Tuesday, December 05, 2006

SFSS By-Election: The Candidates

A by-election is taking place to replace the "Group of Seven" on the Simon Fraser Student Society Board of Directors - and as far as I can tell, most SFU students don't have a clue that this is taking place! The Independent Electoral Commission helpfully informs us that voting will take place on December 18 and 19 - after final exams are all finished - and that "advance polling" will take place on December 7, 8, 12, and 15.

And what of the candidates in this by-election? No doubt many of them will be putting up glossy posters of themselves in the next few days, but this reveals little, if anything, about the candidates themselves. Fortunately, thanks to Facebook, Google, and my own knowledge of matters political at SFU, here is a brief précis of the hacks and hacks wannabe:

(1) President
(2) External Relations Officer
(3) Internal Relations Officer
(4) Member Services Officer
  • Pretty much all that I know about MSO candidate Matthew De Marchi is his persistent opposition to the impeachment of the "Group of 7." According to the Special General Meeting minutes [PDF], Mr. De Marchi questioned the appointment of Chair Patrice Pratt; questioned the legitimacy of the Forum meeting which had called the SGM; and attempted to have the SGM consider the By-Law amendments after the impeachment motions. He wrote a letter to The Peak prior to the SGM, questioning the entire basis for impeaching the "Group of 7." After his efforts to prevent the impeachment failed, Mr. De Marchi called the SGM "A good ol'-fashion' lynchin'," "an incredible 'circle jerk,'" and a "Nuremburg Rally." He also criticized the security volunteers as "arm-banded brownshirts." Interestingly enough, one of these "brownshirts" is none-other than candidate for Internal Relations Officer Sean Magee....
  • Chris Sandve ran for University Relations Officer with Orange Revolution in the Spring 2006 elections, finishing third (behind me). In November of this year, he was elected President of the BC Young Liberals (province-wide). His Facebook entry also shows him to be a supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada.
  • Bryson Yuzyk ran for Member Services Officer in the spring 2005 elections, with the DoublePlusGood slate (along with Graham Fox), losing to Common Sense candidate Shawn Hunsdale.
(5) Treasurer
(6) At-Large Representative
  • I have no information on Derek Andrew.
  • Niusha Bakhtiari would be the perfect "Manchurian Candidate" - there is virtually nothing available on the Internet about her. Except one. The minutes [PDF] of the September 15, 2006 meeting of the SFSS Board of Directors show that then President Shawn Hunsdale nominated Ms. Bakhtiari nominated her, successfully, to sit on the Stipend Appeals Committee, which handles appeals from directors and Forum members over stipend deductions.
  • Jacqueline Hiew is the Vice-Chair of the History Student Union. She served as Forum Rep from July 19 to September 22, 2006, and ended up being at the centre of a legal dispute over the legitimacy of the September 27 Forum [PDF] meeting.
  • There are plenty of Google hits on Karilyn Kempton, but I have no idea whether they are referring to the candidate in these elections.
  • Tyler Massé is a member of the Executive of the Geography Student Union.
  • Ashley Nijjer's primary accomplishment to date appears to be her incendiary letter to the editor of The Peak, alleging that former President Clement Abas Appak had impure motives in pushing for the impeachment of the Group of 7, due to his affiliation with Canadian Students for Darfur. (This letter was rebutted in a subsequent letter to The Peak by Mr. Apaak.)
  • Joseph Paling has written quite a number of articles to The Peak over the years.
  • I have no information on Serenna Romanycia.
So that's that! SFU students: find out all the information that you can about the candidates, and please take the time to vote!

Non-SFU students: again, my apologies for the SFU-centric nature of this blog. As soon as the by-election - and my final exams (!) - are over, I will again have enough time to offer a more pan-Canadian perspective on this blog.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

At-Large Representative candidate, Serenna Romanycia is friends with Wei Li.

He helped her obtain a job as temp security guard at Quad Books during the fall buyback period. Apparently, she stopped by his office and asked if there were any positions open with the SFSS for work, and he hired her on the spot.

9:36 PM  
Blogger Xenia said...

Titus, I'm loving it. The democratic process assisted by online media. I almost wish I had run just to see what you would include and exclude about me.

I'm hoping more people post things about candidates up here.

I had a nice facebook conversation with Kristiana Bruneau. She claims her slate is non-cfs. I guess I'll have to wait to see where the posters were printed and whether they were made in photoshop or indesign. Either way, she seems fairly reasonable and appears to be running with fair intentions.

I'm voting SLAP all the way. I trust them most.... the other slates are either unproven and could be cfs or have been around for so long and have been so secretive about what they planned to do that I have very little faith in their transparency. But, that's just my two cents on this election.

This should also wake some people up to the groups they subscribe to on facebook. I'm listed in the conservative group, mostly because I went to UMP as one.. but I plan to go next year as a Lib.... hmmm I must think on this one.

Titus, once you again, you rule student politics.

1:55 AM  
Blogger JosephP said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:31 AM  
Blogger Amy said...

