The presidential candidates met again on Friday for a debate that tackled the topics of consultation, inclusion and advocacy.
The debate featured several back-and-forths from current AMS Student Service Manager Ian Stone and AMS VP Administration Cole Evans, who rooted their criticisms in the knowledge of each other’s track records in the society.
Meanwhile, current Residential Hall Association (RHA) President Harresh Thayakaanthan continued to struggle to articulate his platform in a way that stood out from his competitors.
Inclusion and consultation
The debate began with a question on how the candidates — who are all men — would work to include women in the AMS’s decision-making process. The topic was also discussed the year previous when the presidential race saw no women candidates.
Citing a campaign run by Western University’s student union, Evans said he would develop similar campaigns encouraging students from marginalized groups to get involved.
Stone said campaigns aren’t enough. Instead, he added that he would meet marginalized communities where they are and encouraged students to apply for volunteer or staff opportunities in the AMS. Thayakaanthan reiterated Stone’s point and noted he had worked with women leaders in the RHA.
During the open debate, Evans articulated that it was also important to realize the barriers those from marginalized communities face when deciding to run for leadership roles.
“It’s not good enough to say ‘Oh we’re going to go out and talk to women or marginalized communities,’ we have to recognize what are the barriers that are preventing these marginalized communities from adding their voice to the conversation?” Evans said.
Another question asked the candidates to explain if they had already worked to consult marginalized communities in their current leadership roles.
Stone highlighted his experience trying to make AMS Services more accessible by extending Food Bank hours and purchasing a car seat for Safewalk for users with children. Thayakaanthan the RHA. Evans noted consultation with the resource groups on different initiatives.
During the open debate, Stone pointed out that while Evans said his platform was developed through consultation, he has also been criticized in Council for failing to consult groups in his role as VP Administration.
Stone specifically brought up a motion from Evans's office to sell two pieces from the AMS’s permanent art collection, which was sent back to committee after students from the Visual Arts Student’s Association and the Hatch Art Gallery expressed concerns.
“You were speaking about a project that you’ve been working on with your team over the past several months. Yet it is clear that one of the most key communities, the visual arts community, was not consulted as well as two members of your team,” said Stone.
Evans defended what happened and said it was a good example of how AMS consultation processes could still leave gaps.
“That’s a perfect example of a situation where we went through the consultation process the AMS outlined, but it wasn’t enough,” he said.
“Now we’re actually going to go back. We’re going to revisit the entire process for how we move on from these pieces and it's going to actually lead to something great.”
![['auto']](https://storage.googleapis.com/ubyssey-staging/media/renditions/presient_collage.original.jpg)
Advocacy priorities
The candidates also fielded a question on their affordability priorities from the moderator.
Thayakaanthan said he would work to advance open educational resource development by collecting data through course evaluations on how textbook costs affect students.
“One thing that I really want to do is get a question regarding the cost of textbooks and its impact on students and their lives into our course evaluation, so you can collect data on how textbooks really impact students,” he said.
The AMS's Textbook Broke campaign run out of the VP Academic and University Affairs' office already collects information on how textbook costs impact students, and course evaluations are a Senate policy, which is out of the scope of the AMS.
Evans said they should look at how affordability issues affect students on a day-to-day basis, highlighting issues such as housing, parking and food prices.
“I don’t believe the AMS is doing enough to make sure that we ourselves as an organization are providing food at affordable costs to students,” he said.
Stone highlighted advocating for the Graduate Student Society’s (GSS) proposal of eliminating tuition for PhD students and looking into the AMS’s finances to see if they can allocate their surplus to students.
“It’s really tough to see the AMS had a budget surplus over $900,000 last year and we’re on track to have a $500,000 surplus this year,” said Stone.
“Clearly we as an organization are not doing enough to address this concern if we’re having all this extra money that is coming from students directly.”
During the open debate, Evans criticized Stone for changing his platform after Evans called him out in the first debate for not including equity, diversity and inclusion as well as support for Indigenous students.
“I’m really disappointed that these issues were left out, to begin with, but I’m really happy that they're included now at the table,” Evans said.
Stone defended his decision, saying it was a mark of good leaders to take responsibility and admit when they mess up.
“I listened and I changed my mind. I think it’s a good leader to be able to take responsibility and to be humble enough to listen and say, ‘Hey, I messed up. I will change,’” Stone said.
During the audience question period, Arash Shadkam, a GSS representative on AMS Council, asked how the candidates planned to engage graduate students in the society.
Stone and Evans noted collaborating with the GSS on campaigns to ensure a less antagonistic relationship between the two bodies. Thayakaanthan admitted he did not know what the GSS did, but said he would work with them.
In an emailed statement to The Ubyssey, current GSS president Nicolas Romualdi said the characterization of the current AMS-GSS relationship as lacklustre was misleading and the two societies had worked together on joint advocacy, such tuition increases, throughout the year.
“The relationship between the AMS and the GSS is at an all time high,” Romualdi wrote.
“... Any notion that the AMS and the GSS do not work together is misguided at best. I meet regularly with the AMS executives and we enjoy an open and honest collaborative working relationship.”
As the debate came to closing statements, Stone reiterated his experience as student services manager and promised his first project, if elected, would be to embark on a listening tour and gather input from constituencies.
“[I’ve] been on the ground, help[ing] students at their most vulnerable. I promise that, as president, I will continue to do so,” he said.
Thayakaanthan said he would ensure the AMS was “the fiercest defender of what [students] believe in.”
Evans promoted his platform as the most comprehensive and “upfront” of the three candidates, while also taking the chance to criticize Thayakaanthan's platform for not understanding the presidential role and Stone for changing his platform after receiving criticism.
“My campaign has been upfront from day one of my commitments, taking action on all of these issues that matter to UBC students and one that brings experienced leadership to the presidential role.”
Share this article
