motion passed.

8:54 – Subsequent speaker has called to question. That passed. Now we’re voting on the amendment.

8:52 – Debogorski tried to call the question earlier out of turn. Now he’s at the mic and making comments. Robert’s Rules fun fact: If you are going to call to question, you can’t speak to the motion first.

8:50 – Here’s the wording of the amendment as it appears on the big screen:

BIRT the NSPIRG Board and DSU Council collaborate to word a referendum question to reaffirm the mandate of NSPIRG and its levy over motion 166:90 to take place in the 2009-10 academic year.

BIFRT the NSPIRG Board and DSU Council collaborate to resolve issues raised at this meeting.

8:46 – Colin, a “moderate” supporter of Stop NSPIRG (moderate in that he has engaged in dialogue with NSPIRG members), supports the motion/amendment (as long as NSPIRG really does want to make changes to their operations) and raises Stop NSPIRG’s three main problems with NSPIRG: (1) opt-out procedure, (2) accountability of working groups, and (3) NSPIRG falling in line with their original referendum question.

8:45 – NSPIRG is willing to improve advertising and accessibility of their opt-out policy. They welcome students bringing concerns forward.

8:44 – Steinberg has also raised what I feel is a very valid point: NSPIRG and the DSU have mechanisms in place if students have complaints which have not been used.

8:43 – Steinberg is raising the point that this meeting is not the proper forum for deciding the fate of NSPIRG. NSPIRG supports going to a referendum.

8:41 – Chair finds the referendum stuff is the essence of the motion. While it may push the limits, he finds the amendment to be permissible.

8:40 – Boyle explains that we shouldn’t cripple the society before everyone has had a chance to have their say in a referendum.

8:35 – NSPIRG Board Member Jean Steinberg is moving an amendment seconded by VPI Daniel Boyle.

Move to strike all whereas clauses because they are inflamatory. Also moving to strike the BIRT and first BIFRT. I’ll give you all the proposed new wording of the referendum-related clause as soon as it’s available.

8:33 – VP of Dalhousie Culture of Autism Awareness Society is speaking about NSPIRG’s support for their society. This, he says, suggests NSPIRG is not the extreme leftist group its opponents say it is. But where in the motion does it say that they are?

8:31 – Motion passes. Debate will end at 9:16, if not before.

8:28 – Eric Snow has corrected a spelling error in the motion (NSPIG amended to read NSPIRG; I believe I typed it correctly below) and he moves to limit debate on this motion to 45 minutes.

8:27 – Chair says cheering is good, but you’ll be kicked out for heckling.

8:26 – Speaker, who Chair has still not cut off, says the phrase “Leftist extremists are still extremists” is libel. Also, we’re getting the NSPIRG staff members at a bargain given their poverty-line salaries.

8:24 – Eric Snow raises point of order as speaker has exhausted his 4 minutes. Chair will be timing people from this point forward.

8:21 – Speaker is raising inaccuracies, which he says are contained in the motion, by reading from the Stop NSPIRG website.

8:19 – Speaker takes issue with use of “NSPIRG members” in reference to the motions at the last meeting. VPEd raises Point of Information, “Isn’t it so that all Dalhousie students who have not opted out of the NSPIRG levy are members of NSPIRG?”

8:18 – We’re back. Those waiting are now in the McInnes Room and another room has been opened for anyone who arrives later.

8:11 – Chair has been notified there are 8 people outside who can vote. He has recessed the meeting until we find a way to let those people in the room or somehow allow them to vote.

8:09 – Angela Day says she has received two phone calls from Dal students outside the room who are concerned because they cannot vote. Chair says ideally, we’ll have people step out. Sounds like we’re going to do our best to open up another room to have people vote in.

8:01 – It’s “New Business” time. Portions of the NSPIRG motion have been ruled out of order. Dan Pink is presenting amendments (seconder is Logan Philp):

Whereas the conduct of NSPIRG at recent events such as the job fairs held at Career Services in the Student Union Building over the last year has been excessively disruptive;

And whereas NSPIRG has not adequately communicated the opt out period for students to come in person to collect the $4.00 student levy that is rightfully theirs if they wish to opt out of NSPIRG membership;

And whereas memebrs of NSPIRG have submitted additions to the agenda of the General Meeting of the Union on March 11, 2009, that called for the Union to act irresponsibly by failing to meet its contractual obligations;

BIRT NSPIRG shall be served ninety (90) days written notice to vacate the SUB given to them in writingo by the VPFO. This notice shall be delivered within forty-eight (48) hours of the conclusion of the AGM.