I enjoy how much information you can get about someone through facebook and google. it's freakin awesome

11:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

niusha has applied in the past twice as treasurer with a constituency group of the SFSS, but never went through with the application when she was required to participate in an interview. I am pretty sure she never went even far enough as to sending a resume, so yes, we basically know nothing about her apart from the fact that she seems to be interested in some kind of political activity related to finances.

12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about some info on the slates? Who's a member of which?

4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After the last experience, it might be wise to mix instead of voting for a "slate".. thats were some of the trouble came from!

5:01 PM  
Blogger Titus said...

Xenia Menzies gives her opinions on the by-election on her blog:

5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Purported 'Friends of Shawn Hunsdale' group of candidates are the following:

Koch, Eric Lyndon

Member Services Officer:
DeMarchi, Matthew

External Relations Officer:
Yung, Anita

Internal Relations Officer:
Bruneau, Kristiana

Student-at-Large Representative: (2 at-large positions)
Bakhtiari, Niusha
Nijjer, Ashley

5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't DeMarchi also say, following the so-called lynchings, that he was advising people to stay away from student politics, with his Apathy Club?

I have a hard time voting for someone who won't even take his own advice.

And boy, those purple slate posters sure are pretty! I wonder how much help they got from the CFS to create those wonders?

6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When the hell was the call for nominations? The list you post reads like a who's who of all the political types at SFU who're plugged-into the SFSS apparatus in some way. Hell, if I'd known a right-wing jerkoff and a buddy of the SFSS impeached G7 were two of the three people running for MSO, I'd have damn well put my name into the hat.

Turnout's going to be effing abysmal with all of - what - two days' notice of this election? This is BS. I'll vote, but you bet your booties I'll be writing some letters to the Peak and the IEC.

6:56 PM  
Anonymous Juan Tolentino said...

Perhaps it is unfair to characterize the Revive Slate (i.e. the purported 'Friends of Hunsdale') as being necessarily an extension of the G7. I rather see them as the successors of the fallen Common Sense slate, which included individuals such as Sarah Caufield (who critized Glyn Lewis in a letter on the Peak), and, of course, Andrea Sandau. We can't go too far in postulations, as many of those who supported the G7 may have had their own reasons, and may not have even agreed to the methods used. This is all, of course, a separate question as to how chummy they are with the CFS, and whether they should be elected in the first place.

Though, it would really help if the Revive posters had more information of what the individual candidates could offer. Conversely, the SLAP posters need to state the common philosophy the slate shares. In any case, voting for a mix, like a previous commenter said, might be a good idea.

As for Matthew DeMarchi...well, he's Matthew DeMarchi. Go figure :P

I also have some additional information about one of the candidates: Bryson Yunyk happens to be an executive of the Altered Reality Club, the local anime/gaming club on campus. Perhaps he intends to bring some much needed fun into the SFSS (because I certainly haven't had much 'fun' lately).

Adam Lein was also heavily involved in getting the lawsuit response in the first place; I still have that rallying e-mail from him (which was forwarded to us by Sean McGee, who was also involved).

To that last commenter: there were posters in some places since after the SGM, but you are right in that there should have been more. There was also no e-mail sent out by the IEC. If you want to address your concerns, you could also drop in the IEC office at MBC 2211, in the same hallway as the Ombudsperson. If its closed, then you might catch the Chief Electoral Officer, Gavin Steiniger (sp?), hanging out in the Grad Lounge next door.

Oh, and I happen to be one of those "right-wing jerkoffs" ;) Though, given the, um, "popularity" of rightie politics at SFU, and the association of DeMarchi with the G7, it'd be interesting to see how this affects Yunyk's prospects at election...

7:21 PM  
Anonymous Juan Tolentino said...

On an interesting side note: How does one's support for such and such political party affect one's potential (and ability) for SFSS governance, anyway? (Other than making one more or less popular, at least)

7:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President of the BC Young Liberals? The same political party that happens to be in power, allowed 20-30% tuition fee increases per year for three years running, and is probably hostile to the general political activities of student unions in general as pertains to access to post-secondary education?

Gee, that can't possibly be a motivating factor in determining how vigorously an elected director of the SFSS might pursue student interests.

Frankly, it raises a rather large red flag in my mind when someone prominently in the BCYL is running for election to the SFSS, which has traditionally opposed raising tuition fees and income-contingent student loan plans. (and while I admit I may have chosen poorly in reflexively naming someone a right-wing "jerkoff", my view is that many conservatively oriented people tend, as a rule, to pursue policies that reflect self-interest over a broader communitarian good, and I tend to have a rather strong antipathy for right-wing politics generally)

8:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An addendum: It might be a good idea for the SFSS to de-affiliate from the CFS. Langara's student union did this ages ago and it doesn't seem to have hurt their ability to organize effectively for student causes at that college.

8:13 PM  
Anonymous Juan Tolentino said...

I was referring more to federal politics, but...point taken n.n;

Though, I didn't take offense to your 'right-wing jerkoff' comment. You have a right to an opinion, and frankly, a lot of conservatives piss me off too.

8:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holding an election over finals?!? - Who's came up with that plan?

And does any one know what voter turnout was for the last election where the G7 was elected?

