By: Justin Monaco-Barnes
January is an exciting time of year for student politics at McMaster. MUSC tables begin to overflow with excited students in bright colours, so full of passion for student life that they can barely contain it. Over the course of my time at McMaster, I’ve heard some great ideas come out of presidential candidates. I find that the mark of a great platform is one that blends tangible ideas with a unified vision for the union. In 2014, Teddy Saull was elected with his vision, “Community Matters.” The following year, Ehima Osazuwa was successful with his equity-focused platform, “Forward Together.” Then in 2016, students elected a nerd in big, round glasses, focused on health, sustainability and wanting to “Be the Change.”
Community, equity, health, sustainability — each important themes that the MSU has worn over the past three years, each pillars that students here at McMaster have voted for. However, each year, some of the tangible pieces of these platforms have gone uncompleted. Community kitchens, more lounge space, multi-faith prayer space, larger athletics space and sustainable infrastructure are all great ideas that haven’t yet come to fruition. And it all comes down to one thing: space.
Enter this upcoming referendum. There are essentially two pieces to it: Athletics/Recreation space, and a student space expansion that we’re calling the Student Activity Building.
Let’s talk first about the Athletics/Recreation space. This plan is calling for an expansion to the Pulse that would increase the space by 60,000 square feet, more than doubling the space of the current facility, and some immediate upgrades to existing space and programs. These include a female-identified only fitness space, funding for club teams, a 50 per cent discount on intramurals, yoga, pilates and extended hours. The biggest change that students would see immediately is the inclusion of a 12-month Pulse membership within their student fees at great value.
To put this in perspective, a 12-month Pulse membership is currently $192, and an 8-month membership is $144. For students who purchase these memberships currently, approval of this project means immediate savings of $97 for compared to a 12-month membership and $47 for the 8-month. This means giving you the extra cash in your wallet to buy a lot more delicious slices of banana bread from Union Market.
Onto the Student Activity Building. This new building would be an expansion to the Ivor Wynne Centre, and would be a 40,000 square foot space designed by students, for students. Multi-faith prayer space is a priority for this building, and beyond that, the possibilities are endless. Food collective centre, permanent local, fresh food grocer, movie theatre, event space or a new cafe; it’s up to you, but all of these are possible with the Student Activity Building.
While not every student may use a prayer space or access a food collective centre, the space will be designed with the principle that everyone can use it for something.
To fund this project there would be an immediate $95 increase for next year, giving a 12-month membership to the Pulse among other benefits to students in starting in September. The cost for the expansion to students would only kick in when the building would be completed in 2019/2020. If students vote in favour of the Pulse and the Student Activity Building, current ancillary fees will rise by $3.95 per unit capped at 30 units, which works out to $118.50 for students taking 30 units.
Again, if you’re a full-time student, this means you’re paying an additional $95 starting next year to cover the Pulse membership and additional Athletics and Recreation benefits.
In September 2019, when the new Pulse and new Student Activity Building would open, fees would rise by an additional $128.50 consisting of the $3.95 per unit increase to the building fee and an additional $10 to the activity fee.
Let’s be clear, the fees here are not low, and students at McMaster are already paying high costs to attend this institution. I understand that. However, for many students who already purchase a Pulse membership or another gym membership, well over half of the student population, accepting these changes will cut their costs rather than add to them.
Even for students who don’t use the Pulse, this project truly is meant to have something that all students can find value in. By having cheaper food options, or more accessible multi-faith space, or discounted intramurals and yoga, this is a plan not just designed for one type of student, but for all.
This January, you have the opportunity to vote for next year’s MSU president, but you also have the chance to say yes to the dreams and ideas of all the students that came before you. Let’s say yes to “Community Matters,” and to “Forward Together,” and to “Be the Change” and to whichever lucky slogan may be crowned the winner this year: let’s build the space to make this campus a place where student life and leadership can really happen.
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
Presidentials has gone overboard.
This year sees some ambitious and infeasible platforms. The massive plans mislead students because it is impossible for them to find out what the candidates are truly going to work on during their term. There are too many ideas and too little time.
I appreciate the optimism from the candidates and their broad platforms, but let’s be serious. Universities are large institutions that tend to move slowly. The city of Hamilton struggles to even get bike lanes implemented. Anything beyond the control of the MSU requires an incredible amount of work and time.
For proof, we can revisit the accomplishments of recent presidents. The 2014-15 MSU president Teddy Saull made more lighting in student neighbourhoods part of his campaign. This point still appears on platforms in 2017.
The 2015-16 MSU president Ehima Osazuwa wanted to get gender-neutral washrooms. That project remains at a standstill.
Current president Justin Monaco-Barnes campaigned on environmental sustainability. As reported in December, plans to expand the teaching and community gardens had not come to fruition, as well as the installation of solar panels. For Monaco-Barnes, there’s still time, but not much.
