punditry.ca — uncovering DSU elections

Obviously the big news today was Eric Snow calling for NSPIRG reform. Agree with him or not, you have to admit its ballsy. NSPIRG is one of the hot-button issues in the SUB these days, and I rarely see an elections candidate stand up and take a firm stand on a hot issue. Candidates “take stands” on issues all the time, but normally its something entirely uncontroversial: “We need better food on campus.” “Tuition should be lower”. I would imagine the vocal group of people who love NSPIRG will rush to campaign against Eric, and that those groups demanding change from NSPIRG will rush to campaign for him. The possibility exists this election will be determined by how effectively each side mobilizes support.  Debogorski has come out strongly in favor of NSPIRG, while Zimmerman is content to sit this one out.

Mark Coffin offered excellent coverage of this story.  If you aren’t sure what NSPIRG is, Ann Beringer offers an excellent, well-researched story as absent of bias as I think it is possible to be. (If you didn’t click the Read More link the first time you saw it, now is the time).  

The last time I remember a candidate taking a stand that a vocal group of individuals would disagree with was during the student spaces referendum a few years back. (Interestingly, Snow was one of the people who took a stand on that issue, too).

Vikram Rai has publicly stated his support for Eric’s position. At this time it is unknown if other candidates will agree.

Zimmerman issued a correction to her platform, promising to demand amendments to existing policy re: school cancellation.

Today was the residence hockey game, Howe won over Risley, 5-3.  Many candidates were in attendance, and it sounds like everyone had a great time.

Online debate is tomorrow, and I described how that’s going to work.  (actually, in 6 hours)

I discussed Student Appreciation Night last night, and as people woke up (around noonish) and took aspirin (around 30), news came in.  The consensus is that Kris Osmond did an awesome job.  He didn’t say a word about the election, but he also didn’t need to: successful events speak for themselves.  (Lisa weighed in on the night as well).

Every candidate was given a ticket to attend and the chance to volunteer.  Snow, Zimmerman, Burns, LeForte, Jennex, Evans, and of course Osmond volunteered (well done); Harris, Conrad, Simms, Rai, Horne attended (good plan);  Debo, Hobbs, Blake, and FPW were apparently not able to attend.  The latter candidates missed out on a great chance to get some face time with voters.  Hobbs in particular surprises me as typically Union commissioners attend, candidates or not.  Sources tell me Jennex in particular put in a long night spinning the roulette wheel and Burns gave up a work shift to volunteer.  Also of note, CRO Amyotte and some of her committee members put in a long day helping Osmond out.

Will Horne talked a little bit about his (and Meredith Evans’) experience with the music society.  The story is not an unfamiliar one: a somewhat sleepy society is shaken up and achieves a lot in a short period of time.  I’ve seen it happen a few times – Marine Bio, DalOUT come to mind – and I was part of it with the Computer Science Society (two Society of the Year awards in three years, bitches).  The success is typically due entirely to the hard work and long hours of a few people who Get Shit Done (heh, just noticed he used the same words, but I stand by them).  These people are often never happier than when working within their own society, but every now and then a few decide to join the DSU, and typically my advice is: let them.  I’m not saying it has to be THIS position, but find a way to let them contribute.

 Other candidates with updates include Rai,  Jennex, Hobbs, and Debogorski posted some more of his platform.

Slow day on punditry.ca – about 3,000 page views, though still a lot of comments.

These went out to candidates earlier, but Dal email is so incredibly painfully slow these days that I don’t think any of them have it.  So, here you go.  These are slightly modified to be briefer, so candidates should check the OFFICIAL rules sent via email.  The debate will start at 2pm and will finish at 4pm or when we run out of questions, whichever happens first.

This is a first for Dal, and I couldn’t find any one else whose done it, either.  Please bear with us as we sort things out.

Debate Rules, Guidelines, and Information

• The debate will be conducted through the chat forum at http://punditry.ca/features/online-debate  That page is open to candidates now, and will be open to the public about an hour before the debate begins so we can all come in and find our places, as it were.
• The chat will be “recorded”, and the transcript made available on punditry.ca
• During the debate, the discussion room will be locked down, with only the candidates, the questioner, and myself able to speak. Participants will send the message: “/raisehand” to indicate they would like to speak, and they will be called on in order.
• I (Mike Smit) will act as moderator.
• Candidates and participants will follow the rules, and I will use all technical means to ensure that happens. While we encourage healthy debate and questions from all participants, Participants will be kicked out of the discussion without hesitation if they are interfering with the debate.
• Each candidate WILL have limits placed on how much they can speak. This is to ensure fairness, but also to make sure things move along at reasonable speed. Word limits will be imposed; time limits exist implicitly: you have roughly as much time as it would take to type your word limit at 40 words per minute.
• A candidate can at any time send me a private message challenging the length of another candidate’s response.
• A candidate (or participant) can at any time send me a private message with any procedural questions or objections.  Abuse of the private messaging feature is not acceptable