9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi folks,

Ben Milne here from the board of the SFSS. I understand that people are frustrated with the timing of the election but we are bound by policy to call the election immediately following an impeachment. Had we called it in January the new board would have been on for March and April only, this way, they start before Christmas.

As for the way the slates are, that's every person's right. There was lots of speculation as to whom was going to run and people can't put their name in once nominations are closed just because they don't like the diversity of people running or their politics. Consider yourself lucky to even have choice, often times board members are acclaimed, myself included.

The IEC's job will be to ensure that candidates don't violate the rules of the election and that is it. They are a non-partisan group of people that we, the board, chose after opening nominations and hearing what each person had to say. They have been doing a wonderful job and have even allowed for more polling than is normally allowed so that more people can vote.

Finally the call for nominations was made in the peak as is required. There was a half page ad several weeks ago and there have been numerous posters around campus announcing nominations.

1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Should you wish to vote via mail-in ballot, please email sfss-iec@sfu.ca to request a ballot IMMEDIATELY.

Polling Station Hours
Advance voting - Burnaby Campus (inside the Library):

- Dec 7th and 8th, 10 AM - 5 PM

- Dec 12 and 15, 10 AM - 5 PM

Advance voting - Surrey Campus (main concourse):

- Dec 7th and 8th, 10 AM - 5 PM

Advance voting - Harbour Centre Campus (main concourse - by Registrar's office):

- Dec 15th, 10 AM - 5 PM

Regular voting - all 3 campuses:

- Dec 18 and 19th, 10 AM - 4 PM

2:02 PM  
Anonymous Chris Sandve said...

Hey Titus,

As always, superb job. It's great that even during exams, you're taking the time to provide this kind of information. It's important, especially in an election where the stakes are so high.

Glad to hear that everything worked out well with the court case, I imagine that was quite stressful - Thanks for everything that you did and the sacrafices you made.

- Chris

2:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I encourage everyone to email the Independent Electoral Commission (sfss-iec@sfu.ca) to request a candidates' debate.

2:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Watch your back...isn't Graham Fox the one who says that zygotes have human chromosomes and therefore have the same rights as full-grown (post 3 month pre-birth) humans?

watch out, you hair cells have chromosomes too! getting bald will become a crime against humanity...

3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i started a facebook group where the sfss elections can be discussed. feel free to join and comment.

3:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's great to have a scoop on who's who for the SFSS BOD candidates. other than just listing for the positions that these folks are running for, can you also post their slates for someone like me who's on co-op but still wants to vote since I haven't seen all the lovely posters...

4:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I only know the one slate so far,

The Student Leadership Action Party (SLAP) is;

President Bob Wilkins
External Relations Officer Nigel Tunnacliffe
Internal Relations Officer Lindsay Gabelhouse
Member Services Officer Chris Sandve
Treasurer Freda Carmack
Director At Large Jackie Hiew
Director At Large Joseph Paling

Generally this slate is non-partisan, and they want to use the short time (four months) to make sure
the SFSS is running smoothly for the spring elections
and to rectify the problems left over from common sense.

R. Daniels

4:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Derrick Harder (President), Sean Magee (IRO), and Adam Lein (Treasurer) make up on eof the slates.

Another of the slates is Graham Sasha Fox (ERO), Bryson Yuzyk (MSO), and Tyler Masse (At Large). Fox noted that they are not running in opposition to Derrick Harder's slate.

I believe that Derek Andrews and Karilyn Kempton (both At Large) are both running as independents, but Andrews has stated that he supports Kempton.

5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I went to Langara when Bob Wilkins was there. And was in a Canadian Politics class with him.

Let's see, he actually talked about writing an essay on the economic principles of Tatouine.

He got into a physical altercation with someone from the Women's Center because they requested that he leave (being a man) and he refused. Then he took his fight with them to the Student Union there, and took it to the school paper.

He's one of those obnoxious fight because the fight is there, rather than respecting others' wishes type of people. He didn't NEED to be in the Women's Center, nor did he have to whine and complain about it for months and months afterward, making it only a big deal in his own mind.

He's one of those types of guys. The tragic politicos, rather than the intelligent, purposeful people. Much like the NDP or Green party who are more like a protest party, than one who have a full plan to govern.

I'd rather have someone in SFSS who serves me based on REAL issues, rather than fake non-issues to set precedents for no real purpose.

It's sad that people might associate him with the SGM-side, based on a rather empty affadavit, citing his association to a good cause. That is his only positive attribute.

Gosh I hope I don't have that guy representing me.

12:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can weigh in with some info on the other guy- I had a poly sci seminar class with J.J. McCullough once. He's clearly a conservative, and liked to argue, even when it was just him against the entire class. What I liked about him, though, was that he didn't seem to take himself so seriously, he could be pretty funny and self-deprecating as well, which I think is rare for right-wingers (or SFSS politicians for that matter). At the very least he seems like the type who would be strongly against the CFS.

12:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just something else I wanted to add about McCullough- he doesn't seem to have any experience as far as I can tell. Does anyone know if he was involved in the impeachment campaign / SDU in any way? But I guess no experience could be a good thing in a way... his posters talk about the need for an "outsider," and I think there's a case to be made for a total independent coming in at this time. He could be a good figurehead for the four months or whatever

12:56 AM  
Blogger Titus said...

