USSU candidates gear up for campaign

No doubt!!

Matt had moronic answers.

Scott seems like the reasonable one. The rest is like a toss up.

Kelsey: no offense, but come ON. The department of Art and Art History stopped offering a huge number of classes last year in response to budget cutbacks. Essentially the message was: “Unlike other disciplines, art is a luxury, not a necessity, so go ahead and get rid of this, this, and this.” So yes, Kelsey, some departments DEFINITELY get too few resources. If you’re going to be our representative for Academic affairs, I would hope that you would at least have some grasp of the issues.

The operations and finance are basically the backbone of the USSU and everything it does. If Donlevy isn’t willing to take it seriously, or at least inject some substance along with his jokes, then it’s my opinion that he has no place in taking the reins from someone who obviously knows what he’s talking about and what he’s doing. With everything running smoothly with Place Riel and plans in place to keep it that way, Scott definitely appears to be the right choice for anyone who gives a damn (and even for those who don’t!)

I have to agree with most of these posts that anyone who tries to use the “funny and moronic” approach to winning an election is completely out to lunch. This portfolio is quite vast and often well above the life skills learned to this point. Scott has done a great job in year one and definitely has what it takes to continue his strong run.
Unfortunately for Donlevy, another “shortfall” will be that he gets spanked in this election!

Looks like everything is well on it’s way!

Super excited I think it’s going to be super close either way.
I hope there is a more indepth look at the candidates other then 3 questions… hard to gauge the caliber of the applicants as an observer from the outside!
I hope especially to see a comparison of the candidates that are in contested positions.

The response from the other Matt are a complete insult to students. The same goes for Kelsey. If neither knows what is going on in the position that they are seeking, why are they running?

To Neil,

Agreed.

Matt Donlevy? More like Matt Don-LEVITY! Ha!

I went to the election forum today in Engineering, and it’s sad to say I have to agree with what everyone above has said – candidates need to get informed!

Matt, go ask some questions of the current executive or their staff. Despite your negative campaigning that Scott is a bastard, I’ve known him to be a great guy who does great work. Shame on you for reducing the campaign to petty attacks.

I’ve also looked at your platform
1) Find investment for place Riel – at the forum Warren mentioned that it’s already being worked on by professionals, so you’re going to do…????

2) Reduce the fee increase amount – isn’t this achieved by having an operating surplus – which Scott has planned for next year?

3) You will not pay for my tuition… yata yata – Scott has already taken care of this. So you’re pledging to not embezzle money? great, check that box with a big no.

Thoroughly not impressed. While the incumbent certainly has an advantage, you seem less educated than me on the finances of the USSU, and I spend 80 hours of the week working on labs and assignments.

If you want to run for VP of Operations and Finances, at least be educated on the current operations and finances of the organization.

I have no respect for you given your performance.

I think what the debate needs to be is who would make a better Vice President of Operations and Finance.

While I am sure candidate Donlevy would survive the position if elected, he is significantly less informed about all aspects of the USSU.

The VP op/fin is largely incharge of Place Riel, the operating budget, business planning, and campus clubs. Scott has already proven he is able to effectively manage and advance these project areas, and will only improve as he won’t have a considerable OJT learning period.

Further to that, electing a candidate in need of significant education on all aspects, and notably the complexities of Place Riel in the middle of the construction, is silly at best; especially if you have a trained competant person able to succeed in the role available.

I firmly support Scott Hitchings because of what he has to offer the position. 
You all should too.

I would just like to add: I do agree the candidates should be informed; however, I think that their message and goals are important–their direction. The fine details will come.

I can understand that Scott is in a better position than Matt but remember Scott Hitchins also got slammed for not being fully informed last year yet you just endorsed him.
So what of Kelsey and Blair? What did they do to warrant being nailed as uninformed. Like I said: They aren’t perfect but they have put in the time to develop a campaign that makes sense. I thought both did well enough. Blair has a solid platform although he slipped up when Warren Kirkland hit him with details. At least he had the decency to admit he didn’t know. Kelsey Topola didn’t have much to say but she also didn’t show any great ignorance that owuld preclude me from voting for her either.

They aren’t running for Prime Minister here, they will slip up. Neither seemed overly uninformed to me. Both had some good points but neither were perfect. Nothing to preclude me voting for them by any means.

Is it true that Christ Stoichef and Matt Donlevy are running as partners? If it’s true why haven’t they they made this public knowledge? And Why does Chris want to run with someone who knows nothing and doesn’t seem to care about learning anythin? Is there some puppet politics at play here? I smell a rat

I agree. Why is it that Chris wants to run with someone who is ignorant to the responsibilities of the position? Is he afraid that he’ll be held accountable for moves he wishes to make by someone with a working knowledge of the position like Scott?

And Blair? Why did he get lumped in?

