“I kind of expected there would be a lot more people up here,” remarked Simon Fraser Student Society presidential candidate Darien Lechner during his opening statement. He wasn’t the only one.

After an intense debate at last year’s Burnaby campus debates for those running for executive positions, including president and vice president positions, no one candidate was able to stand apart as a clear front-runner in a debate that took much less time than was budgeted for.

The afternoon was a low-energy question-and-answer period, with nine candidates jostling for six positions. Three of the positions (VP Student Life, VP Student Services, and VP University Relations) were uncontested, helping to contribute to the lack of debating between candidates.

There was only one slate, Connected, with members running in executive positions. Anyone else running was doing so as an independent.

VP External Relations – Archit Bansal vs. Christine Dyson (Connected) 

In their opening statements, Bansal indicated his intentions to focus on open textbooks and lowering student fees, while Dyson chose not to mention specifics.

Bansal argued that it was time for fresh faces on the board, springboarding off of members from the audience who questioned having continuity from current board members remaining board members.

Dyson responded by stating that she is currently working with open textbooks, an initiative which Bansal says he wants to get started with.

Bansal went on to campaign for his clear vision on the issues, and Dyson touted her experience and drive to find out “what students want.”

VP Finance – Ibrahim Hafeez vs. Hangue Kim (Connected)

The debate started with both Hafeez and Kim acknowledging they were friends, which came up several times throughout their short time at the microphones. Kim insisted that they had worked together on several projects throughout the year, and was glad they were having a civil and friendly competition.

Kim’s big priority for his campaign is the restructuring of cheque requisitions. He believes that, “if we improve [cheque requisition], it’s kind of a domino effect for other services.” Improving this service makes getting money back to students easier, and Kim said this was an issue that several students were complaining about.

Hafeez took a stronger stance. “I believe the system is broken,” he said answering how he felt the SFSS manages money. “The budget is created by the board before the new board is elected, and that’s not the way to go.”

He mentioned the desire to create something he called “The Opportunity Budget” which focused on incoming board members sitting down and determining a new budget that would reflect student wants and needs.

VP Student Life – Curtis Pooghkay (Connected)

Running uncontested, Curtis Pooghkay touted his ideas, which consisted of building engagement across all the campuses, and eliminating the idea of SFU being a “commuter campus,” wanting students to want to come here for more than just classes and go home.

He also threw his support behind the fraternities and sororities on campus, saying that Greek Life is “highly engaged” in student life, and they should be rewarded for their efforts.

VP Student Services – Larissa Chen (Connected) 

Chen highlighted her student desire to have services be more accessible in person, and pointed at the U-Pass as the number one service that students depend on, noting the importance of this year’s referendum. She also gave a shout-out to the copy centre, which she feels is an underutilized service on campus.

One of her big mandates for next year is to try and improve student well-being, specifically in regards to mental health. Chen acknowledged that issue is very dear to her, and wants to advocate for more staffing to accommodate a greater need from students.

VP University Relations – Arr Farah (Connected)

The final uncontested debate was also the shortest, with Farah fielding few questions from the crowd.

He did say that while “the student society and the university have had a good relationship, [. . .] the student society has been taken advantage of by the university in many areas.” He pointed to Build SFU and maintenance as a couple examples, and said he would improve this relationship if elected, one which would allow the ability to advocate for these issues.

President – Darien Lechner vs. Deepak Sharma (Connected)

In the final debate of the day, the two candidates campaigning to be president got the chance to argue why they are worthy of students’ votes, with the two having to field so many questions from the audience that time had to be extended past the regulation.

Sharma pushed for the ideology of SFU to shift from a commuter school with satellite campuses to one that sees SFU as a “tri-campus university,” helping to increase connection between the three campuses.

As for Lechner, he made it clear that his main priority was to get students more involved in campus life, primarily through reducing the amount of money he was taking, and making it more obvious to student where the money that was being collected from them is going.

Both candidates were questioned by the audience about their evasive answers, with current VP University Relations going as far as to call some of their responses “fluff” on Twitter. (For more of the day’s tweets, check out our coverage here)

Current president Enoch Weng and VP Student Services Darwin Binesh had several questions for the candidates, and made sure to instill the notion that candidates could not agree to advocate for every issue brought their way, as the role of president is forced to make tough decisions.

Looking forward

With two more debates happening next week at the Surrey and Vancouver campuses, IEC chief Vanna Lodders believes that there is still plenty of time for students to show up and ask candidates about their platforms, which will be released by the debates.

She took responsibility for their unavailability today. “I extended the the due date to the 11th is because I didn’t communicate that early enough to everyone that they needed their platforms due and I know a lot of people wanted to take their time with them,” she said.

“I didn’t want to rush anybody and have them put out a platform they didn’t want and then ask me to edit it and then me tell them no. My own thinking was to give people enough time.”

Last year, the Burnaby debates were the most popular ones, with noticeably more students showing up there than the Vancouver or Surrey campuses. It will be interesting to see if more students attend the off-mountain debates given how few showed up for the main event this year.

“The SFSS, although a wonderful organisation, has failed to do its job in connecting with students,” said Alam Khehra, a candidate for the position of At-Large Representative. Throughout the first debate in this year’s election for the SFSS Board of Directors, many candidates also stressed the need to engage students and suggested their own ideas for how to do so.