J. J. is also the ONLY candidate who has put up posters at SFU Surrey.

12:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Info on a couple of less well-known candidates from the Dec 6 GIC meeting where some of the candidates spoke:

Karolyn Kempton is an English M.Sc. student who arrived recently at SFU - she says that she hopes to provide a fresh perspective. She's currently a GIC rep, and works on the GIC autonomy subcommitee. I don't know her, but she seems friendly and positive.

Derek Andrews is a student at SFU's Harbour Centre campus, doing an M.Sc. in Public Policy. He's been to many of the GIC meetings this semester, and he's been active in trying to foster a stronger community spirit at the Harbour Centre campus (including helping to organize the downtown social), and also increasing the HC campus' voice in the SFSS.

Graham Sasha Fox, Tyler Masse, Sean Magee, Adam Lein, and Derrick Harder spoke at this meeting too.

1:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Just something else I wanted to add about McCullough- he doesn't But I guess no experience could be a good thing in a way... his posters talk about the need for an "outsider," and I think there's a case to be made for a total independent coming in at this time.

How does being an outsider and having no experience make someone a good candidate? This guy has no idea of the shitstorm left by Hunsdale et al. And he wants to walk in and try to fix something he knows nothing about? That's just stupid. The president isn't just a figure head. He needs to work his ass off to resolve a huge backlog of labour issues that have implications an outsider could not possibly understand. In fact, having a bunch of brand new nitwits following a gormless leader is what caused this mess in the first place. If you want to be involved - don't run for fucking president. Get onto Forum and get some fucking experience under you belt. It may just be "student politics" to some, but over 80 people rely on the SFSS for their livelihoods.

4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh well, far be it for me to put the needs of ordinary students ahead of the needs of the bureaucracy and those who suckle at its teat. Regardless, it's unfair to single McCullough out. All the presidential candidates except Derek are just as "inexperienced." In fact, it looks like we will almost certainly be getting a largely inexperienced executive one way or another. There just aren't that many established people running. I guess they've all been impeached or graduated.

5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Have a gander at that, folks.

As for people trashing McCullough, I don't think that's fair. Since when is it a job requirement that elected representative always have "EXPERIENCE"? If that was the case ol' Tommy Douglas would never have become Premier of Saskatchewan because, gosh shucky darn, the CCF didn't have a prior track record of running even a lemonade stand.

As for the call for nominations, okay, I spoke too hastily. I remember the ad in The Peak. I still think the IEC's timing sucks. Does the election HAVE to be called with two lousy days' notice? Surely there's some room for flexibility in interpretation of the regulations the IEC operates under.

And speaking of which - with the extremely short notice, who the hell got hired as polling clerks? Traditionally these jobs are a great way for students to make a few extra bucks, which is a pretty big help for someone who needs just an extra $40-100 to cover a half month's grocery budget. (Ok, if that seems slim, let's remember that single mothers aren't usually swimming in money)

7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The notice of job openings for polling clerks was emailed to Forum reps on Nov 30th with a "please distribute widely" header.

9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

as for experience, just becasue candidates dont have experience on the sfss board, doesnt mean that they wont be able to to the job. it takes more than just knowing roberts rules, and how to fill out timesheets to do a good job representing students.

9:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You mean like how the call for nominations was distributed widely and the elections were called with plentry of notice, right?

(Hey, I don't care about the polling clerk thing personally, it's not like I need the money, but other people who could use it might not have had a chance)

12:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

with regard to experience, for any other election I would agree that it isn't necessary. This election is only for a four month term, and should serve to fix the mess that was left by the impeached so the next term of elected representatives can get back to learning the positions and representing students in whatever way they want to.

I personally would like some experience on that Board to be able to act quickly and efficiently to fix the situation. New candidates will need to spend time learning about their role on a Board of Directors and in their positions. At least those candidates who have been their before have some know-how to back up the arrogance required to fix expediently.

The IRO, specifically, has 26 rievances and an additional "expidited arbitration" to deal with as soon as he or she is elected into office. I personally want someone who has been on the Board before to be able to deal with that.

My personal election question is "how will you treat the staff". I worry that any reparations asked for will be met with "don't ask me for money, I wasn't the one that fucked you, it was those other guys".

I've already asked the Pink slate these questions and am satisfied with their answer. Derrick and Sean both have experience and I'm confident they could fix this shit quickly.

Its only 4 months. Those that want to change the organization or get rid of the CFS can run again in the fall. I'll vote for you.

7:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris Sandve,

it is just appalling that you and others would exploit this moment of crisis in the SFSS to catalyze a 'political turnover'

You want to 'organize a slate' to 'kick [the left] out'? You are just as sneaky and untrustworthy as people running under the CFS!

9:23 AM  
Anonymous Giovanna said...

Hi to all!

My name is Giovanna, I am trying to contact as many slates as I can to get an idea of what people's intentions are - at least according to what they say :)

Anybody would know how to contact this slate?
Graham Sasha Fox (ERO), Bryson Yuzyk (MSO), and Tyler Masse (At Large).