• Order of debate

1. 1. Opening statements, 150 words
   2. 2 opening questions from moderator
   3. Questions from punditry.ca writers
   4. Questions from audience
   5. Closing Statements

• “Questions” may be in one of two forms:

1.  
   1.  Lightning Round Style (to take advantage of our unique platform):  Question is asked. Candidates respond simultaneously, firing off chat messages as much and as often as they want. They can address their opponents’ responses, or can keep talking. Regular rules of decorum are to be followed. Questioner may also participate. After conversation dies down, or after enough time has elapse, Moderator will call for “final thoughts”, and discussion ends after final messages from candidates.
   2. Forum Style (tried, tested, true): One candidate is invited to speak at a time, like the forums of the past week, and past DSU millenia.  75 word responses (order in which candidates answer will cycle), 35 word rebuttals.  Questioner can follow up, treated as new question.  All questions will be asked to all candidates.

• The questioner will decide which form they would like the candidates to answer using. I will use one of each style in my two opening questions to get people used to it.

• Passion is wonderful.  Douchebaggery isn’t.  Please show respect to the candidates and questioners.  Note that profanity will be censored out: it will appear to you like what you typed, but to everyone else it will be censored.

• This is not a DSU Elections sponsored OR endorsed event.  However, you are also not immune from their rules.

Part of the reason I haven’t reoffered my services to the DSU electorate is simply that I feel a majority of the fierce debates student politicians have are quite useless. For example, topics that have captivated the DSU exec and council lately include:

• What should the format of our website be? (This is a no-brainer, it should be something that is accessible to users on computers outside of Soviet Russia)
• Should we have one member at large on council, or three?
• Should we have a handbook for the recruitment committee?
• What should we order for food: Indian or Thai?

While important issues (like I expect of our annual budget) often pass by with little or no debate.

But today, he’s done it. An issue worth talking about. Now, not only is Mr. Snow a better writer than Ms. Zimmerman, there’s actually a difference between them worth discussing!

Eric’s latest facebook group (a bad idea in my opinion, I hate redundant groups) is used for him to voice his opposition to NSPIRG. While he doesn’t tie himself to the official petition, he does essentially say what their saying, with more diplomatic and politically correct words. I am however impressed at how strong his wording is.

Here is what he says he will do to take action on NSPIRG:

GIVING STUDENTS A CHOICE, THROUGH A REFERENDUM, ON THE FUTURE OF NSPIRG’S LEVY – It should be the choice of all students, not the DSU Executive or Council, to determine whether or not the levy for NSPIRG will continue. All students deserve to have a say.

ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY FROM NSPIRG: EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL SOCIETIES – With or without a levy, NSPIRG has to be held accountable for its actions and the actions of its working group. Creating separate names for groups like SCAW or SMAC, with overlap in membership and resources, cannot continue to be used as a method of escaping accountability.

HOLDING INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS – A member of the NSPIRG staff has struck one of the DSU Executive. There have been accusations of vandalism in the SUB and across the Dalhousie campuses. While there is a due process to follow, holding individuals responsible for their actions is necessary if we are to have a safe student community.

I am surprised he hasn`t mentioned anything about kicking them out of the building. That is valuable space, and I`m sure there are lots of other societies that would be interested in getting some community space on campus.

What does Shannon say on the subject? Nothing. Neither her blog, website nor her facebook group say anything on the subject.

Either Eric is playing strategy here, or he really hates NSPIRG. The strategist in him likely knows that he is either in a tie or lagging closely behind his chief opponent. When you consider the fact that Shannon’s been passively working on this campaign for three years, I wouldn’t expect any opponent of her’s to be doing well either. The PIRG portion of your platform may just throw you over the top, Eric. Essentially, it all comes down to which side has more voters on it. Judging from the turnout at our AGM, NSPIRG has about half as many people willing to come out and support them than do those who are either undecided or in support of the STOPNSPIRG approach. The challenge, being this late in the game, is getting the word out with only about two full days left of campaigning.

I for one, cannot wait until this topic comes up in monday’s debate.

Post-post note: 

I realize that Eric was never silent about his feelings toward PIRG, but throughout the campaign he has been purposely diplomatic about NSPIRG,  not mentioning what most of us have assumed to be his true feelings. 

So the word clouds were fun, but I like to sink my teeth into a good, meaty platform and tear it to pieces.  That’s actually how MikeSmit.com got started with its DSU Election coverage.  This post covers only Zimmerman and Snow; this isn’t a slight toward Debogorski, he simply hasn’t finished his platform yet.  Depending on the timing, hopefully I can cover him as well.

