By: Ruchika Gothoskar
To say that presidential candidate Matt Vukovic has some lofty goals might be bit of an understatement. As previously mentioned, Vukovic’s initial platform was centered on three main points: food, abolishing the Student Representative Assembly and campus washrooms. But since campaign season began on Jan. 15, Vukovic has created a ‘Suggestions’ tab on his website, allowing for students to add their own platform points, which he extrapolates upon as he deems fit. A nonchalant way to go about a potential presidency, to be sure, but it seems as though there is nothing too outrageous for Vukovic to include in his platform.
Starting with his initial three points, Vukovic suggests that food on campus should be improved through the introduction of nutrient rations and meal replacements such as Soylent. He goes on address the fact that McMaster’s current contract with Paradise Catering is the “highest barrier to overcome”, as Paradise Catering currently does not allow the sale of outside food within MUSC and various buildings on campus. Obviously, the implementation of food rations and drink based meal replacements is a little outrageous, but if it cuts that Tim Hortons line in MUSC in half – another platform point of Vukovic’s – maybe more students will be on board.
During his time in office, Vukovic aims to abolish the SRA, citing the organization’s inefficacy, rampant bureaucracy and each caucus’ lack of communication with their respective faculty society president. He has two solutions. Vukovic hopes to physically attach the presidents of the faculty societies and their respective SRA caucus leaders via a simple pair of handcuffs or a conjoining organ graft. If this plan falls flat, his second option is to give full control to the president, ultimately allowing the president to make all decisions henceforth. This proves problematic for many reasons. Firstly, if the president has absolute power, that’s called a dictatorship – a type of governance that’ll be a first for the MSU, but will also probably be something students aren’t too pleased with. Furthermore, forcing students to interact with one another seems like a trite way to get more done. The SRA is the governing body of the MSU, and its existence allows for students with varying views to represent and address the concerns of undergraduate students, and lobby the university to improve McMaster’s academic quality. Coercing caucus leaders and faculty presidents to interact does more harm than good, as it insinuates that faculty happenings are all that is important to the SRA, rather than the variety of agenda items that they tackle now. Plus – how would either party use the bathroom?
Finally, Vukovic’s last pillar is campus washrooms – ones he says are outdated, and “sketchy’. Over the past few years, the MSU has done extensive research on gender-neutral bathrooms, in hopes of creating accessible spaces for nonbinary students on our campus. Vukovic agrees with these efforts. His campaign platform reads; “I would to respect the identification of all students on campus, while simultaneously avoiding spending more money on new bathroom space or renovations to existing facilities. As such, I propose that we simply replace all gendered washroom signs on campus with signs that just say, Water Closet.” While efficient, this seems unlikely. Vukovic also hopes to replace toilet paper in washrooms with not two ply, or three ply – but with reusable towels. With no consultation done with McMaster Facility Services, or within the MSU to see what work has been done regarding gender neutral washrooms, this platform point is one that is sure to be quickly flushed down the drain.
Matt Vukovic’s ever changing platform is available on his website at matt2017.ca. With little consultation done with previous or current MSU members, faculty or staff at McMaster, Vukovic’s platform is one that falls flat. Vukovic’s platform, though a mish mash of fact and fiction, might end up being a beneficial way to start conversations surrounding the fact that student government may work well at bridging the gap of communication between student bodies and administrations, but when endowed with the powers over budget allocation, judicial and policy decisions, and chartering authority, they often become a self serving entity of inefficiency and bureaucracy.
Patricia Kousoulas’ campaign is driven by the comforting cliché of #CreateYourStory.
While her platform appears to resonate the feelings of the student body at heart, the persuasiveness of her ideas is stunted by a lack of concrete backbone to her platform.
The major critique for Kousoulas’ campaign is that it focuses substantially on connecting with students on a personal level, without much regard for crafting a comprehensive solution for students.
In her “Feeling Well” pillar, Kousoulas expressed her interest in working for better food options and food security. One of her vague solutions, as shown on her webpage, is that “we are going to work in collaboration with existing McMaster Students Union services related to food security to better support them and emphasize their services around food security.”
While the statement sounds endearing at first glance, it yields no committed answer from Kousoulas on her plan to improve the current situation.
This is furthered by her statements of “better organizing student discount days” and “[advocating] for ways to increase food accessibility to students” but these are scattered ideas rather than a well-defined project.