Take care,


10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is anyone bothered by the fact that Derrick Harder is dating someone named in the law suit? Doesn't it look fairly corrupt for him to be running? It will reflect so badly on the society, and that is the last thing we need right now.

1:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is anyone bothered by the fact that Derrick Harder is dating someone named in the law suit?

Ummm. Not bothered at all, actually. I assume that you are referring to Jan Gunn as the person named in the lawsuit. The only person I've recently heard express anything bad about Jan (a current Forum rep, and elected by Forum to the SGM organizing committee), is Margo Dunnet in one of the many ridiculous, insinuation-heavy but virtually factless letters she wrote to the Peak over the past couple of months as the impeached directors tried to discredit anyone who criticized them.

It wasn't even Jan's choice to be named on the lawsuit - the impeached Directors filed the suit and chose to name her as a Respondent, along with current Forum chair Titus Gregory and SDU spokesperson Bryan Jones, but why they even named Jan was always a mystery to me. Don Crane (lawyer for impeached Directors) has stated that Jan was essentially chosen at random to name on the petition, and the court later stated that all of Forum should have been listed,. not just Jan, Titus & Bryan.

How this would in any way indicate corruption is totally beyond me.

3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

About hiring polling clerks: last Friday, while court was in session, Wei Li ordered staff not to participate in any aspect of hiring poll clerks or to provide support for the byelection, thereby halting the hirings that were to be conducted that day. Luckily the Judge heard about this and all lawyers involved agreed that Li would be instructed not to interfere. There went that day of hiring.

4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


If you're looking to contact Team Orange, your best bet may be emailing fox.sasha@gmail.com. This goes as well for anyone else who would like to contact said slate.

4:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, joy. More screwing with the staffers by Wei Li. As if Hunsdale's own activities weren't enough.

7:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

*Sparkles* Ooh...shiny...


11:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

in defense of chris sandve, i think that he would do a good job in his position regardless of his involvement with the young liberals. from what ive heard, i feel that he is really committed to fixing the problems at the sfss, and is willing to work to repair relationships with the staff, dsus, and clubs. i think its not fair to black list someone becasuse of their political party. in a conversation with sandve, he stated that in his position (if elected) he would represent students and advocate for them. its not as though hes going to all of a sudden raise tuition fees. im stating this becasue i dont think its fair to make such comments based on peoples intrests outside of school politics. im not advocating for anyone in this rant, im just stating that it sucks that he is at such a disadvantage because of his political background. we still, as students need to realize who will do the best job, and vote for that person.

2:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He's also "at a disadvantage" because he got caught with his pants down crowing about getting an unabashedly right-wing slate of students elected to the SFSS Board of Directors.

Interestingly, if you look at his little blurb about himself from the LAST election when he was on the Orange Rev. slate, he carefully obscures just *which* "student clubs" he's with and he does NOT mention his activity with the BC Young Liberals.

Does this sound like an honest, truth-telling political conservative or does this sound like a Trojan Horse? If you read his blurb (Titus linked to the lot of them for the last election), it reads quite comfortingly middle of the road and creates a misleading impression of him as a political moderate.

Contrast this with his gleeful crowing about a "right-wing slate", and then ask yourself if, given the skullduggery and lack of honesty we've had from the likes of Shawn (may he be bodily ejected from SFU) Hunsdale, do we really want another liar running the show?

Yes, technically our dear Mr. Sandve lied by omission, but that's still not telling the truth.

9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The below links to Graham Fox's stance on a lot of things via articles in the Peak. Presumably satire. Possibly crazy. ERO Material?


11:14 AM  
Anonymous Giovanna said...

Hi to all,
I would like to thank you the Anonymous writer who helped me find Fox's contact.

I am now trying to contact Derek Andrews and Karilyn Kempton. Could you guys give me any help?

I would also like to thank everybody who is intervening in this unofficial election forum - you are all being very helpful, as I am finding info I would have never managed to scavenge on google...

11:55 AM  
Blogger Clea Moray said...

Karilyn Kempton can be reached at kkempton.ca. She knows Derek Andrews, so she might be able to put you in touch with him.

2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

derek_andrews and karilyn_kempton before @sfu.ca should work. otherwise i believe that ben milne, the at large grad on the board of directors, can get you in touch with them.

3:15 PM  
Blogger Clea Moray said...

Sorry - meant to say kkempton@sfu.ca (to reach Karilyn Kempton)

3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At-large candidate Serenna Romanycia is in facebook under the spelling Serenne Romanycia

3:54 PM  
Anonymous Chris Sandve said...

Hey Everyone,

On the point of why I don't discuss my involvement with the BC Young Liberals in any of my past or current campaign materials/statements, its because I don't think it has any relation to being a competent director of the SFSS.

What matters with regards to me and for every other candidate in this race, is what we've done for SFU students and the involvement we've had with the campus community.

I'd list my experience in this regard now, except that might be considered online campaigning and I'm not sure that's allowed, so anyone who's interested in what that is, please e-mail me at ccs1@sfu.ca



6:18 PM  
Anonymous Chris Sandve said...

