President[/ub_subhead

The presidential race has been especially interesting this year. V has been an entertaining joke candidate, but despite our innermost desires to see a Hunger Games-esque free-for-all among Council, we have decided to endorse one of the serious candidates.

Cheneil Antony-Hale has both eagerness and enthusiasm, qualities that have been sorely lacking in the AMS in recent years. That said, her experience with the society is limited to starting a club which, while both inspiring and important for UBC, cannot be compared to the time Bailey spent sitting through Council meetings and managing executives.

Some of our editors mentioned that Bailey seems like a true politician (which, by the way, is not necessarily a good thing). He comes across as someone who has wanted to move up to president since day one and has been playing his cards (joining a frat, becoming a faculty president) in a way that would ensure this would happen. Bailey knows how to say the right things, but his bid to 'put the students back into student politics' also lacks substance on tangible things that he would do besides show up to events and be social.

At the same time, Bailey has been involved with the AMS long enough to prove that he is both interested and knowledgeable when it comes to politics. His enthusiasm might encourage students to get involved with the AMS and his approach to shorten Council by pushing councillors to prepare their questions ahead of time is sorely needed. Anyone who has sat through a meeting that dragged on for over seven hours will tell you that.

In her campaign, Antony-Hale addresses serious concerns such as the housing and tuition rises, more student seats on the Board of Governors, sexual assault training for residence advisors and a resource centre for students with disabilities. Although these are all things that need to be addressed, Bailey was right about one thing when he brought it up at the first debate: the president is not necessarily the right person to take these on. The presidential role is largely one of oversight, and the time that Antony-Hale would have to push forth even one or two of these issues (not to mention all of them) would be almost entirely overshadowed by managing the executives, getting students to know about the AMS and serving as a talking head for the society. When it comes to those specific things, we think Bailey is more qualified.

We sincerely hope that Antony-Hale will continue to be active on campus next year. That said, we've chosen to endorse Aaron Bailey, with eight votes in favour and one abstention.

As a side note, we wish that Bokor hadn't dropped out so that the race could have been more contested. We'd also like to add that we shouldn't underestimate the joke candidates. Aside from adding some much-needed humour to the elections, they also provide the opportunity for students to show their dissatisfaction for the real candidates by voting for them. It's a shame there haven't been more of them in other races this year.

VP Academic[/ub_subhead

It’s difficult to call it an endorsement when there’s only one person running. Omassi is the current AUS president, and from contact with her in that role we know a few things: she is a very social person, she likes to talk and debate and she is passionate for the things she cares about.

However, as VP academic, she’ll have to work with the university on very technical issues, and to get anything done, she’ll have to draft long, detailed proposals; this isn’t the type of work she’s necessarily used to as AUS president. We’ve seen no explicit evidence that she won’t be able to keep up with the job, but some of our editors are concerned about her lack of relevant experience -- being outgoing might not be enough to fill her duties. At the same time, we know that passion can go a long way when it comes to getting things done.

It’s worth mentioning that she missed the first debate. Our editors have varying opinions on this, as she had legitimate academic reasons to be absent, but it’s still not a great first impression to give potential voters -- even if you’re the only one running.

We'll wait for Omassi to prove herself, but if she can translate the passion and vocality she brings to her position as AUS president to the technical skill required from a VP academic, she’ll do a fine job in the upcoming year.

We endorse Omassi with six votes in favour and three abstentions (stemming from her lack of relevant experience).

VP Administration[/ub_subhead

Besides the presidential campaign, the VP admin campaign was the most contentious in the office.

Incumbent Ava Nasiri has both strengths and weaknesses that made it difficult for us to collectively agree that she was an objectively good candidate. In comparison to Alex Remtulla and James Jing, however, the choice seemed rather straight-forward. Nasiri brings experience to the role and the drive to get things done. This doesn't mean that we don't have our reservations.

During the debates, Jing showed a lack of understanding of the responsibilities of the VP admin position. His platform seemed to focus on buzz words, specifically the notions of "hands-on approach" and "collaboration," and didn't seem to expand further on what he will bring to the role. He's also never been to the AMS Art Gallery. We have to give him credit for his honesty, though.

Remtulla, who has more experience than Jing, was also keen on collaboration between the AMS and clubs but wasn't specific regarding how he would bring this about -- other than an online resource hub for clubs to use.

While Remtulla is a viable second choice, Nasiri is the more-obvious candidate. With a year of experience under her belt, she understands the position and resources to make the changes she wants. While we weren't impressed by her lack of communication concerning the SUB delays, many of the problems that arose were out of her hands and circumstantial. From what we know of Nasiri, she's driven, energetic and has a vision for the future. While she may not have accomplished all of her previous campaign goals, without the opening of the Nest on her plate, she may actually be able to bring about the change for student life that is so very so needed.

We endorse Ava Nasiri with five votes in favour and two abstentions.

VP External[/ub_subhead

This year's VP external race is less a competition and more a matter of determining which candidate is a safer choice.

From what we can see of Janzen Lee, he lacks fundamental knowledge of the AMS and seems a little unfamiliar with the functions of the role he is pursuing.

We see Jude Crasta as a safer choice. While not an overwhelmingly clear selection, he does have relevant experience. His last year as associate VP external doesn’t tell us too much, as it is hard to know how much of this year to hold him responsible for. In a year in which the VP external office has not shone -- though in fairness it has not failed either -- we can only expect Crasta to be more of the same: solid but unspectacular. It has been good to see involvement of that office in the Transit referendum, but otherwise we have heard little from the current VP external and her associate. We hope that Crasta, should he earn the position, will exceed our expectations.