Her platform seems to be lacking in terms of the rigour needed in developing her points. Her stance on “Safety on Campus” is an important issue, one that has also been discussed by Nadarajah and Inigo in their platforms. Kousoulas’ proposal to lobby for brighter lighting in student residential areas and the implementation of a shuttle bus system at night, while a strong idea, is not exclusive to her campaign. While she claimed to have made consultations, it is regretful that Kousoulas has not taken the idea further by collaborating with Parking Operations and Student Experience to fully assess the feasibility in implementing the shuttle services.
It should be noted that the proposal to implement better lighting in student residential areas has already been proposed by past MSU presidents and has failed due to city councillors’ concerns about light pollution.
Kousoulas’ “Celebrate McMaster” strives to help develop a one-day event to engage with all students. In essence, her desire is to create a multicultural celebration that gives students the opportunity to find pride in their own culture while also having the experience of learning from other cultural groups. Her enthusiasm with pushing for this event, in collaboration with existing cultural groups and festivals, is marked with a concern for redundancy. Kousoulas has argued for the supportive role the MSU can play in helping grow the event, albeit the noticeable criticism that she is just rebranding events already held by clubs.
Assisting students in leading a healthier lifestyle and pursuing a career is the central focus of “Adulting 101” and “Graduate Transition”, respectively. Kousoulas’ general approach to ameliorating the current situation is to consolidate resources together, rendering them more accessible. The merit to this idea is intertwined with the concern that this may not be enough to create impactful changes for students.
One of the main intentions of Kousoulas’ campaign was to create services that provide instant gratification rather than long-term projects. While she is supportive of the Space Expansion referendum, she chose to construct a platform that delivers on the short run for students.
“I am excited for the future McMaster, but because of the track record of the MSU and of the presidential position, students want to see something today and tomorrow. They want to make sure there is something they can taste right now. I don’t think the entire vision should be short-term, but my platform is,” Kousoulas said in an interview.
Overall, Kousoulas’ campaign is geared more towards appealing to the student body in person rather than on paper. Her ambitions are limited by a platform that serves to connect with students through smaller initiatives. This may prove to be a sharp pitfall and deter votes due to her less impressive projects.
With over 23 projects, Chukky Ibe’s platform is one packed with ideas that require the aid of multiple groups, ranging from the McMaster Students Union to the university provost to city hall itself. When considering a platform as large as his, it is imperative that thorough, preliminary consultation is done to ensure its feasibility. But certain aspects of his platform lack such consultation.
Consider Ibe’s point concerning expanding the MSU Underground Media + Design, which students use to print various assignments and projects. Aiming to improve infrastructure, Ibe’s platform seeks to cut lines at the Undergrounds by implementing a Smart Serve service which would allow students to pay for their printing online and pick up their assignments at their leisure. Additionally, Ibe hopes to create a satellite site on the other side of campus, near the engineering lecture halls.
It is clear that Ibe did not consult with the Underground when developing this platform point; if he had, he would have discovered the fundamental problems with it. His current platform would only increase student cost for little benefit, which contradicts Ibe’s stance on lowering student cost. What he is proposing is undeniably expensive, as it would require the purchasing of new technology and rental space, and according to research done by the Underground’s full-time staff, would only cause confusion and likely not shorten lines.
It should also be noted that the university already offers online printing at all libraries and a few other buildings through a service called PrintSmart, which also costs $0.06 per black and white page.
The Underground platform is indicative of a larger issue with Ibe’s campaign: the lack of comprehensive research. A simple email to one of the Underground’s full-time staff would have shown the logistical issues with his proposal, and such an issue can be found in other parts of his platform.
For example, Ibe wishes to mandate that Creating Leadership Amongst Youth conference to make it “effective to the needs of the city”. He did not consult with anyone on the current or past CLAY executive team, who are taking a different approach to reaching out to youth in Hamilton this year. While CLAY is excited to work with Ibe on this platform point, a simple consultation would have allowed for a greater dialogue and made sure that there were no redundancies.
In addition, Ibe did not consult any of the part-time service managers from MSU Diversity Services, the Student Health Education Centre or the Women and Gender Equity Network on his platform about clustering MSU clubs and MSU services and all noted the naturally-occurring relationship they already have with the pertinent clubs. All three services currently hold events with clubs with similar goals, making this point largely moot. It should also be noted that MSU clubs and MSU services fulfill very different niches within the McMaster community: clubs are meant to join students of a similar interest together, while services are meant to fill a gap within the McMaster university that may not be fulfilling. While these two are not mutually exclusive, this would only target clubs that deal with social causes who most likely already have a good relationship with their complementary MSU service.