It seemed to me like he actually had well researched positions, just didn’t know as much about some of the U of S policies. I wasn’t turned off by him at all. I actually thought he was the one taking it most seriously and the best speaker.

Warren grilled him with a couple questions about committees and their inner workings and at least he had the honesty to admit that he didn’t know. Takes balls to admit that in front of a group of people.

And Kelsey Topola wasn’t bad in the forum at all. I in fact thought she did well, you can tell she has spoken to the current VP Academic about these things.

Yeesh.

He’s part of the slate? I didn’t read that anywhere. Only thing I heard was him say that the current VP-External expanded the role of position, which is true.

Last I checked they were running for independent positions and each had different ideas. Donlevy, Thompson and Stoicheff seems a little fishy, maybe they can clarify at the ESB forum.

Ishmael, if you covered campaigns before this one can you tell us if these folks seem any more, or less informed than those in the past?

Because at the candidates forum Blair and Donlevy asked if running a slate is allowed.

Ishmael, go ask around the USSU.

OH MY GOD! Can’t you see the TRUTH people? Stoicheff, Donlevy, and Thompson are amalgamating to form a super accountable mega powerful STUDENT GOVERNMENT VOLTRON! Sound the sirens and ready the tanks! Neeee nawwwww neeee nawwww! Quick, to the barracks!

Rofl class clown.

Voltron=awesome

dishonesty at the election forum is dispicable.

Stoicheff, Donlevy, Blair, Leon are all part of a slate and unofficially Kelsey as well. Cross posting of support on each others facebook groups and privately stating there is a slate.

Share the same photograhper, same campaign poster design, share same supporters, all posted their facebook group on each others group walls, all privately discuss being on the same slate.

However the fact they aren’t publicly endorsing each other precludes running as a slate.

Unless there is some public endorsement on their Facebook pages that I missed?

Adam, thank you. I couldn’t agree more.

Mr. Kirkland,

As my current USSU President I think it is completely inappropriate and out of place for you to endorse and discredit candidates. Please remember that you are still president for the weeks to come and a degree indifference must be maintained.

Relax!

He’s also a student. And if he wants to point out that candidates are blatently lying, good on him! Kirkland was there when they announced a slate, and now they’re lying about it.

Keep them honest Kirkland!!

You keep talking about a slate.

Slate: a list of candidates, officers, etc., to be considered for nomination, appointment, election, or the like.

The candidates have produced different ideas. The candidates have not publicly endorsed each other that I have seen. There is no such thing as a “private slate”. To be considered a slate you need to announce that you are seeking nominations, appointment, or election as a group. Last I checked they are running as individuals. The fact that they are friends should have no bearing whatsoever on this. Now– if they come out publicly as a slate we have every right to ask why they did not announce it earlier. until they do though, they are not running as a slate. Just to finish off, I’ll give you an example of a slate: NDP. They have aligned themselves and are running as a team. No candidate so far has chosen to do that in anything that I have seen regarding this election.

Stop looking for controversy. If you look hard enough for anything you can find it. This is the typical crap that degrades our politics at every level.

This is a useless battle. People will always look for reasons not to vote for someone. Maybe this negative outlook is why no one votes.

Seriously you people. This is just silly.

Even if their issues are similar, what freaking difference does it make? They aren’t endorsing each other! Who cares if they have similar issues if they are good issues?

Way to latch on to the most insignificant thing possible. Oh well, at least we know who the Glenn Beck’s of the world feed.

HIDDEN LIBERAL AGENDA.

Oh please. His meetings in Regina were scheduled after the elections schedule was released.

He was afraid of the big bad engineers.

I’ve been following these pretty closely and I figure it’s time I chimed in on what seems to be a great misconception.

First of all I am going to categorically rule out running as a slate. It isn’t happening.
Leon, Chris, Matt and I are friends. We have some similar goals, we have some different goals. However, we are committed to working with whoever is elected in each position.

I think that criticizing the similarity in our goals is a little uncalled for. We are pursuing student issues. There will be some overlap on the primary concerns facing students, it is inevitable.

We all have issues which are completely independent, individually driven, personal issues we plan on pursuing.

There is no slate.

We should be focusing on what each of these candidates are going to do for students. If you take the time to read what each candidate plans to pursue, I’m very happy to see Chris Stoicheff is focusing on affordability issues including childcare, a Saskatchewan Scholarship Fund, affordable tuition and aboriginal issues. Yes, Chris Stoicheff was absent at the last forum but he isn’t shirking on his current role to campaign for his next.

Justin Lasnier deserves credit. He’s run in a municipal election and now student politics. He wants a sustainable campus and networking between colleges and aboriginals.

Remember, this should be a positive campaign, a positive experience. It should focus on people’s ideas, what they want to do, and how they are going to do it.

The other stuff is petty.