BIFRT that the administrative payroll service that the DSU currently provides to NSPIRG be terminated as of May 1, 2009.

BIFRT that Council accept this motion as a proposal for a referendum to determine whether the membership supports or does not support DAL-PIRG or NSPIRG, as it is now known, continuing to receive a student levy thereby confirming or rescinding Motion 166:90 PIRG referendum dated March 4, 1990.

7:58 – The point of putting members in another room has been raised. The Chair can’t see into other rooms. But another person has raised the walky-talky in Room 224 option.

7:57 – Debogorski asks, why the executive didn’t look into the fire code problem previously (“What happens if 2000 students show up?”). They did. This was the largest room available.

7:55 – We’ve hit fire code capacity! And there are Dalhousie students who are outside the room and wanting to come in and exercise their votes. Chair is asking for King’s students if they would be willing to allow a voting member to replace them in the room.

7:53 – One of the short-haired guys from before has asked Kris to explain the ticket system for the Death Cab For Cutie contest. Rogers distributed the majority of the tickets, mainly to Rogers customers who voted for Dalhousie.

7:51 – Butterfly guy (remember him?) is at the mic. He is concerned with the representation of minorities (racial and sexual orientation). “Why didn’t we have anything to address inclusion in our campus program for the whole year?” Osmond answers the question by pointing out that we have over 200 societies that address inclusiveness on campus. On a personal note, the gentleman claimed there are no events for gays and lesbians. That made me upset. DalOUT has events almost every week during the school year.

7:42 – I neglected to mention that as people were entering, SMAC was passing out a hand-out called “know the rules…robert’s rules!” One side lists the points which can be raised and whether they interrupt the speaker, require a second, are debatable, are amendable, or need to be voted upon. The reverse reads as follows:

Anticpation of tonight’s DSU AGM has been building for three long weeks. Tensions are high and a lot is at stake but it is important to situate this one evening in the context of a much broader, longer struggle. Tonight is not the most important night. Tonight doesn’t determine the future because tonight is not the end. SMAC stands for the democratic participation of students in their university; we will continue to fight for that no matter the results of this meeting.

We must remain strong and unified. SMAC’s position will gain legitiacy only if we present a collective, rational voice. There is nothing to be gained from engaging in the inflammatory tactics of those opposed to our ideals. Let’s stay cool, calm, and collective! We have already achieved so much!

Some pointers for the evening:

• Stay solid. We’re here to support each other. No one should feel singled out or attacked as an individual; let’s work to make sure this doesn’t happen.
• Don’t forget; we have every right to be here participating. Our best strategy is to remain calm and logical in the face of disorder.d
• Do speak “in order”. You must state your motion with no preamble. Otherwise the chair can rule it “out of order” and it can be dropped.
• Do call a Point of Information if you don’t know what’s going on, even if it interrupts the speaker. Chances are you’re not the only one who is lost.
• Likewise for Points of Order, it’s important to engage the process so that it cannot be used unfairly against us.
• Remember; if a ballot vote is called just write your vote; no punctuation, no comments as these can be ruled invalid. Ex: yes (valid) yes! (invalid) yes. (invalid)

Motions! A motion is a formal proposal for action made at a meeting which is up for discussion and vote. However, a proposed motion does not have to stay on the table as is. If you want to edit the motion you can move to amend it and provide alternate wording. This has to be seconded, will be debated and then voted on. Everyone will then vote on the amended motion if the amendment passes. If it doesn’t everyone will vote on the initial motion. If you think the motion is asking too much you can motion to divide and separate it into two or more motions, each of whic will be debated and voted on separately. If a motion requires more thought and discussion than can be provided at the meeting you can motion to table it to a later date. This can include motioning to refer it to a specific committee.

7:31 – VPSL Osmond says he will complete is report within 10 minutes. Let’s time him, shall we?

7:30 – Mark says the people on both sides of the issues we’re discussing tonight are all “really great people” with “kind hearts”.