Ibe also failed to consult the MSU Child Care Centre when formulating his platform point about expanding the centre to accommodate student parents. To his credit, Ibe does recognize the difficulty of such a platform point and has expressed this in past interviews, but without a proper consultation and discussion with the childcare director, the actual feasibility of this point remains up in the air.
A presidential candidate is expected to run on a platform that has already been thoroughly researched and already consulted with the necessary groups on campus. While it is true that the presidential candidate runs on a vision rather than a succinct plan, it is not fair to students to vote in a certain platform that is not feasible or already in the works. Although Ibe did consult with groups such as the Student Success Centre and the office of Ward 1 councillor Aidan Johnson, his failure to consult various groups on campus makes it difficult to trust his expansive platform.
Safety on campus is not to be taken lightly, and any promise to improve it needs to come with a sufficient amount of research and consultation with student and non-student services alike.
McMaster Students Union presidential candidate Aquino Inigo has failed to do that research, and instead offers plans that provide minor improvements at best, and at worst, will actually fail to provide an improved sense of security on campus.
Inigo promises to expand the Student Walk Home Attendant Team through a new call-in service, implement more streetlights in darker neighbourhoods surrounding campus and adding a new volunteer student foot patrol team that will work with Security Services.
The good points stop at the SWHAT call-in service. The addition of this service will allow students to anonymously call a SWHAT volunteer to accompany their walk home on the phone. The service would be offered until 3 a.m., two hours later than SWHAT is currently offering. SWHAT would only need one additional telephone, and currently has the volunteer base to support the addition according to SWHAT part-time manager Leon Zhang. Zhang could not estimate how often the new call-in service would get used, but latest SWHAT reports show that the services took 173 walks over the month of Nov. with an average of 5.77 average walks per night.
In principle, making some of the darker streets surrounding campus would make students feel safer during late walks home. Despite his website’s call to work with him, Ward 1 councillor Aidan Johnson has confirmed that previous councilor, Brian McHattie, explored the idea and found it to be infeasible because the residents along relevant streets resisted additional light pollution.
Ward 1 Administrative and Consistency Assistant Nikola Wojewoda-Patti noted that the MSU had previously inquired about additional lighting before, referencing former 2014-2015 MSU president Teddy Saull’s platform point on the same issue. City staff and police voiced concerns about drawing pedestrians onto potentially less safe routes – i.e. away from main and residential streets where there are already lights, houses and more foot traffic.
Inigo was unaware of the prior failure prior to his interview with the Silhouette, and though revisiting the issue is possible, it is clear that he has not done sufficient research, and has failed to consult with the very councillor he names on his campaign website.
The largest failure of his safety platform is the lack of student group and service consultation before the introduction of his volunteer foot patrol platform point.
Inigo’s conception of safety is simply tied to an increased presence of Security Services, and though that will be done through volunteer foot patrol and not security or police officers, it still represents the idea that an increased presence of security surveillance equates to ‘feeling’ safer
Inigo is not calling for this volunteer foot patrol in response to any statistical increase in crime on campus. He doesn’t offer any facts to back his claim that an increased presence of security through a foot patrol will actually deter crime and “suspicious activity”.
His website has made no mention of how increased security presence through a volunteer team will actually address the concerns of students who feel more unsafe around police officers, security services or a foot patrol group that represents security services. While he believes that students will feel more comfortable approaching the volunteer team rather then a security officer, the fundamental issue Inigo is missing is that this still makes certain students still feel that there is more security representatives on campus and that itself will make them feel uneasy.
Inigo did consult with Director of Parking and Security Glenn De Caire, but Inigo did not collect any evidence to suggest that students will feel safer around student groups representing security versus security officers themselves. He did not consult with MSU Diversity Services regarding this initiative.
The lack of consultation on this platform point is inexcusable. Following the protests of the De Caire Off Campus and the backlash to City Council’s proposal to increase by-law officers in Westdale, Inigo would have realized that any proposal to expand the scope of Security Services would need consultation and a lot of research.
He is a candidate that believes that security can always be improved, yet he makes no mention of how his safety platform can specifically combat sexual assault and violence in the university and he offers no additional support for victims. Given the assaults that occurred during Light Up the Night in April 2016, it is clear that he has not done the full research. His plan for safety offers little support for a significant portion of the student population.
