This year, it’s been more difficult than usual to pick an AMS candidate team worthy of representing students as AMS executive. While no team has promised to “Crack the Clique,” students have certainly heard their share of slogans and seen their share of gimmicks.
As the AMS executive election draws to a close, the Journal has reflected on the platforms and campaigns of each team. If the Journal had a ballot to rank the candidates, this is what it would look like:
1. Team MBT: They’re not an outstanding option, but of all the teams, this team would best represent the student body. Their proposal to introduce the AMS to first-year students and encourage their involvement through weekly dinners with all residence floors seems like a genuine commitment to engaging more students; however, it doesn’t seem feasible given the cost of each dinner and the number of floors in residences. Similarly, the plasma screens on campus are a good idea in theory—we can see the point in trying to find a more effective way to inform students about the various events on campus. But again, it could become yet another expense the AMS cannot afford. It is also difficult to reconcile spending tens of thousands of dollars on plasma screens when something less costly and perhaps more necessary, like After Hours Childcare, has been eliminated in the name of saving money. Their platform of 12 months, 12 promises demonstrates a sincere effort on their part to ensure ability. We only hope that in trying to fulfill these 12 promises, other responsibilities do not fall short. MBT is well-intentioned with their ideas and, while we are leery of whether or not they will be able to follow through with every single one of them, we do believe they will put in the most effort and work the hardest to fulfill these promises.
2. Team HPR: Their “Jump in the Lake” gimmick and surveys have succeeded in engaging students in dialogue and encouraged them to come forward with their concerns. At the same time however, it shows a lack of direction and a lack of focus in of their platform. While student opinion is important, the next AMS executive should present to students its own mandate which it intends to fulfill rather than adopting a “go with the flow” type of attitude. Their intention to implement a 20 per cent salary cut and replace it with performance-based bonuses is not a sound idea given that they have not clearly outlined a way to ensure ability as to how exactly these performance-based bonuses will be determined. From the debates, it is clear that Team HPR lacks a definitive presence. While their ideas may be good, an inability to articulate and defend these ideas does not demonstrate to students their ability to represent the student body to the istration and city officials. On numerous occasions, the candidates have spaced out, and the vice-presidential candidates in particular were unable to articulately answer questions.
3. Team HML: Coming into this election period, Team HML clearly had the most experience. While this experience will help them get things done, students do not need to be reminded of it at every possible opportunity and they most certainly do not need to be met with a condescending attitude because of this experience—if anything, their experience should have taught them that. Their slogan “Fight Back” is problematic because it perpetuates the “us and them” mentality between students and the city, which will do nothing to improve town-gown relations. Although students often receive unwarranted blame, there are also instances in which students have in fact behaved deplorably and should be reprimanded. Adopting this “Fight Back” mentality could end up protecting those who frankly should not be protected, in addition to those who are in fact innocent. What’s more, Team HML’s intention to influence the Kingston Whig-Standard’s editorial board meetings will not help to improve relations with the city and shows their lax, somewhat worrisome approach to editorial autonomy. While we agree this team has what it takes to fulfill their platform ideas, their approach of “Fight Back” is too aggressive, and they have not appeared entirely trustworthy or sincere.
4. Team SHT: From the beginning, given their slogan “there’s no ‘I’ in team SHT,” there was speculation as to whether or not this was the “joke team.” And throughout this campaign period, this team has failed to prove otherwise. The team’s website alone is replete with offensive comments about other candidates. Regardless of who posted these statements, the fact that the comments have, until recently, remained on their site demonstrates a lack of professionalism and is indicative of what we could expect, were they to be elected. The sporadic absences of two of the team’s candidates throughout the campaign shows a lack of dedication and perhaps a lack of confidence in their own abilities to succeed in this election.
It is not up to the Journal to make decisions for the students, however, and we hope that students will become informed about each team’s platform. It is paramount that students vote and have a say in who will be spending our money and representing us to the University and the City of Kingston.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].