7:28 – Thanks, Craig. On my way back, I tried to get a report on the number of people in the room. The closest thing I got was 400-500. We’re basically at capacity. There are some King’s students in the room.

7:27 – Lisa is coming back. It’s been fun everyone, thanks.

7:25 – Apparently he used all his good clip art in the first few slides.

7:24 – Mark Coffin is still going.

7:23 – Lisa is going to pee. Craig Jennex is taking over for…however long it takes her to pee.

7:18 – Guy [correction: new guy; similar haircut] is back again, asking why ANSSA’s fee was raised and why it did not go through a referendum (because it comes out of our operating budget; it isn’t a levy).

7:15 – Coffin’s ANSSA report is getting laughs. I’m glad to many people are here and listening to the Executive reports. It should be like this every year.

7:13 – Guy is back at the microphone with a point of information. He wants to know fees we pay to CASA and ANSSA.

7:09 – VPEducation Coffin has some lovely visuals in his report presentation. For example, the words “TUITION FREEZE” on a photo of a glacier; a woman in a grad gown and cap looking at an oversized piggy-bank.

7:08 – Some guy has approached the microphone, which is not on. This is not question time.

7:01 – Wow. Golding said the word Pepsi, and nobody ‘boo’ed.

7:00 – “Thank you all for showing up to hear my report this evening.” -VPFO Golding

6:59 – Chair does not want to have to remove anybody, but has advised us of his discretion to do so.

6:58 – Chair feels the “Challenge of the Chair” was severely misused at Part 1 of the meeting. Challenge of the Chair is not meant to achieve that which cannot be achieved democratically.

6:56 – I have a report that “Save NSPIRG” pins have been distributed. I haven’t seen one yet.

6:53 – Chair Brechtel is asking us to take our seats. He reports we are approaching capacity.

6:51 – Not surprisingly, things are late getting started. Students are still filing in.

6:16 – After explaining my “position” on allowing King’s students into the meeting (as I’ve explained, I don’t really care one way or the other, I just want the Judicial Board to have accurate information), I show my DalCard to the Night Manager and proceed to the table for those with surnames beginning “A-Ch”. My name is crossed off the list with a pink highlighter and the staff-person hands me my “voting card”.

5:45 – About 40 people are waiting on the 2nd floor landing.

Lisa Buchanan Uncategorized

The message below was directed to me by the DSU’s Communications Coordinator, Meghann Bryans. It is the most up-to-date statement regarding the admittance procedures that will be in place at tomorrow’s AGM. I am posting it for the sake of clarification, since much speculation has been floating around as to what is going to happen tomorrow evening with regard to admittance. It is unknown to me how much this is subject to change in advance of the meeting, but this is where things stand as of 4:00pm today:

At last night’s Judicial Board meeting, a decision was made to allow ALL students attending a class or classes at Dalhousie University to attend and have speaking rights at tomorrow evening’s DSU Annual General Meeting. This applies, but is not limited to, University of King’s College students currently enrolled in Dalhousie classes. All students enrolled in Dalhousie classes, but who do not have valid Dalhousie IDs, must provide proof of registration. Acceptable proof of registration will include a class syllabus and proof that the student is in the class, or a printoff of a class schedule. This decision, however, does not give these students the right to vote at the AGM.

The AGM will be held at the McInnes Room of the Dalhousie Student Union Building. Upon arrival, attendees will receive direction as to where to go. Students with valid Dalhousie IDs will check-in at the main door of the McInnes Room. Due to capacity concerns, Dalhousie students with voting rights will be the first to enter the room, followed by non-voting students. Attendance for students without Dalhousie IDs will be on a first-come, first-serve basis, and will be limited based on the capacity of the room.

A live audio-feed will be streamed in Room 224 for community members and interested parties not registered for classes at Dalhousie.

Media should register with the DSU Communications Coordinator (meghann.bryans@dal.ca) no later than the morning of the event. Media will be escorted to a designated section at the back of the room once the majority of attendees are seated. In order to protect the privacy of voting members, no video cameras will be allowed.

Lisa Buchanan Uncategorized

Tonight, CKDU hosted a panel discussion on student activism. I wasn’t able to listen live, but will live-blog as I stream the discussion. You can do the same if you missed the live broadcast by visiting the Program Archive and start streaming at 21:00. (I’ll base my time-stamps on this start time.)