Hey Everyone,

On the point of why I don't discuss my involvement with the BC Young Liberals in any of my past or current campaign materials/statements, its because I don't think it has any relation to being a competent director of the SFSS.

What matters with regards to me and for every other candidate in this race, is what we've done for SFU students and the involvement we've had with the campus community.

I'd list my experience in this regard now, except that might be considered online campaigning and I'm not sure that's allowed, so anyone who's interested in what that is, please e-mail me at ccs1@sfu.ca



6:18 PM  
Anonymous Chris Sandve said...

Hey Everyone,

On the point of why I don't discuss my involvement with the BC Young Liberals in any of my past or current campaign materials/statements, its because I don't think it has any relation to being a competent director of the SFSS.

What matters with regards to me and for every other candidate in this race, is what we've done for SFU students and the involvement we've had with the campus community.

I'd list my experience in this regard now, except that might be considered online campaigning and I'm not sure that's allowed, so anyone who's interested in what that is, please e-mail me at ccs1@sfu.ca



6:18 PM  
Anonymous Chris Sandve said...

FYI, in case you haven't seen them yet, candidate statements are now posted at:


2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could the Revive slate clarify what they mean by "the silent majority?" Are these candidates really so willing to belittle all 1000+ students who showed up to the SGM by continuing to dismiss them as a small group of dissenting students, as Hunsdale and his impeached colleagues contended. With logic like this, it isn't difficult to see the alliances between the Revive slate and Hunsdale et al. One also has to note Matthew DeMarchi's filibustering attempts at the SGM and his appauling response to the SGM in The Peak afterwards.(http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2006-3/issue9/lastword.html)

Do we really want individuals who are so ready to criticize and belittle students to be elected as representatives of us? I have premonitions of another G-7 fiasco if these individuals are elected. We will observe the same issues repeated where puppet student leaders will be incapable of making decisions for themselves, and who will fail to answer to the demands of the students who elected them. Make no mistake in electing the Revive candidates. These individuals are working under the same faulty assumptions as the impeached directors, and look where their actions have brought the Student Society. We need students elected who will work to resolve the current crisis brought on by the impeached directors, and who will strive to repair tattered relations between the SFSS membership, staff, and University. One has to question whether the Revive slate, with its marked Hunsdale alliances, will be capable of restoring the Society.

4:49 PM  
Blogger Clea Moray said...

The IEC just ruled that there will be a candidate debate this Thursday at noon in the Maggie Benson Atrium (the area near the Ladle). The IEC will try to have the debate broadcast in some manner for the benefit of students who can't come to campus.

5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

derrick harder here.

much in the fashion of other candidates here, i'd like to offer up my e.mail address - dharder@sfu.ca - for anyone who has questions/concerns/etc.


7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

regarding Revive:

"I want to get our student society back on track."
"I believe in standing up for the silent majority"
"I also support graduate students right to autonomy from the student society."

ALL of the candidates from Revive make comments similar to these.
Remember when all the CFS slates talked about "lowering tuition fees" becasue, hell, thats what students want to here. Perhaps talking about "grad atonomy" and representing the "silent majority" is another scheme?

Just a thought.

12:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric Lyndon Koch (Revive slate) says:

"I'm...a proud CUPE 3338 member."

You know who else was a CUPE 3338 member? Margo Dunnett, impeached external relations officer.

Don't use the union as evidence of your "progressiveness." That's just shitty. If you had a decent Union ethic you wouldn't be running on a slate organized by the most disgusting anti-union people.

8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The REVIVE candidates (and a few others) refer to:
"the relentless and malicious fighting" or the "political infighting/ mud slinging" of the past few months.
These people seem to have missed the fact that it takes two to tango (or maybe 7 and 1000+ to stage a marathon dance competition). The relentless determination of many students to get to the bottom of what the (past) Board had done and was doing/intending to do resulted in a legally binding impeachment of a group of ideologues intent on pushing their own politically fundamentalist agenda.

The call to "focus on important student issues" like student debt, tuition fees etc. implies that the democratic struggle to make the elected Board accountable to the membership was not so 'important'--like the responses of Marion Pollock and Margo Dunnet and Shawn Hunsdale to those who wanted to know what these people did, how they did it, and why they did it. They claimed there were more important things to pursue, like issues and campaigns defined by other organisatins.

And why the Revive chant?
"...stand up for the silent majority ... every SFU student deserves to be heard and respected."
Though about 17500 students did not sign the petition for an SGM, it does not follow that they care about or support the goals and values that the Revive Slate or any other slate espouses, nor that they will be any less silent than in the past. The use of this phrase recalls Hunsdale's attempts to validate his actions by claiming that the vast majority of students would not necessarily criticize and condemn him in the way that the active grassroots opposition did.
More doublespeak coming our way...

"I will support graduate students' (autonomy) or (right to separate) from the SFSS."
Is this an out and out grab for the graduate vote, or is a confirmation that these folks just don't want to work with grads on the Board? Each candidate makes this statement on the Revive slate, but none state that is is a basic plank of the slate's campaign, so in fact, once elected to the Board, these folks could do nothing at all to support grad autonomy.