So I’m pessimistic when I see candidates naming multiple projects that involve the university or municipality. It takes time to get these groups on board, and time is not something the presidents have with a 12-month term. I am not saying these presidents failed at their jobs; there are just so many hours in a week and some projects have to get left behind.
The “pillars” of their platforms are not framed in terms of priority, and that is by design: as a candidate, you don’t want to alienate the voter who supports your education ideas by ranking that platform point last.
This leaves you, the voter, in a situation where you are guessing what truly matters to the candidate in their dozen or so platform points.
They simply cannot achieve everything, and you have to hope that the reason you are electing them is for the goals they plan to achieve. The candidates will say that they can achieve all the goals, but let history be your educator here.
Be critical of the candidates with broad platforms and talk to them – not the campaign managers or team – about their top priorities and how they plan on achieving them.
You aren’t out of line; you’re holding a political candidate accountable.
The MSU can always use more of that.
By: Ruchika Gothoskar
Matt Vukovic is excited to run for president, not because he’s been planning on doing it for months or years like other candidates, but simply because he’s taking a rather unconventional approach to the presidential race.
Vukovic has been an active member of the McMaster Engineering Society in the past, but has no previous experience within the McMaster Students Union, something he states is an advantage due to his extensive time spent as an “outsider to [the MSU’s] system”. He also has yet to critically evaluate the platforms of the other five candidates, but believes staunchly that those running for president are more often than not interested exclusively on “leaving a legacy”, oftentimes “at the expense of the very students the MSU is charged with representing”.
Vukovic’s platform focuses on three pillars, which he has yet to decide on where to put, and is supposedly “waiting on a quote back from a contractor”. With attention on food, campus washrooms and the Student Representative Assembly, Vukovic hopes to achieve some rather outlandish goals. He admits that his most difficult platform point to integrate within the McMaster community will be the the replacement of all campus foods with nutrient rations and meal replacements such as Soylent, but agrees that pushing further to ultimately abolish the SRA is a close second. “There is a very strong disconnect between the SRA’s action and what the desires of the faculty body are – there have been multiple attempts to remedy this, and obviously none of them have been effective,” he explained. His website suggests even more extreme measures, vouching for the fact that the attachment could range from a simple pair of handcuffs to a conjoining organ graft.
Vukovic remains firm in his belief that, although he hasn’t read all the platforms, those advocating for more student space have goals that are too lofty – including the candidates who will be voting YES to the Student Activity Fee referendum, allowing for expansion the Athletics and Recreation department.
“Even though we might need the space, I don’t think it should come at the expense of the students anyway,” he said. “Hearing what the fee structure is supposed to be, I strongly disagree with the plan.”
Vukovic believes that his platform is ultimately focused on making the MSU evolve into something it should’ve been from the start – fast, efficient and attentive to the needs of the students rather than the desires of the SRA or the Board of Directors. After being a student for five years, he says that he has yet to see any real change, and although there might be internal differences, there’s no tangible change seen for the average student.
Website
Aquino Inigo’s approach to the MSU presidency is one which attempts to address wide range of complex, and fundamentally different student issues.
The Level IV Life Science student, Student Walk Home Team volunteer, McMaster Science Society Vice President (Academic) and Student Representative Assembly member plans to tackle campus safety, increase the amount of streetlights in student neighbhourhoods, lowering textbook costs, adding a counselor for first years to the Student Wellness Centre, all the while introducing new faculty conferences and a campus art crawl.
In comparison to this year’s MSU President, whose platform was focused on relatively set issues and a central campaign message emphasizing sustainability, Inigo is taking a shotgun approach to the candidacy.
To Inigo, an MSU president needs to try and serve the needs of as many students as possible. This is reflected in the sheer scope of his campaign, which will need to collaborate with university and faculty administration, as well as Security Services and Hamilton city council.
“Over the last three years, I have worked hard to bring change to McMaster….I have a passion for the school and I think the passion is really what qualifies a student to be president,” said Inigo.
Inigo identified his most ambitious platform point to be the implementation of an online open access database for university courseware. He cites a similar system that was implemented in the University of British Colombia, where students are able to access open text books, lesson plans, hand outs, and other course material shared by educators.
One of the stand-out points of Inigo’s platform is the promise to increase campus safety. This involves the implementation of 2-5AM exam season shuttle busses that run from campus to nearby Westdale and Ainslie Wood stops and the introduction of a student volunteer patrol team that will work campus security and special constables to deter crime.
Opponent’s platform he’s fond of:
Chukky’s platform
“I think he his platform is overarching in the sense that he has many points to tackle student problems, things like getting better food security, as well as better Wi Fi... small things that can be tangibly done...so I think what I like about his platform is that it’s very overarching.”