Regardless of the lack of glamour, the year has not been abject, and we in the office fear that Lee is too much risk for too little promise. The Ubyssey endorses Jude Crasta with seven votes in favour and three abstentions.

VP Finance[/ub_subhead

This year hasn’t been a great year for the AMS financially -- helped in no small part by the delay of the opening of the new SUB -- and poor finances does not reflect well on an incumbent VP finance. Mateusz Miadlikowski, the current VP finance, is challenged by Sauder student and CUS executive Will Pigott in this race; though Pigott’s fiscally conservative platform and advocacy for change from the status quo is intriguing, we’ve decided to, with reservations, endorse Miadlikowski for VP finance.

Though the AMS has been struggling with its budget lately and businesses seem to be bleeding money left, right and centre, we feel as though Miadlikowski is not entirely responsible for that. The VP finance is more of an advisory and research-based role than one that wields significant power over businesses -- that responsibility is left to the business board.

Pigott brings some interesting ideas to the table, and we agree with his assertion that the AMS shouldn’t spend money for the sake of spending money, but he also lacks relevant leadership experience (his role in the CUS is not finance-based) and showed a relative dearth of understanding of AMS structure and the capabilities of his position in the debates. Miadlikowski, though not our ideal candidate, is a safe choice; he held things together over the course of the year and can be expected to do the same next year. As an incumbent, we hope that Miadlikowski will be able to improve the AMS’ finances over the course of the next year with the aid of the new businesses opening in the new SUB.

With considerable reservation, we endorse Miadlikowski for VP finance with a vote of three in favour and six abstentions.

Board of Governors[/ub_subhead

This year's BoG race has three capable candidates, though two stand out.

Bokor is a clear choice, given the amount of experience he has, especially as AMS president. He has both the policy expertise and personal connections to be an effective representative on the Board. Though some of his campaign goals, such as blocking development on University Boulevard, might be a bit too optimistic, we respect that he’s making tangible promises to students -- we just hope he will uphold them.

Knott also has our endorsement for the Board. She’s not afraid to speak up, and when she does, there’s sound reasoning behind it. Like Bokor, she knows how things work at the university, and we believe she will use that to students’ advantage.

Julie Van de Valk would be a suitable candidate for Board, she just isn’t as qualified as Bokor or Knott. Yes, there’s more to being a Board rep than being a seasoned politician, and she arguably has more experience than current rep Nina Karimi. But things move quickly at the Board and there’s only so much time to get up to speed. Van de Valk is personable and seems to truly care about students, we just worry those intentions wouldn’t lead to results at the Board.

We endorse Tanner Bokor and Veronica Knott for Board of Governors each with eight votes in favour and zero abstentions.

Senate[/ub_subhead

In keeping with the trend of the past few years, senate has a slew of candidates, most of whom failed to distinguish themselves from one another. In fairness, it’s a difficult to stand out in competition for a role that doesn’t give much opportunity for thinking outside the box. Of the nine candidates for five senate positions, we endorse two with a strong majority.

Viet Vu, with a vote of six for and one abstention, we endorse wholeheartedly. Vu is an active presence on campus, familiar with the AMS and has relevant leadership experience derived from his time as VSEUS president. Aaron Bailey is also endorsed with a vote of five for, one against and one abstention. Bailey, too, has demonstrated a clear understanding of the AMS and how it operates. The person who voted against Bailey did so because of a belief that AMS executives should not hold two major political positions concurrently when there are other candidates who would dedicate more of their time and themselves to the role, but does recognize Bailey’s qualifications otherwise.

Of the remaining candidates, none received a majority endorsement. We do believe, however that Gurvir Sangha, Eric Zhao, Jenna Omassi and Marjan Hatai are all decent choices. Zhao is an incumbent and, though not a particularly active presence in Senate, is familiar with the role and workings of the AMS. Omassi and Sangha both are very engaged with various groups on campus and are well-known. Hatai has experience as an AMS Councillor which should be transferable to a role in Senate, but she also has not stood out in any way at Council meetings. Of the other three candidates, Sapollnik received one vote in favour of endorsement, citing his apparent enthusiasm and passion (given that he is a first-year who not only knows what the AMS is, but is running for a position in it) and original ideas.

Student Legal Fund Society[/ub_subhead

The Student Legal Fund Society receives $1 in student fees every year and does very little with that money. This needs to change and it needs to change quickly. Although Janzen Lee is the only member of the incumbent Students for Responsible Leadership slate to return to the position, we have very little hope that the newer members of the slate have any desire to do something different from what former ones have been doing for years: very little of anything.

Why are we so harsh? Well, our doubts were firmly cemented during the first debate. Gems uttered by members of the Students for Responsible Leadership slate included things like it is up to the students to seek out the services of the SLFS if they need them (that's a nice cop-out from actually having to do anything) and the AMS being irrelevant. They have also pointed to having a website, placing a couple of ads in The Ubyssey and dealing with two student cases as their major accomplishments of the year. And then there's the second debate, which all the members of the slate decided not to come to.

You do not know what the SLFS does or even is? Neither do the majority of students. While we do not want to disparage placing ads in our paper, it's clearly not enough considering the amount of money they receive every year and a complete revamp of how the society goes about its business is necessary. The Students for Accountability slate have promised to release an audit of the organization as soon as they are elected, to manage funds responsibly and to actually provide tangible services to students. While only time will tell if they will actually live up to their promises, they at least propose reasonable solutions for problems that the society is facing, which certainly cannot be said for the incumbent slate.

Our editorial board unanimously endorses the Students for Accountability slate to take over the SLFS next year.