Kirkland: It is incredibly unprofessional to use knowledge you obtained through you position (about inquiries about slates) to try to discredit candidates while you’re the sitting president.

Warren, It’s very easy for current and past executive members to us the inside information they’ve acquired over their time as student reps. I think it’s unprofessional and disappointing tat you would finish you tenure as President meddling in the next executive.

This campaign should be about the issues and you should be mentoring the candidates rather than making enemies. How does your approach help promote student politics? The candidate you are blatantly endorsing said there is a learning curve and it is a bit overwhelming. All you are doing is discouraging people from running.

Now, back to the issues.

I’ve been trying to follow the debate that has been going on, but you all digress so quickly.

Here is what I’ve gathered.

Matt Donlevy doesn’t have a clue about the USSU, and that during a 22million dollar renovation project, is not the smart choice.

Blair claims that there isn’t a slate, though people have complained here that the photographers, posters, campaign goals etc are extremely similar.

Warren Kirkland has said that at the campaign meetings two of the candidates talked about about slates?? but Blair says, they just wanted to know in case they decided to run on a slate.

Kirkland also provided rational of why claiming there is no slate is advantageous if you are in fact running a slate.

All the candidates accused of being on a slate are good friends.

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck…???

Anyways, I would agree that this slate business is getting old. Let’s get back to the candidates plans.

Kirkland’s responses seem pretty fair given the circumstances. You attack him for wanting to respond, and for talking about a slate, but you aren’t talking about anything else. Lead by example. You don’t want to talk about slates, then move on yourself.

I know that I will not vote for Blair after his responses. If a student wants to evaluate a candidates statements on an open forum, even if that student happens to work for the USSU, the student has the right. To say that a student doesn’t have the right to talk about what a candidate said is moronic, and speaks to the type of leadership you envision. You should be ashamed.

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck… must be a slate. ROFL

Slates over, move on

Who cares about the slate? why does it matter? I’m bored. What are the issues?

AC/DC according to Donlevy?

It appears that this is a lost cause. I’m not going to give up on it just yet though.

Regarding the slate, which as I have said DOES NOT EXIST:

What do you mean by slate?
*Do we have similar policy goals?*
Some, but not all. We have different priorities. So we aren’t running on a slate-platform. If you want I will take the time to show how my platform is different from the other candidates.
*Are we publicly a slate?*
-No. I am vehemently and truthfully denying being part of any slate.
*Are you supporting each other?*
-No. I support every candidate equally. I am committed to working with anyone who is elected in a professional fashion.
*But you have the same posters!*
-No. I do not have the same posters or photographer.

I think that the above list of defining “slate” attributes shows that I am not, have not, and will not run in a slate. Period.

I don’t think there is much more I can do to show that I’m not. I hope that satisfies.

That said, I will get to the issues.

My platform, please feel free to critique me on any holes you see in it. I am actually quite open to people asking questions about it! It lets me show that I really do care and have put a great deal of time into researching these issues!

1. Right now we have ideologically conservative governments fighting deficits. I feel this means we need a moderate approach to lobbying. I plan on picking a small number of issues and pursuing them aggressively.
a. At the federal level I want to engage with CASA, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations. This is a group which has established strong relationships with the federal government and has earned the respect of the big names on the hill. We can work with them in a non-contracted, no obligation observer status. I think that by working as closely with CASA as I can I can work towards giving the USSU a stronger seat at the federal table. The 2 issues they are pursuing the most aggressively which are important to me are removing GST from textbooks and removing parental income from determining student loan eligibility.
b. At the provincial level I want to work to strengthen the Saskatchewan Student Coalition (SSC). I think that the more work we put into giving students a louder voice the better off we all are. I plan on lobbying to reduce student loan interest rates–currently at prime+2.5, some of the highest in Canada– and removing parental income from student loan eligibility. You’ll notice this is something I’m very passionate about.

At the local government level I would like to lobby to have bus shelters implemented in areas which are highly populated by students such as Sutherland and Lakeview. I will also attend all City Council meetings to give U of S students representation.

I have more issue but I’m sure y’all are tired of reading by now. Really, if you have criticism send me an e-mail at shumlichcampaign@gmail.com. I feel like people aren’t seeing who I am or what I’m about and I’d like to change that. I genuinely care about this position and hopefully I’m imparting that to you.

Will you agree that Matt Donlevy is significantly under prepared for his position?

While you’re not on a slate, what’s the deal with Stoicheff and Donlevy??? Slate or just dating?

Why were you asking about slates before the election?

Thanks Mark!

When I say moderate approach I don’t mean not being aggressive. I mean that we need to look at what the government is dealing with and try to work around it. If we go in demanding the moon it just won’t happen and I want to be realistic with the students about that. Everywhere is facing cuts. So we can work on the small things with government. One of my main priorities is reducing the interest rate on student loans down from prime+2.5. That would cost the government around 1.7 million– a reasonable amount. It would have a substantial affect on students lives!