Platform he’s most critical of:
Patricia’s Diversity event
“The reason for this is that her platform is good in the sense that it brings people together but I believe that many of her points are sort of things that already exist on campus. Her point on bringing a lot of multicultural things together is already done by a club called Pangea in a big way. I think just putting the name MSU on it and making it in a bigger way is a good way of going about it but I believe she can bring more to the table.”
Website
As of noon of Jan. 15, the MSU presidential race has officially begun, with the following candidates:
Athletic and Recreation Expansion and Student Activity Building referendum
A referendum asking students if they wish pay a fee going towards expansion the Pulse and new Athletics and Recreation Building.President Justin Monaco-Barnes has taken a leave of absence to represent the official YES campaign for this referendum. Shane Zuchowski will represent the official NO campaign for this referendum.
Hamilton Street Railway Pass
As a part of the MSU’s agreement with the HSR, the conditions of the pass must go to referendum every 3 years, and asks students if they agree with the new, re-negotiated pass fee.
Syllabus Repository
This referendum asks students if they wish to task the vice president (Education) to create an open access repository of course outlines/syllabi.
Voting will open on Jan.24, and both voting and campaigning will end Jan. 26 at 5PM.
On Jan. 5, the university announced their punishment towards two students who made a booking at Innis Library under the name “McMaster KKK meeting” in early December. While the Silhouette did not publish anything during the original timeframe about the controversy, mostly due to the fact that the final issue of the year had printed and exam season took priority for our student staff, the odd dilemma moving forward is the struggle presented with a topic like this.
The paper and university have dealt with heated events this year, most notably with the presence of alt-rights posters in November. The problem comes with considering how much of a voice each side actually has compared to how many people actually wish to speak about their perspective.
Basically, considerations about a silent majority or a vocal minority during any argument can easily tear apart a newsroom if not done with absolute precision. What should be covered in limited space? How much does the average contributor need a devil’s advocate to reply to their position? What do we do if we cannot find one?
While these considerations can weaken legitimacy due to potential bias, these are the questions and considerations that have also weakened our content. It is difficult to state we have had legitimate coverage if we have chosen not listen to the readers we are serving. This section in particular has failed its students during presidentials.
Moving forward, the paper will attempt to bring you the best articles possible for the MSU presidential elections. Anyone associated with the Silhouette will be taking a leave of absence if they are associated with a campaign team. Our office door will be closed from Jan. 15 to 26 with the exception of staff meetings. A number of other precautions, largely absent or deemed unimportant in the past, have been taken to ensure the paper takes as neutral a stance as possible.
While certainly not as controversial as discussions about race, it is difficult to navigate issues and politics that have far more grey area where moral integrity is not the main point of discussion. Difficulty is not a valid excuse.
Our coverage last year mostly consisted of:
• Opening statements from every candidate
• A colour and design analysis of every candidate
• Looking back at similar promises candidates in the past have made
• Overviews of every candidate
• Reactions to the Presidential Debate
• A critique on one point from every candidate
• What every candidate stated about mental health
• A fun article about a sixth candidate named Esther Chatul, the cat
The Opinion section had exactly two election articles in print during this span. One was pro-VP referendum. The other debated that the referendum did not matter because democracy dies when “argument culture” takes over. The now defunct Lifestyle section had more pages dedicated to politics.
While certainly not as controversial as discussions about race, it is difficult to navigate issues and politics that have far more grey area where moral integrity is not the main point of discussion. Difficulty is not a valid excuse.
We have failed to provide open discussion out of fear. The vast majority of content for the last few years has been from the candidates themselves, our staff and news contributors. You were left to talk about the issues by shouting into the voids of random social media or in the comments section on our articles rather than in print. The want to remain unbiased and the want for open discussion do not have to be opposing ideas.
When the nominations end on Jan. 12 at 5 p.m., I want to see your thoughts and perspectives on every candidate. I want you to absolutely grill the idiotic parts of each campaign and praise parts that you feel would be best to move the school forward into greatness. You, your peers and the school as a whole should have a more active part in bringing points to the forefront.
I love watching House of Cards on Netflix, but I hate being reminded about it in real life.
If you have been keeping up with the election in the United States, manipulation, power, betrayal and corruption are just a few of the elements that make up the overall discussion. Vying for such high positions of power seems to come with some controversy, sure, but not nearly to the degree we’ve seen recently. House of Cards and the American election should not be any sort of influence to your political aspirations.
McMaster’s own candidates, groups and issues have certainly not kept their hands clean when it has come to elections. Looking at the last year alone, it was clear that a change in culture was needed to ensure that the next MSU presidential race will be substantially less newsworthy. Actions that make a farce out of the system should not be tolerated when it comes to the university’s own political systems.
This calendar year started with possibly the worst campaign season in the university’s history. It’s not that the candidates were any worse than previous years, but the tallies on every candidate’s rule infraction list were marked with far too much red for anyone to take pride in. Even though there were only two presidential candidates disqualified in the history of the MSU before this year, the one in 2008 being overturned after a month of discussion, it was extremely odd that we only had one candidate in a similar situation.
