Yesterday marked the first debate between the candidates running for the UBC Board of Governors. Kevin Doering, Louis Retief, Sneha Balani, Jakob Gattinger and Jeanie Malone are competing for the two student seats available to those on the Vancouver campus. So far, the playing field seemed pretty even, with all them bringing different but valuable experiences and similar platforms to the role.
The first question of the debate asked candidates how they might change the strategic plan’s objectives if they could. Doering emphasized handling student consultation properly before working with the appropriate committees. Balani noted her prior experience working on the GSS strategic plan and the importance of keeping diversity as a continual part of the conversation. Malone also noted her experience with creating strategic plans, highlighting the importance of student representation.
Retief and Gattinger both differentiated themselves a little by noting that student representatives can’t just walk into meetings and make demands.
Gattinger also noted his desire to keep looking at the sustainability of the endowment fund, while Retief said that he wanted to use survey data to continue to push for the athletics and recreation space that students want.
The next question asked candidates whether they would change anything about the latest draft of Policy 131 on sexual assault and misconduct. As candidates that have all been consistently underscoring the importance of the student voice and student experience in the Board’s rhetoric moving forward, every candidate emphasized the crucial nature of far-reaching consultation of students and ensuring that the policy is implemented properly.
Gattinger added that provincial and federal legislation must also be considered.
A question from the audience then asked candidates which committees that they would sit on should they be elected to the Board, and each candidate had at least two answers ready (for a full list, check out the live-tweeting @UbysseyNews).
Another audience question then asked how candidates hoped to cultivate transparency on the Board, something that has been especially relevant in the past two years. Retief complimented the job that Veronica Knott — current student member of Board — did when she brought BoG matters to AMS Council, and said that he hopes to continue that work. Gattinger noted that he would try and keep the issues away immediately moving to the Board’s executive committee and maintain open channels for the AMS to present their feedback.
Malone emphasized the need for small cultural changes within the Board such as releasing agenda minutes sufficiently before meetings and putting minutes up promptly. Balani would like to see the key issues brought to students sooner rather than later, giving student members time to proactively work with the appropriate bodies to consult. Doering hopes to start a blog to keep students informed in an easily digestible manner, but highlights the valuable work already done with proposed revisions to Policy 93 and the promise that it provides.
Candidates were then asked how they would close the gap between academic and financial decisions, which is sometimes seen as the void between issues that come to Senate and issues that come to the Board. Since both Gattinger and Doering are running for positions on both bodies, they emphasized the connection that they could provide should they be elected to both. Balani noted that she is well-versed in issues important to students and not afraid to speak up. Malone underscored the need for open and consistent conversation with both students and stakeholder groups. Retief promised that if elected, he would remain updated and knowledgable on the ongoings of Senate to bridge the gap.
The final debate is being held on Friday from 3 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.