It gets long, so I’ll offer a few awards and then move the discussion to after the jump.

• Hardest to mock: Snow
• Worst writing: Zimmerman
• Easiest for non-politico to understand: Zimmerman
• Most concrete ideas: Snow
• Lamest platform plank: demanding a written school cancellation policy which… already exists. (Zimmerman)
• Highest density of jargon: Snow
• Nicest summary: Zimmerman (most people aren’t going to read the 2000 word platform; she summarizes her key points on the first page of her website).

Read a detailed breakdown of both platforms at the Read More link.  Note that for the GOOD parts of their platforms, you’ll have to read their websites (Snow | Zimmerman), here I focus on the negative.

Read more…

Here we go. This is a long one, folks. You might want to get some popcorn and settle in. Rather than save the audience questions for the end of the post, I’ve just lumped them in under each position for ease of reading. I did have to leave a few minutes early, so I missed the last couple of audience questions. Also, I apologize in advance for any sentence fragments, and I have put some of my comments in italics to ensure they are not mixed up with candidate comments.

President

For openers, Snow thanked everyone for attending, mentioned his experience with Senate and HSA, 24-hour study space and food service, and his website. Zimmerman thanked the organizers of the debate, referred to the SUB as her first home rather than her second, and mentioned her experience on Council, BoG, and student societies.

For the first question, candidates were asked to describe their leadership qualifications. Zimmerman said that she has had lots of involvement on all campuses. She feels BoG is the most important role of the President outside the SUB and has experience as current BoG representative. She also feels it is important not to talk only to students, but also to societies, deans, etc. Snow told us he knows the rules and procedures (even wrote some). He knows President is not an all-powerful role and believes there should be consultation beyond Council (athletics, residences, etc.) He wants to get students involved as much as possible and believes the more students that are involved, the better. Zimmerman said she believes in talking to students more than in policies and procedures. She believes in talking to people in all outlets in campus. Snow agrees with consulting with students but said one must understand the procedures for doing this (i.e. know who to go to on various issues).

I must say I’m a little confused by Snow on this one. I understand that one might need to know how certain networks are structured to find the most efficient way of addressing and issue, but in terms of direct consultation with students, I don’t believe we need to refer to any policy.

Question two was about media attention. Is it good or bad? How will they present the image of the DSU? Snow said he’s no stranger to media and isn’t shy to speak to crowds. He sees media attention as a double-edged sword (Everyone wants a piece of you, eh Eric?) He is looking into getting official media training. Here, Zimmerman made her first of a couple references to the Executive Team. She would consult with other members of the Executive because they should be working together on representations to media. She believes media should be used to educate and give background on issues facing the Union, and that the Exec should resume weekly interviews with CKDU that started and stopped at some point this year. She would endeavour to have student consultation before speaking to media. While Snow agrees on consultation with Exec, he pointed out that the President takes responsibility, as official spokesperson, for what is said. Zimmerman also raised the fact that the DSU has a General Manager and Communications Coordinator whose strategic capabilities can help executive who are new to interacting with media.

Question three was about the strategic plan/Imagine DSU. Candidates were asked what was the most pressing issue students raised this year during Imagine. They were also asked about the future of Imagine. Zimmerman mentioned the campus master plan, 24-hour study space, and local food service. She feels it was a good idea to have a full-on campaign this year rather than a single event, but feels the process has lost momentum. She thinks the process should start at the beginning of the year, rather than waiting until the Winter term to have consultations. Snow agreed that students raised 24-hour study space and the master plan, but feels local food on campus was the biggest issue. He wants more comment cards near services in order to find out how to pursue student interests.

In closing, Zimmerman plugged her website and said her name twice in addition to her URL. Snow plugged his Website and five campaign points, saying his name once in addition to his URL. Someone’s taking my advice.

Check out the rest of the recap after the jump.

Read more…

If you are not familiar with word clouds, here is a pretty cool example.  They are obviously not an infallible type of analysis, but they are interesting because you sometimes see patterns not apparent from the text, free of spin.

The text for Zimmerman and Snow is right from their websites, platform descriptions only.  Snow is just over 1,000 and Zimmerman is at about 1,800.  Debogorski doesn’t have a fully articulated platform, so I grabbed the text from his poster and the text of every one of his comments from punditry.ca, 3,000 words.  The word clouds are relative word frequency, and some word stemming was done for the most-frequent words (e.g., “students” and “student” both became “students”). The word clouds were generated using TAPoR, a humanities computing project now at the University of Alberta.