Finally, on the Revive thing, since a CFS Organizer (whose patch is North Island, stretched to include the Lower Mainland as necessary) sent the Revive candidates' posters to print for them (and likely drafted them up), I wonder just how sincere they are about bringing SFU student voices to the table to discuss SFU issues.

4:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

personally I would't pick any of the people running for iro. they all scare me. bruneaus talking about "infighting" and silent majority of students, gabelhouse is talking about a million different things and magee is talking about bringing back a terminated staff person without knowing facts and removing corrupt cfs influence on the sfss. unless he's privy to confidential employee matters then how could he know they should come back and i also thought that one of the previous mentioned arguments with the g7 was that the iro didn't have the authority to fire someone.... it's seems this whole election is just a continuation of the two sides fighting again. i also find it comical how all of the candidates are suddenly interested in grad autonomy.

9:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the folks running to represent me has their fucking grad photos on their facebook page. I am suddenly feeling very old. and another thing...

"in defense of chris sandve, i think that he would do a good job in his position regardless of his involvement with the young liberals. from what ive heard, i feel that he is really committed to fixing the problems at the sfss, and is willing to work to repair relationships with the staff, dsus, and clubs. i think its not fair to black list someone becasuse of their political party. in a conversation with sandve, he stated that in his position (if elected) he would represent students and advocate for them."

can you really be that naive? you believe someone who is a member of a violently anti-labour party is going to "repair relationships with the staff"? yes, it bloody well does matter what your political affiliations are when you're running for political office - it's called being honest.

12:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think it's a matter of being naive, I think it has to do with recognizing that individuals have potential to do well, regardless of their affiliation with a political party. Also, the MSO doesn't deal with labour issues.

1:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"violently anti-labour party"

Huh?? Seems a touch exagerated. Do the BC Young Liberals really roam around beating the shit out of union folk?

Hyperbole doesn't help your arguments...

6:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The BC Young Liberals may not themselves run around lynching people, but the party they're party to certainly does seem to ahve a hate-on for labour groups. Remember how they broke contracts and the like with nurses, teachers, ferry workers, bus drivers... the list goes on.

While you appear to be interpreting the "violently anti-union" statement as one that implies actual physical violence, the BC Liberals are violently anti-labour in an incredibly anti-labour kind of way. Just not violent with sticks - yet.

9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

“personally I would't pick any of the people running for iro. they all scare me. ... and magee is talking about bringing back a terminated staff person without knowing facts and removing corrupt cfs influence on the sfss. “

1. Hattie is coming back to this campus because EVEN IF there had been wrong doing on her part (and I am convinced there wasn't) the behavior of the G7 since her termination was atrocious, and an arbitrator would find the remedy either an enormous payout or giving the woman her job back. Is Sean privy to private information? Yes. Because Margo and company gave it to the campus community. These people went into classrooms and called Hattie a liar and a thief. I personally heard Margo, Vanessa and Marion Pollock trash talking her in lecture halls. I know at the very least Wei Li, Glyn Lewis and Augustin Cerani were also in the room while this was happening.

Here is part of the transcript (the arbitrator has an audio recording): “This employee took money from an SFSS cash register without authorization. This employee also conspired with an outside organization to force the SFSS into signing a minimum 1.5 million dollar contract that would lock the student society into a single supplier for the next five years with no ability to limit price increases. This employee received legal advice that the SFSS should not enter into that contract and then revealed that legal advice to the outside organization and further conspired with senior management to have the SFSS ignore that advice. The actions of this employee could have cost SFU students more than a quarter of a million dollars over the next five years.”

The directors who were not impeached heard the so-called “facts” and were not convinced there were grounds for firing and support Hattie’s return to work. So yeah, Sean is right to say she's coming back. The only other option for the employer at this point would be to pay out lots and lots of money – and she’ll still be entitled to damages even with her job back.

2. The “corrupt cfs influence” is 1 person. And she knows her days are numbered.

11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm also pretty conviced that Hattie was wrongfully fired. Further to the comments above about Hattie:
Not only did Margo & Vanessa publicly disclose the reasons for her firing in classroom speaking (in from of hundreds of students), but in Board meetings (in front of a small handful of students) they "clarified" that she didn't steal any money, and that the "unauthorized" cash thing had nothing to do with her firing. That leaves Hattie's correspondance with Gallivan as presumably being the sole reason for her dismissal, and this was somthing that occurred during the last Board's term, not this term. Past Directors who were on the Health Plan Negotiating Committee when Hattie's alleged breach occurred have publicly stated that the accusations are totally implausible. Furthermore, a few days before the SGM, Gallivan sent a long letter to the entire Board of Directors (that has been circulated on some SFU email lists) outlining the exact details of the exchange that Hattie was fired for, and that letter makes it pretty damn clear that the firing was groundless. Add to that a sworn affadavit that Margo Dunnet said that they were thinking of firing Hattie on June 6, before the impeached Directors had any knowlegde of the things they later fired her for. And lastly, several current, unimpeached Directors who have seen all the evidence have publicly stated that they don't think Hattie should have been fired. I think that if you put all of this together it's pretty hard not to conclude that the firing was unjust and "cooked up" by the impeached Directors because they wanted to get rid of Hattie.