Had Inigo done the necessary ground work, he maybe could have actually made substantial promises to the student population, but instead chose to live in a world where certain students ‘feeling’ more is good enough to run his campaign.
Leanne Winkels' candidacy is about breaking barriers in accessibility, integration and community, a platform that she’s built with research and discussion from students’ perspectives. While these three pillars see common issues that McMaster students face in general, the majority of these points seem to be lacking of tangible change and ambition.
Taking her platform pillar “Breaking Down Community Barriers”, into consideration, Winkels focuses on student space as a main priority by advocating for accessible student lounge space on campus for the Society of Off-Campus Students and the general student body.
With well over 25,000 full-time students at McMaster, the lack of both student lounge and study space is definitely a prominent issue on campus.
However, the issue of space on campus has been addressed by presidential candidates for the past decade, and is currently in motion through different capacities, including the Athletics & Recreation and Student Activity Building Referendum that is being voted upon during this election season and the construction of the Living and Learning Centre.
If the Athletics & Recreation and Student Activity Building Referendum passes, students could see the either expansion of the Pulse and a new Student Activity Building come to fruition. Proposed by current president Justin Monaco-Barnes and vice president (Finance) Ryan MacDonald, the referendum sees two options, with one being exclusively the expansion of the Pulse, while the other seeing both the expansion alongside of the construction of the Student Activity Building.
Further, the construction of the Living and Learning Centre, to be completed by 2019, sees 12 storeys and 359,000 square feet of multipurpose student space. The building, being constructed on the site of T-28 and T-29 will consist of eight floors of student residences while the remaining floors are to be used as new classrooms and student activity/lounge spaces.
As these proposed projects come with thousands of square feet of student space, it seems rather redundant to use student space as a running point. Winkels' platform website addresses the fact that the issue is already being tackled, but does not provide further information regarding Winkels' plan to rectify the lack of space on campus or put a solid plan into place.
The position of the MSU president comes with the ability to bring forward larger issues and to put more visionary ideas into action. While Winkels' platform points look good on paper and are easily attainable within a presidency, these same points fail to bring tangible change to McMaster. By running on campaign points that are already in motion and pursuing general issues that the McMaster student body faces, Winkels fails to see the bigger picture, and is ultimately lacking ambition in planning long-term goals.
Nadarajah’s biggest challenge as president of the MSU will be in fulfilling her platform about women and resilience. While a respectable goal, concerns arise of correct consultation and accountability.
In the past two years, there has been discussion on campus about equal gender representation within governing bodies at McMaster. The Silhouette ranked McMaster eighth from nine Ontario universities in this factor – a statistic that Nadarajah hopes to see change. Listed on her website is her plan to back groups such as McMaster’s Women in Engineering MSU through funding. Nadarajah did not consult this group when coming up with this platform point.
However, it will take more than financial support to create the social change that Nadarajah hopes for. It will require an in-depth analysis of what groups are most efficient at both empowering women and breaking down social barriers – and backing these groups. It will also require greater dialogue with other underrepresented groups on campus. Nadarajah has already begun doing by speaking to Indigenous students for feedback on how they would like to share their voice. Nadarajah says the interest lies in story circles or focus groups but a more thorough consultation should involve a greater breadth of students. It should be noted that Nadarajah has not consulted McMaster Indigenous Student Community Alliance, but plans to do so once elected.
Another important aspect of Nadarajah’s goal is accountability. “When people look at leadership, they look at the measurable things at the end of the year that you can check off on a project basis, and this is not a project based platform point at all. It is a visionary platform point,” said Nadarajah in a previous interview. The lack of clear milestones will make it difficult to assess progress over time. Nadarajah acknowledges this ambiguity. “When you are trying to achieve social change, it is a very difficult platform to achieve. But it is also why it is so important,” Nadarajah previously said. Further complicating the issue is the fact that social change happens slowly – one year of presidency may not be enough. Progress will not be necessarily be obvious, but there also needs to be a plan of action for revising and improving the plan along the way.
Other groups that Nadarajah hopes to integrate better are those of international students, voices of mature students on campus and LGBTQ+ communities. The solution that applies to one group may not apply to another, a factor that Nadarajah recognizes. For this same reason, it will require extensive consultation and progress may be slow at first. When it comes to equal representation, there is no easy answer.