The word clouds for our fearless wannabe leaders are as follows:

Shannon Zimmerman

Eric Snow

Gregory Debogorski

A few observations:

• Obviously “students” is the most common word for all three, I probably should have omitted it.  ”DSU” & “Union” are also common.  The next top word for Zimmerman is “Shannon”, for Snow is “Sustainability” and “Societies”, and for Debo is “Democracy”.

• The first thing I noticed was the internal/external split.  The DSU President ideally has a very strong internal role and a very strong external role.   If you look at Zimmerman’s words, they are almost all internal: administration, body, campus, carleton, community, dalhousie, deans, events, members, resources, school, senate, sexton, societies.  ”anssa” and “lobby” are the external words.  It’s the mix you’d expect from the VP Internal, essentially.  Snow gets a nice mix of external (advocacy, alliance, anssa, casa, external, hsa, lobbying, organizations) and internal (academic, administration, carleton, internal, campuses, committe, council, dalhousie).

• You’ll notice Snow and Zimmerman are both improving the current state (continue, improve, keeping, promoting, better), whereas Debo is out with the old, in with the new (status, quo, proposal, create).

• Debogorski appears to identify with time (year, time) and with his education (finance, management), and because these are conversational comments you see signs of contemplation (Hhmmm, think, oh) and debate (actually, fact, really, point, right).

• Zimmerman’s THREE WORDS are “Connected, Sustainable, Community”.  ”Connected” doesn’t show up there at all; the closest is “website”, or perhaps “campus”.  Sustainability shows up, but not nearly as often as it does for Snow.  ”Community” is there but is not in the top 50%, and I don’t see any words unambiguously associated with “community”.  Conclusion?  The three words are a catch-phrase, and have limited correlation to the actual platform.

• Snow’s platform has 5 central tenets.  Building the Grassroots: nothing shows up.  Stronger Societies: “societies” is one of his top words. Internal Advocacy: both words show up, as do internal words like “academic”, “administration”, “advocacy”.  External Leadership: nothing about “leadership”, but “external” is there, as is CASA, ANSSA, HSA, lobbying. Sustainability is his most common word after “students” and “DSU”.  Conclusion: platform mostly maintains internal consistency.

• Do your own analysis – leave a comment.

Lisa, John and I were all at the Studley debate today.  I think Lisa’s going to do a full recap, so I’ll just stick with a few of my “friendly observations.”

President:

Only Snow and Zimmerman showed up.  Debo made a cameo during the VP Education portion of the programme, but had left by the general question period.  I’m sure he had a class.  I’m also sure half of the other candidates also had a class…but I digress.

Snow isn’t confident at the podium, Zimmerman looks relaxed and at ease.   Zimmerman doesn’t have awesome voice modulation, Snow is an engaging speaker.  They both need to work on their eye contact.

They both answered questions well, but let’s face it, this is for all the marbles, they aren’t going to screw it up.

VP Internal:

Can we just elect them both?  They are so committed and really know their stuff.  I am concerned/confused about Mark’s plan to have a DSU website that can be updated by anyone.   There’s info on his website about how we could do this. I have no question that it *can* be done, I’m just not sure we *should* do it.   Mark did, however, show that he was a class act when he stood up for his opponent in the face of attack.  Bravo.

VP Education:

I’m surprised how much Burns knows for being a newbie to the scene (he’s so young looking I feel like if I got close enough, he’d smell like womb).  LeForte demonstrated that he knows both a whole lot about the intricacies of PSE funding and also how to tie a double windsor knot.  I approve of both.   Once again CASA is a hot topic.  Burns says we should drop down to associate member status.  He hasn’t given me a good reason why.

VP Student Life:

Kris is running unopposed.  Like John, I say if he wants the job again, we should give it to him.

Senate:

Best.  Race.  Ever.  Between Simms’s quirkiness, Evans’s adorable/genuineness and Blake’s general smile inducingness, this is by far the best group to listen to.   Big points to everyone for reading up on the Academic and External committee and coming to class knowing the answer. Extra points to Simms for picking up the microphone so that he didn’t have to slouch at the podium (Snow, Burns et al. take note!)

Board of Governors:

Why aren’t these people running the country?  They’re all so well-qualified and eloquent it makes me a little queasy.  Give me something to nitpick about, people!

Harris has commented many a time about how he was the President of “another institution” and he used to live in Antigonish…people can put two and two together Harris, why not just tell them that magical institution was St. FX?  Also, would it kill FPW or Horne to smile?  I know BoG is all serious and stuff, but come on.  Look at that, I totally found stuff to talk about.  Crisis averted.

There were general questions from the audience (which was quite full, actually.  Nice one) but I only half paid attention.  Bad pundit.  Lisa took better notes than I did.