On with the show:

9:03: Oh, there’s some music first. I feel very at ease. While listening to BBC Radio 2 on Tuesday, I learned from Dr. Frank Lipman that reggae music is a great way to slow down and bring your body back to it’s natural rhythm. I suspect the effects will be undone once the discussion starts.

Beauty of streaming: skip to 20 minutes in to get to the good stuff.

9:21: Julie & Bethany from The Gazette are also in the studio. Julie spoke to Council last night about The Gazette and I learned why they print so many copies of the paper (number of papers printed determines what they get from a national advertiser). Julie got a lot of questions but didn’t get defensive. I like the cut of her jib.

9:26: I have a little rant about Bethany not abiding by the “two Gazette writers” rule despite having received advance notice of the decision. I may have gone so far as to take a red pen to her article in The Gazette last week, but I can save that for another time.

9:28: I agree that students should receive information about potential employers in a critical environment. However, I don’t think Lockheed Martin is hiding the fact that they manufacture weapons. I also agree that students should be allowed to protest in a democratic society, but I don’t think protesters should prevent students from speaking to those on the other side of the issue (i.e. Lockheed Martin recruiters). I also have a little rant about hypocrites which I’m saving for a future post. [I'm not saying Angela was hypocritical in her response. I actually think I like the cut of her jib, too.]

9:32: I completely agree that NSPIRG has not advertised their opt-out period effectively. I don’t like the “it’s been 19 years” argument because I’m of the mind that if a society is still meeting its mandate as set out at the time their referendum passed, and that mandate is still relevant to contemporary society, the passage of time cannot be the only reason for sending a levy back to referendum. I know why they’re making the argument (the levy is as old as most first-year undergrads), but it’s not why I think a new referendum may be necessary.

9:36: <sarcasm>You mean to say that Political Science and IDS students are studying war and national defence?! What?!</sarcasm> Seriously, find me a poli sci student who doesn’t expect some discussion of defence in a foreign policy class.

9:37: I am so canvassing the Poli Sci course listings once this is over.

9:39: I may have written my Poli Sci Honours thesis about modern applications of Virginia Woolf’s ideas about preventing war and fascism by means other than violence and war. This could make me a little bit sensitive when someone claims my education has somehow been compromised by the Department of National Defence.

9:41: Past and future DSU executive are “intimately connected.” Someone’s been reading my DSU Gossip Girl blog.

9:43: Oh, here we go…increasing “conservativization” of the DSU. But we’re not woefully incompetent. Gee, thanks.

9:45: I resent discussion of slander and libel, as it made me pick up my Criminal Code.

9:51: FYI, libel is published defamation while slander is oral, so unless it’s an audio blog, slander is not going to happen on a website.

Something went funny with the stream. I’m warming up another Krispy Kreme while it reloads.

9:53: The panelists are going on a pee parade. I didn’t really need to know that.

9:59: Damn the man!

10:01: SMAC’s vision of student engagement is in line with that of NSPIRG. I’m shocked.

10:08: Okay, I’m trying to understand Stop NSPIRG’s “students should have a choice” argument. I agree that students should be allowed to conform and consume if that’s what they want to do, but I’m not sure I agree that it’s NSPIRG’s job provide equal time to “the man”, for lack of a better term. Isn’t the whole problem that those are the dominant viewpoints presented to us whether we like it or not and NSPIRG’s critical perspective is meant to provide a counterbalance? It’s sort of like saying, “DalOUT, you have to present the gender binary as a viable option even though you’re supposed to be educating us about alternatives to that binary that gets shoved down our throats from the moment we’re born.”

10:09: Okay, Angela picked up on that point.

10:15: I don’t have a problem with a society like NSPIRG paying a non-student staff person (though it would be nice if students were given priority for such jobs), but I have a copy of Dal-PIRG’s 1989-90 constitution, and it’s so lovely and student-focused…

10:24: I agree that the campus and community are inextricably linked, so it makes sense for NSPIRG to focus not just on the campus.

10:25: Safe space! Yay!