Ultimately, Nadarajah will have to do extensive research and problem solving – not necessarily alone – and will have to create a plan of accountability to ensure that her good intentions are carried out.
Shaarujaa Nadarajah has proposed a pilot project, which would run during exam periods and rely on funding from the Student Life Enhancement Fund, with the possibility of faculties contributing as well. Nadarajah hopes to make use of the Lot M shuttle bus and the school buses used to transport students to and from Fortinos on Tuesday nights, ideally meaning the project’s sole expense would be wages.
Patricia Kousoulas hopes to run a pilot program during the Fall 2017 exam period. She estimates the cost to be $10,000 per semester for a service running for four hours a night during exams. Kousoulas sees two funding options, the first being from SLEF, the second from the McMaster Students Union operating budget. To accomplish the latter, the Student Representative Assembly would need to vote on the reallocation of fees.
Aquino Inigo wants to advocate for the current Lot M shuttle to be replaced with an accessible bus. During that time, he still plans to implement a late-night shuttle service during exams with the hope that the buses would be replaced with accessible vehicles. The bus would run seven times a night and Inigo estimates the cost of this initiative would be $200 per night, adding up to $2,400 over the course of a 12-day exam period. The funding for this would come from the university’s ancillary budget since parking is an ancillary fee. He indicated that the most recent Parking Services report shows they are operating at a surplus, which could be used to fund the bus project.
* * * * *
The proposal of a late-night shuttle bus service during exams is quickly becoming one of the most discussed platform points this presidential election. Three of the six presidential candidates are proposing similar routes that would run between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. These platform points are appealing to students who live in the areas surrounding McMaster because it promises a safe, fast ride home after a late night studying on campus. Some students may find it reassuring that the idea has appeared on half the candidates’ platforms.
But just because the point has appeared multiple times doesn’t mean it is ready to come to fruition, and no matter the proposed solution, each candidate’s shuttle bus proposal is lacking in multiple ways.
The idea of using the Lot M shuttle bus, mentioned by both Nadarajah and Inigo, is not a viable option. Parking Services confirmed the current shuttle bus is not road licensed, meaning it cannot transport students anywhere off campus. While Inigo could remedy this by replacing the current bus with an accessible, road-safe one, this replacement would not happen immediately. Nadarajah, on the other hand, seems to be counting on being able to use the Lot M bus, an intention she would need to revise were she to be elected.
It is also worth noting that the university does not own the buses used to shuttle students between the Ainslie Wood Fortinos and campus. Fortinos confirmed that they supply the buses used by students, meaning Nadarajah’s goal to only spend money on bus drivers’ wages is infeasible. McMaster does own a road-legal bus that travels between the university’s main campus and the Ron Joyce Centre in Burlington, but it is not clear whether or not this bus could be used for the exam shuttle, nor is it clear if McMaster owns or leases this vehicle.
Perhaps more importantly than the actual buses is how each of the candidates proposes to fund the program. The potential use of Student Life Enhancement Fund money to kick-start the shuttle service is a method favoured by both Kousoulas and Nadarajah, but since students vote on which ideas they would like to see put into action, SLEF is not guaranteed funding.
Kousoulas and Inigo both list funding alternatives to SLEF, but neither candidate has a confirmed source of funding for their projects.
Kousoulas has suggested amending the MSU’s operating budget, but this relies on the SRA voting in favour of the reallocation of the student fees that contribute to this budget. While she hopes to eventually partner with the university on a long-term solution to the funding of the shuttle service, university administration moves slowly at best, meaning a long-term source of funding could be years away from being agreed upon.
Inigo has suggested using the surplus generated by parking on campus, which is an ancillary fee. Director of Parking and Security Glenn DeCaire confirmed that Inigo did consult Parking Services on the use of this surplus to fund the shuttle bus service, but he could not guarantee that Parking Services could apply their surplus to this initiative.
If any of these three candidates are elected, they will have their work cut out for them. The exam-season shuttle bus service is a point that will require more work than the candidates have outlined in their platforms and could lead to a higher cost for students.
Shaarujaa Nadarajah had completed her third year of Life Sciences when she was elected vice president (Administration) by the Student Representative Assembly. As vice president (Administration), she has worked alongside the current president Justin Monaco-Barnes and with student managers across campus.
Nadarajah was also involved with Relay for Life for three years, becoming co-president in her third year. As SRA (Science) for a year, she was in the unique position of representing student voices.
