The Ubyssey’s 2016 AMS endorsements

President: Ava Nasiri or Jenna Omassi

For The Ubyssey to make an endorsement, one candidate must receive two-thirds’ support of the voting staff present. In the presidential race this year, the voting members were almost exactly split between Ava Nasiri and Jenna Omassi.

These are two powerhouse women who have given an incredible amount to students on this campus already, and who are capable of giving even more as president. With either candidate, the AMS and the student body would be in good hands.

They’re also polar opposites.

In a nutshell: we’ve seen them both accomplish truly phenomenal things. Omassi’s power as a policy maker and influencer is unparalleled. Nasiri’s ability to connect and bring people together is sorely needed in the AMS, which is widely seen to be out of touch with the students it represents.

But we’ve also seen their downsides. Omassi’s single-minded focus on her own point of view has, in the past, caused some of her own initiatives to die a fiery death in AMS Council because she doesn’t properly consult with constituents. Nasiri’s tendency to try and make everyone in the Council chamber happy has been not only ineffective at times, but occasionally detrimental to getting anything accomplished at all.

When asked who the most important person to collaborate with in their role as president would be, neither candidate hesitated, and we feel that their answers sum up a lot about the type of president they would be. Omassi responded with Louise Cowin, UBC’s VP Students, because of her influence and ability to advocate for students. Nasiri’s answer was the student body itself, because the core tenet of her platform is increasing engagement and communication between students and the AMS.

Ultimately, this decision comes down to a preference in leadership style. You’re on your own for this one, UBC.

Results: eight for Jenna Omassi, seven for Ava Nasiri, zero abstentions.

Board of Governors: Aaron Bailey and Veronica Knott

Without hesitation we endorse Veronica Knott and Aaron Bailey for student representatives to the Board of Governors.

Knott is a major reason why students have an actual, non-tokenistic voice on the board this year. There are few individuals who care more about students, and put more energy into representing them with such effectiveness. We feel confident that she’s learned from missteps in the last year and will be able to continue pushing for students’ best interests. In debate, she was simply unstoppable. She fielded questions with aplomb, recognized where improvements needed to be made, and easily deflected the clumsy jabs that Reda El Maazi threw her way.

Bailey brings a strong record of engaging communities and hard advocacy work to the table. If you didn’t run on a platform of “increasing student engagement,” then you didn’t really run in AMS elections, but he’s pretty much the only person to actually pull through in a meaningful way on that goal. We feel confident in his ability to continuing translating student voices into real action, this time at the board level.

Results: 15 in favour of Knott and Bailey, 0 against, 0 abstentions.

The Ubyssey can confidently dis-endorse Reda El Maazi.

In debate, El Maazi displayed a serious lack of knowledge of how the board operates, including: how often the board met, which committees the BoG reps sat on, the fact that there was new information regarding #Guptagate, Knott’s role in opposing the tuition increases and the structure of the board itself. When challenged, he often launched personal attacks — most notably against Knott during their debate, in which he made fun of her pronunciation more than once and repeatedly stated that she had “failed” in her role on the board while offering no realistic, practical solutions of his own. A strong and united student voice on the board is crucial, but El Maazi has repeatedly antagonized the other candidates and it is difficult to imagine that he would be able to work effectively with either, if elected. 

We don’t doubt that El Maazi has the best interests of students at heart, but a campaign based on ad hominem attacks and a lack of knowledge required for the position makes him wholly unqualified for the role of student member of the Board of Governors.

14 in favour of dis-endorsing El Maazi, one abstention.

VP Administration: Alan Ehrenholz

Chris Scott had some very relevant experience for his position — both candidates exhibit features that would make them suitable for the position. However, Ehrenholz is better set up in terms for broad student engagement, mostly because of his previous involvement at UBC. Ehrenholz has deep roots here which is important for a VP Admin. Scott transferred here this year so he doesn’t have the name-recognition or intimate knowledge of the campus and its culture that Ehrenholz does.

Scott’s main benefits were his familiarity with the way clubs work and ORGsync functioning. Though this is very applicable experience, it’s relatively narrow — Ehrenholz is more familiar with a diversity of leadership positions and is more familiar with the workings of Council, being the Current Chair of the AMS Executive Oversight Committee and the Current Chair of the AMS Student Life and Communications Committee.