10:32: Well, that was sort of interesting, actually. Gave me a few things to think about. I’ll be posting at least once more before the AGM once I’ve had a chance to finally read everything on the NSPIRG, SMAC, and Stop NSPIRG websites.

Lisa Buchanan Uncategorized

First thing’s first: Congratulations to Shannon, Mark, Rob, Kris, Janet, Adam, Meredith, Shane, and Glenn, and thanks to all of the candidates for putting so much time and effort into your campaigns and keeping me entertained.

This being my seventh and final DSU Election as a student, I thought I’d compile a personal highlight reel of the past eleven days. Two photos from last night’s results party festivities serve as bookends to this entry.

- Hobbes sticking up for Jennex at the Studley debate: I didn’t really know Mark before this campaign, but he proved himself to be a stand-up guy when he could have taken advantage of his opponent being attacked. Both Mark and Craig ran strong campaigns, which was reflected in the 35-vote difference in the final results.

- I’m still not entirely comfortable with the way NSPIRG became a campaign issue, and, in particular, the way the debate was focused on the presidential race, but it deserves mention given the amount of attention it is getting. I’ll be writing more about this matter in the coming days as The AGM: Part II approaches.

- Janet Conrad’s candidate profile photo: I’ve watched enough America’s Next Top Model to identify when someone knows how to use their angles and find the light source.

- My buddy Eric Snow went from rule-maker to rule-breaker by racking up some post-campaigning fines.

- The Evolution of Debo: Is it just me, or is Greg getting a bit better with each election? Sure, he still has inappropriate outbursts and does silly things like drink five large teas during a debate, but every once in a while when you get past his demeanour, you find a reasonable idea. This seems to be happening more frequently these days. I must say, even though he would lump me in with the DSU “in crowd”, I appreciate what Greg is trying to do and that he has a genuine interest in getting people engaged with what goes on at the DSU. I might not agree with all of his ideas, but I’ve got to admit, campaigns would be a lot less interesting if he weren’t running.

- Shannon’s closing remarks at the Presidential debate are a perfect example of why I supported her campaign. Without any prepared notes, she spoke of the significance of this campaign for her, and of her love for the DSU and for Dalhousie. It was obviously genuine and indicative of why she’s well-suited to be President. Her passion for the DSU is contagious, which is something we need from our Executive if we have any hope of sparking interest in what we do. I anxiously await the DVD release of the debate so I can provide
a transcript of her remarks.

Lisa Buchanan Uncategorized blake, conrad, debogorski, edelstein, evans, harris, hobbs, jennex, leforte, nspirg, osmond, simms, snow, zimmerman

I have known Shannon Zimmerman since her first day at Dalhousie when she moved into Newcombe House in Shirreff Hall. I was on Residence Council and one of Shannon’s Orientation leaders. Shannon was one of those Frosh who stand out in a leader’s memory. She took part in everything, obviously anxious to soak up her Dalhousie experience. Shannon began to make her presence known at Dalhousie as soon as she arrived. In her first year she joined Residence Council as a floor rep and was appointed First-Year Member at Large on DSU Council. I won’t recite her resume here, but as you know, that was just the beginning.

She has come to know not just the Union, but the University inside and out. She has developed invaluable networks within the University administration, and I don’t doubt she has earned a great deal of respect from those with whom she has worked as a member of the Board of Governors. In the SUB, Shannon has already developed positive relationships with those who work in the building. I have witnessed first-hand, whether full-time staff, servers in the Grawood, or the Dalhousie custodial and maintenance staff, the people Shannon will work with every day as President are always happy to see her.

Shannon’s enthusiasm and passion for the DSU and Dalhousie is nothing short of infectious. I was humbled to receive the Lilly Ju Lifetime Achievement Award from Shannon because she has been such an inspiration to me since her arrival. She approaches issues with a critical eye, always keeping in mind the best interests of students. She is organized, professional, and a joy to work with. This will make her a great asset to the DSU Executive team.

Shannon Zimmerman is an exceptional person who will make an exceptional DSU President, and I will be honoured to vote for her this week.

[Please Note: As I have been registered as an official agent on Shannon's campaign, this endorsement will be removed by 8:00pm on Monday in accordance with campaign rules.]

Lisa Buchanan Uncategorized debogorski, endorsement, snow, zimmerman