We also need to look at the ideology of the governments. Right now we have center-right parties in power. This means we should pursue things like tax cuts, not spending increases; Harper has shown he approves of tax cuts but not spending increases. For example at the federal–not the provincial government–level we still pay GST on textbooks. So it would be a better approach to ask for big spending increases. If we could have this removed it would save some of our students anywhere from 50-100$ a year. Not huge, but it adds up and when you add it up it could save over 750,000$ a year!

Does that answer your question about being moderate? I’m not going to attack government, I’m going to play within their rules to get as much for students as I can.

Does that answer your question?

You are right. Donlevy is a joke.

This board seems to be a big circle most of the time.

Blair I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

I will say that when it comes to Tuition, if the government cuts, it’s programs and student’s that bare the burden… and as you’ve said, spending increases aren’t likely.

There’s a time for working with, and there’s a time to ensure student’s are heard.

I think it’s safe to say that if Stoicheff and Donlevy are as good of friends as they and their proponents claim to be (in their self-defense against claims of a slate) that a major factor in Donlevy’s decision to run will have been influence from Stoicheff. Argue with me if you will, because without a direct say-so from either candidate it may be un-provable, but to say that it is not plausible and indeed likely would be foolhardy. As such, a claim that support from Stoicheff for the knave who is Donlevy is non-existent would be equally foolhardy. With that being established, Mark’s claim that Stoicheff’s support of Donlevy speaks droves about him (Stoicheff) cannot be disregarded. Anyone who thinks Donlevy is not well suited for this position – and this appears to be most everyone – would then be right to question Stoicheff by extension. Indeed, though a condemnation of Stoicheff’s competency by extension of a condemnation of that of Donlevy does not necessarily follow, it may be said to appropriately come under question.

Benjamin you said it much better than I could have, and are quite right.

Go Scott!

You, my dear Chelsea, could do with an info break. Scott TRIED to reduce student fees on a number of occasions. His motions to do so were shot down by the Operations and Finance BOARD, through which all financial decisions have to be passed. Scott did not put the motion forward to raise fees 5% on his own accord. In fact, he tried his ass off to bring them down. Also, the tuition reimbursement line has been revoked and that's not happening anymore. We've been through all of this already. The more you know….

Carl the mere fact that the tuition line was brought up is wrong. The mere fact that he put it forward and all but one member of the USSU supported it is wrong. If you want to support someone who is in it for themselves that is your business. I however feel we can do much better. I had the pleasure of chatting with Mr. Donlevy this morning and he seems to be a pretty smart guy. He doesn't have a current USSU member running his campaign and he sounds like he has a much more solid idea of dealing with the budget.

Carl you seem to have misread my first post. Let me repost what I wrote 'I understand very well that the ideas had been tabled by the previous USSU, but to my understanding it was only tuition that was put forward. " You bet I know that they put it forward…they put the tuition part forward. It was Scott who decided to add the fees and books on top of it. All but one member on council voted in favor of it, and it was after the vote was passed that it became controversial and that they axed it. My question is why I should support Scott, when him and all but one member of the current USSU voted in favor of having their tuition paid for off the backs and student loans of hard working individuals such as myself?

Interesting comments, all! If anyone is interested in being part of a story I am working on for this issue of the Sheaf (about the election and the fact that all of you care, and also about the slate issue – or possible non-issue), please email me at news@thesheaf.com and I will try to arrange to talk to you today or early tomorrow.
-Tannara Yelland, Associate News Editor (The Sheaf)

Warren makes a solid argument, you've got my vote scott!!

What you, and most others, don't seem to understand is that being in classes – and thus paying tuition and paying for books – is, by USSU constitution and bylaw, an express requirement of the job. This is the reason why a portion (not all – as people seem to assume) of the burden was to be relieved from the executive. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that an executive member's tuition was $3000. Can you think of any other job, career or vocation that would require by constitution and bylaw that their employees pay $3000 to hold their position. It would ludicrous for any other employer to ask that an employee pay $3000 to work for them. Keep that in mind. I understand the other sides of the argument, but just know that there were rational reasons for why this thing was tabled in the first place. What is important to bear in mind in all of this, though, is that an issue was raised by students in regards to this motion and your VP Op/Fin responded to students protests by doing exactly what they called for. How on Earth can you fault him for doing exactly what you asked?! What more do you want out of someone in the position?

The information could have been gained by Donlevy if he had ever attend council meetings.

Jennifer are you insinuating that my boyfriend has turned into a gay man for Stoicheff? Because if so this is news to me…it's also offensive.

Actually, I was at the meeting as a student interested in information regarding running. In fact, I hold no authority in the elections process, and as such no standing at the meetings.

Thanks though!!

It remains that there is a slate?

Three candidates one campaign photographer.