“You recognize the challenges of representing students at one time because you are balancing your opinions with the opinions of the mass majority that you are trying to represent,” said Nadarajah.
Nadarajah’s biggest platform points are those of women and resilience and campus safety. To accomplish the latter, she will focus on running a shuttle bus during exam hours. The busses would ideally be the same that currently shuttle from Lot M to Mary Keyes.
The Student Life Enhancement Fund’s pilot project funding can contribute to the fiscal cost of the project. Another important point for Nadarajah is to make bystander intervention training for Community Advisors and TwelvEighty security guards, increasing safety at large group events. Nadarajah has consulted with Meaghan Ross and the Women and Gender Equity Network and all groups are excited about the prospect of offering sexual and gender-based violence training to the larger student community.
Nadarajah also wants to focus on optimizing student space by restructuring TwelvEighty for group events and late night study hours. Nadarajah has set out achievable environmental goals set on improving McMaster’s energy consumption through lighting changes. A longer-term goal and more difficult goal to complete is the incorporation of photovoltaic and thermal solar panels.
Nadarajah believes her platform point about women and resilience will be the most difficult to achieve. The platform focuses on advocacy, representation of marginalized groups and empowerment of groups that currently stand for these issues.
“It’s hard because when people look at leadership, they look at the measurable things at the end of the year that you can check off on a project basis, and this is not a project-based platform point at all. It is a visionary platform point,” said Nadarajah. One approach is to back groups such as McMaster’s Women in Engineering with money and infrastructure so that they are better able to carry out their mission.
Opponent’s platform she’s fond of:
Aquino’s safety pillar
Nadarajah admires Aquino Inigo most. Both their platforms value student safety, though they do not always go about it in the same manner.
Platform she’s most critical of:
Chukky’s “Shorter Lines at the Underground”
Nadarajah is most critical of Chukky Ibe’s platform, questioning how he will achieve some of his platform points in a year and find the fiscal backing for the endeavours. She is particularly critical of his idea to make Underground services more mobile and to increase staffing, wondering if Underground’s vision matches his own.
Website
Stressing feasibility and student outreach, Chukky Ibe offers a vision of building upon the current foundation of the McMaster Students Union.
Ibe is a fifth-year Political Science student who cites his competitive edge as his experience both inside and out of the McMaster community
Within the McMaster community, Ibe has held positions on the Student Representative Assembly, worked with MSU Diversity Services for 2 years, as well as work for the Student Success Centre on Welcome Week programming such as IRIS.
In the Hamilton community, Ibe has worked for city hall as well as being a large part of Hamilton’s spoken word scene through his involvement with the Hamilton Youth Poets.
Ibe’s platform runs on the idea of feasibility. Divided into eight pillars, Ibe’s platform spans a wide array of topics, ranging from improving wifi on campus to lobbying alongside the Ontario government for open-source textbooks. A simliar program exists in British Columbia.
His biggest points among these eight are the Neighbourhood Assistance Program, which aims to foster better student-resident relationships, his affordable textbook strategy, which calls for the implementation of an open-source system, and the MSYou initiative, where students are asked to vote on different platform points for a president-elect based on the platforms of other candidates and student surveys.
In addition to these larger points, Ibe’s platform also includes smaller points aimed to improve student life. Ibe wishes to expand the Mac Breadbin Good Food box program to send subsidized groceries to each member’s home. The current system requires members to pick up their box on campus.
Additionally, Ibe plans on creating more bus shelters on campus and expand the current ones on campus to protect more students from the cold. The main stops on campus without bus shelters are the stop in front of the McMaster University Student Centre and the stops by at University Ave. and Forsyth Ave.
Among his many platform points, Ibe cites his point concerning expanding childcare for parents attending university as his most ambitious.
“I say child care because it’s a heavily regulated industry by the province but also the municipality so we’re going to be working with a lot of those partners,” Ibe said.
Opponent’s platform he’s fond of:
The exam bus shuttle service on Aquino’s, Patricia’s and Shaarujaa’s platofrm
When asked which candidate’s platform point he admired the most, Ibe cited the shared point of a shuttle bus service on campus, which is currently on the platform of Aquino Ingio, Patricia Kousoulas, and Shaarujaa Nadarajah.
“I think they’re super important and whatever the outcome I’m dedicated to make those happen,” Ibe said.
Platform he’s most critical of:
When asked which candidate he was most critical of, Ibe declined to comment.
Website