Looking back on that election, it’s not difficult to see parallels to the recent Exclusive Club Card referendum. While there weren’t a large amount of candidates all continuously messing up, this referendum was a great reminder of how idiotic McMaster students can be when it comes to following solid rules.
A total of eight broken rules, as minor as they may seem, are important to the integrity of our democracy. Varying from pre-campaigning to failing to disclose expenses, most of these offences are, at this point, completely typical and unsurprising. While a few fines may happen with the extensive amount of rules in elections, it is completely unacceptable to be ignorant of them while campaigning. The alternative of knowing them and simply not caring is worse.
Poorly run campaigns, whether they be for a presidential candidate or for a referendum, are embarrassing for the student body. If student leaders can’t be bothered to read a rulebook or follow these established rules, why should anyone else in the student body bother with rules that apply to them? Attempting to gain an advantage through illegitimate means is a disgusting representation of the school you’re trying to represent.
Looking forward to the MSU presidential race that will happen in January, the reminder that campaigns can be struck down was a much needed one. The student body should demand more from their candidates, help enforce fair campaigns and those on campaign teams should at least try to not be completely mindless. This doesn’t seem like a lot to ask, but I fear that our news section will be busy regardless in the likely case that campaigns ignore the lessons that could be learned from this year.
The MSU presidential debate on Monday, Jan. 27 marked the final opportunity for candidates to publicly present their case to voters and attempt to shift the balance.
No new promises were made, but the tone of the debate was more critical than last week's debate. While Brodka and Saull seemed to be frontrunners in the first debate on Thursday, Jan 23, some candidates emerged at Monday's debate as thoughtful and well-spoken contenders, particularly Russell.
Russell impressive
Of all candidates, Russell looked the most comfortable in front of viewers and, by far, sounded the least scripted.
When asked who they think deserves second place, every candidate, except herself, said that Russell would get their vote if they weren’t running.
Though Russell was personable, she had very little time to answer questions about her own platform and explain to voters they ought to support it. Most of her time was spent questioning other candidates and handing them a chance to elaborate on their own platforms.
Russell stayed poised as all of the candidates went after the early leaders—Saull and Brodka. While candidates interrogated Saull and Brodka, Russell shone as likeable and fairly unopposed. She closed saying "I'm asking for your vote if maybe you haven't felt heard before, if maybe you've felt that your lens doesn't matter. I'm asking for your vote if you've ever felt like you needed more support."
Ali and Wolwowicz improve
Israa Ali and Jason Wolwowicz both had their work cut out for them after an underwhelming performances in the first debate.
Ali clearly presented herself as the non-status-quo candidate. She also drew on personal experience while talking to the audience and spoke about being overlooked and underestimated as a Muslim women who wears a Hijab.
"It was brought to my attention that, because I wear the Hijab, or this head scarf, I'm not as appealing to the student population as the rest of the candidates are, and I may not even win or have a chance," said Ali. "I am a student just like you and I have struggles just like you."
Her confidence showed improvement and she referenced her MSU experience more heavily than before.
Wolwowicz was a strong speaking presence in this debate and was able to remain concise. Wolwowicz, in this debate, showed himself as researched and smart but still held on to his theme of leaving big decisions up to the student body.
"Engaging the student community more is key. Students have fantastic ideas. The MSU really only sees success because of student ideas...Services were implemented because they were student ideas at some point," said Wolwowicz.
Brodka and Saull staying afloat
Saull remained relatively likeable but did not improve much from the first debate and Brodka kept his remarks vague and wordy, trying to keep his reputation as the knowledgeable candidate.
Brodka and Saull politely battled each other for most of the debate, attempting to poke holes in the other’s platform. Neither of them was more impressive than the other and they both neglected to opportunity to criticize Russell or make any meaningful pleas to voters.
Brodka attacked Saull's off-campus security plan, citing redundancies or possible lack of demand.
"I just have a lot of questions about a variety of sub-points... if there's a demand for this," said Brodka. "For example, 'an increased police presence.' I know the University already pays up to $200,000* on specialized policing surrounding the University, so I just have a lot of questions."
Saull, again, was critical of Brodka's freedom credit point, saying it hadn't been researched properly.
"You had a consultation with a Dean, who said it worked. If you call a Dean and ask how his pilot project went, I think that that would be a biased sample," said Saull.
It seemed as though they were each just trying to hold on.
Voting time
Online voting opened Tuesday, Jan. 28 at 9 a.m. and will close on Thursday, Jan. 30 at 5 p.m. Students eligible to vote are registered in 18 units or more and should receive a code to vote at mcmaster.simplyvoting.com.
*number clarified later on Twitter