Ehrenholz was also the only one of the two to mention the changing nature of the role of VP Admin in the next year — it’s widely expected to transition into VP Student Life, which we believe he’d be well-suited to.

Results: 12 for Ehrenholz, three abstentions.

VP Finance: Louis Retief

Having worked as Associate VP Finance for the past 10 months, Retief has had a good amount of experience working with the AMS and its finances, so we’re confident in his understanding of the organization.

His platform points — which include educating AMS members about financial literature, reviewing the finances of AMS businesses to help increase their revenue and re-evaluating the current fee structure to better allocate student fees sound promising as well. Retief may be the only person running for the job, but he nonetheless looks like a solid choice. 

Results: 14 in favour, one abstention.

VP External: Alex Kilpatrick

Kilpatrick has a proven track record in engaging more UBC students with the AMS through his role in AMS Communications. We believe he can turn this towards engaging students with the policies that affect them, as well as increase student advocacy at UBC — something that the position has historically been lacking. 

We feel that Kilpatrick will bring a refreshing take to the portfolio, and that his short-term goals will produce more tangible and immediate benefits for students than Kathleen Simpson’s long-term ones. She’s got experience, but we’ve had three years of experienced VP Externals and we’re ready for a change. Kilpatrick doesn’t seem afraid to push boundaries and try new techniques, and we think those qualities will lead to some interesting changes in a VP External office which has been much of the same (think rampant overspending) for the past few years.

Unlike Simpson, who worked directly under current VP External Jude Crasta this year, Kilpatrick also has the benefit of not being directly associated with an office which has historically gone over budget in a major way.

Results: 15 in favour, 0 abstentions.

VP Academic & University Affairs: Hussam Zbeeb

All three candidates running for VP Academic are approachable and outgoing, but at the same time lack experience within the AMS. Hussam Zbeeb and Samantha So were the two frontrunners, both displaying a clear amount of knowledge and genuine interest in the position. Although Andrew Liang was impassioned and had clearly done a vast amount of research, he didn’t appear to understand exactly what the role entailed.

During the debate, So seemed the most qualified, as she sits on eight committees and is clearly passionate about interacting with students. Zbeeb, however, appeared to genuinely want to engage with the AMS. He came across as confident and personable — a natural leader — as exemplified by his roles across campus in The Calendar, RezLife and Peer Support. 

Zbeeb was also was the only VP Academic candidate during our interviews who was confident in which committees he’d sit on. We recognize that he will have a lot to learn, but he has consistently shown that he has a strong background of success in roles with steep learning curves — Zbeeb seems like the best fit for the role in the coming year.

Results: 11 for Zbeeb, two for So and three abstentions.

Senate: Jenna Omassi, Nick Dawson, Samantha So and Kevin Doering

With 14 candidates running for Senate, contenders have struggled to stand out, but The Ubyssey feels that these four merit endorsement. 

Omassi is a current senator and the VP Academic and University Affairs. She’s also chair of the ad-hoc committee on student mental health and has stood out for both her understanding of academic policy and her advocacy for students. 

Dawson is notable for being the only candidate to talk about harassment discrimination and he intends to start a discussion on sexual assault in the Senate. Given this is the last year of the triennium, and the Senate will reform next year, Omassi and Dawson’s understanding of Senate procedure provides a significant advantage. 

Samantha So has sat on eight AMS committees and two university committees, making her the first-time candidate with the most experience with university policy. 

Kevin Doering impressed us with his performance at the debate through his focus on smaller, nuanced issues and his concrete goals.

Honourable mentions to Daniel Lam, Asad Ali and Lina Castro

These three candidates, while less experienced, displayed dedication and enthusiasm for academic policy and student representation. Although he has never been a senator, Lam attended every Senate meeting. Castro has worked as Mental Health Commissioner for the AMS and has a thorough understanding of all current mental health policies being looked at by Senate. Ali presented unique ideas concerning the negative effect of frequent senator turnover on the unity and and impact of the student senator caucus.

Results: 14 in favour, one abstention.

Share this article copied!