12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you missed my entire point. im not condoning what the g7 did. i didnt say hatie shouldnt be rehired or should. i think the decision should be made on facts and not because this person said so or that person said so, the g7 said so, or the sdu said so. as a student id like to know that the people representing me are basing decisions on actual facts and not all this political mumbo jumbo. if someones is campaigning by basing their campaign on their mind already being made up about things without knowing all of the facts then that says a lot to me. that's not democracy. ive read and heard the same things you have i dont need them repeated but thanks. i am entitled to have my own opinion so i dont know why you feel you need to push your opinion on me. we just have different views and thats fine.

5:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you missed the other point - it's entirely likely that Sean has had a chance to see what the G7 claim they used as a reason to fire Hattie and decide it was wrong. They were going about lecture theatres screaming to the masses why they fired her. Sean served on board before, he knows standard protocol and procedure - and he knows that the G7 violated it, and that Hattie may not have.

He may indeed know more than you or I. I think he's experienced enough and is honest and well-intentioned enough that he could repair relationships with our society's staff. I certainly don't think the CFS hack is the best choice, nor the BC liberal.

6:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least Sean is being honest about how he feels, and isn't running on a vague platform, in which he changes his mind as soon as he gets to office. Sean is the most qualified candidate for the IRO position. He has served on the board, he knows the collective agreement, and knows, as most of us do, that Hattie was not fired with just cause, and that this was just a pre-meditated attempt to make her position a vacant one. It's true, i agree that Sean should not have run on such a strong platform, but instead said something such as he would, look into the firing of Hattie, and see if it was justified, and if needed hire her back etc. But then again, it would have to be the boards decision, not just the IRO, regardless of the arguments made before.

8:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know what really stuck in my craw? The fact that the SFSS board fired someone who'd been working there for TWENTY SIX YEARS.

Hattie's been working there since before some of those arrogant little bastards on the G7 were even born. And they have the unmitigated gall to fire her without just cause - for what? All I know is Hunsdale apparently wanted her out of the way for some reason and was willing to play Corporate CEO to do it.

And add that to the trash job done on Hattie in public by members of the board (I heard about them going 'round to classrooms and saying all that rot; did they forget that SFU audiovisual records lectures? I bet at least one prof was annoyed about having a few minutes' lecture time filled up with pointless prattle that some student has to wade through on MP3.

Finally, a nice lovely e-mail by Vanessa Kelly went around, claiming Joel Blok was being unreasonable about arbitration. That's just a whole load of Bee Ess.

You know, they talk about groupthink and the tendency for a group of people to collectively decide to do something, even though the facts grossly weigh against them. This was apparently how the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon convinced themselves that they could win at the Bay of Pigs in 1961. They completely ignored the flaws in their plan because of peer pressure to conform, essentially.

9:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: terminated employee’s "egregious" actions: what was expressed in classrooms and in the Peak were Hunsdale’s opinions of what she did and she judged by what her actions COULD have brought about though even that was misrepresented. The $$$ losses they cited likely referred to the amounts students pay/paid in health premiums over the life of a contract, which would be the case no matter who the broker was--not theft or irresponsible outcomes of decisions made or influenced by that staff member. There were no unauthorized cash payouts to her as I understand it, and either the IRO or the GIO approved of or were aware of all of her actions. The labour committee chose to make a case based on their own mean assumptions, interests and political goals and then used terminology that closely resembles that used by their legal counsel in court last week to publicly condemn her, whose real ‘crime’ might have been that she asked too many questions about accountability at the CFS national budget committee about loans to the DSU.
These people (G7) used a very hierarchical, traditional rule-by-the-boss and threat-of-litigation kind of governance. They could not accept that the Board works in a collaborative manner with staff and with outside parties as necessary to make things run smoothly for students.
Dunnet said clearly in the Oct. 12th debate that the 'issue' happened in the previous year i.e., the Board's decision to go with Gallivan as the broker for the grad health plan, and that it was not in students’ best interests to sign a multi-year contract and that the G7 intended to change that. Past Board members would know a lot about how that contract was researched and approved by pretty much everyone on the Board, including Magee, except for Hunsdale and 2 others. The extent of the savings to students in the first year of the plan wasn’t mentioned--the insurance company paid out way more in claims than they collected from students.

10:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why is it that the SFSS remains a body that fails to produce results for its members? why is it that SFU students send over $400,00 to the CFS (Canadian Federation of Students www.cfs-fcee.ca), when we could drastically use those funds here to develop a student union building, student scholarships, improve campus community and interaction, improve funding to the althetics and recreation departments, and on and on and on.....why does the CFS push so hard each election to make sure that they continue to have a sour presence at SFU, why do many students not even care about voting and learning about candidates in the elections? why does a university, with bright, capable, cream of the crop students fail to run a successful student society? why, why, why???????why, why, why, why, and why? please tell me......

12:08 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home