The position of At-Large Representative is currently the most competitive of the entire SFSS election, with five candidates running for two positions. When asked about their feelings on it by current VP Student Services Darwin Binesh, all five candidates notably supported the Build SFU project. Binesh himself called it the “biggest project in the student society’s history.”

At large reps debate and only 1 female candidate at this years #SFSSdebates #sadness #genderparitysomeday #SFSSdreams

— Kathleen Yang (@kathleen__yang) March 10, 2016

Candidates differed on what their main focus would be as an At-Large Representative. While candidates Jaggy Kullar and Alam Khehra stressed the need to listen with and engage with Departmental Student Unions (DSUs), Paul Hans argued that this might be impractical considering there are 73 DSUs [The Peak was only able to account for 53]. Candidate Moein Sharifi Moghaddam explained his main focus would be increasing awareness about the services already offered to students, supporting the women’s centre, and establishing a men’s centre, a controversial proposal that has been debated on campus for several years. 

Khehra questioned Hans on the promises he made when he ran for senator, such as increasing student engagement and decreasing the commuting time from Surrey. Said Hans, “If you just look at the election, sure, engagement has gone down,” adding that he did not call for reducing commuting time but instead advocating for transit services, which he argues he did by addressing pass-ups with the 145.

Alan Lee, a candidate for Applied Science Representative, asked competitor Prashant Verma about concerns that Surrey students were left out of the process out of the process of approving Build SFU. Verma argued that while there was a need for greater engagement with Surrey and Vancouver students, Surrey students will benefit from the project still and the project will make the university more competitive with other universities.

Arts and Social Sciences Representative (FASS) candidate Blossom Malhan asked rival Erwin Kwok how he would increase voter turnout in the FASS, given the importance of getting enough voters to pass the two referendum questions. Kwok said he would use social media, approaching students in-person, and liaising with DSUs, noting his own time with Criminology student association. Kwok shot back with a question of his own about Malhan’s absences when she was appointed to the Events Committee. Malhan replied that she withdrew from the committee because she didn’t have enough time: “I didn’t want to do something where I knew I couldn’t be there and it would be just for show.” 

Jimmy Dhesa, a candidate for Science Representative, questioned his fellow candidate Tomas Rapaport about his success as a third year representative on the Science Undergraduate Society (SUS). Said Dhesa, “Since your term in the position the involvement of science students has decreased. [. . .] Since you were unable to complete the fundamental and simple role of your position, how can students trust you to take on many other roles as a science representative?”

Rapaport called the premise of the question “false” and argued that he has increased participation in the SUS, citing 16 candidates running for 11 positions when there were six candidates the year before. Dhesa said that while there was an increase, it was “not significant enough.”

All other Faculty representative positions had candidates running unopposed, except for the Environment representative, for which no one is running. Notable highlights from uncontested seats include Education Representative candidate John Ragone speaking to his wish to create a faculty student union for Education instead of the current departmental student union, considering that Education is a faculty, not a department.

"We're a faculty with a department student union, which doesn't make too much sense." – Ragone wants to turn this into a FSU. #SFSSelection

— The Peak (@PeakSFU) March 10, 2016

Health Sciences Representative Candidate Raajan Garcha, said that she would divert funds from “unnecessary funds” to create more faculty scholarships, increase social events for Health Science students, and named mental health as a particular concern for her.

With the fate of the U-Pass being decided at this year’s referendum, it is important to acknowledge that the worst case scenario is that students will lose their U-Pass. While Simon Fraser Student Society board members confident in a “yes” vote, that might not be their biggest concern in keeping the U-Pass for student.

With the reduced amount of candidates this year — roughly half the amount of last year — some fear that voter turnout will be lower than it has been the last few years. While the candidates will be elected regardless, this low number could affect whether or not the referendum questions will be counted as valid.

          This is because of Bylaw 17.8, which states that “No referendum shall be deemed valid or binding on the Society unless a minimum of five (5) percent of the members in good standing of the Society have cast ballots in the referendum.”

          “The concern we have is that not enough people will vote for it,” said Binesh. “We need at least five percent of students to vote. Even if you get a yes vote and 99 percent majority but less than five percent of eligible cast ballots, it doesn’t count. It’s not binding, we lose the U-Pass.”

          Binesh went on to say that if the election happened today, he doesn’t personally believe that they’d have the support for the referendum proposal to go through.  

          The SFSS’ current member registry lists 24,001 students, meaning that the SFSS will need 1,201 students to vote in order for the referendum to be considered valid.

          The referendum question is about raising the fees of the U-Pass by $1.50 for the next two years, seeing it go from $38 to $41 overall. This was the agreement reached by TransLink and post-secondary institutions in BC, and is happening because their previous deal from 2013 has expired.

          The other referendum question on the ballot is whether or not to terminate the student levy for Schools Building Schools, a decision which VP External Relations Kathleen Yang said is based on the two parties mutually deciding to part from each other.

          While Binesh is worried about the number of students voting, he feels confident in the way in which students will cast their ballot.

We know we have a lot of student who live three zones away — we’re a commuter school, that’s why a universal transit pass makes sense,” he said.

“I would be shocked if someone who lived three zones away said that $41 is too much to pay for a transit pass.”

          Should the worst-case scenario come true, the reality is that students would likely lose their U-Pass. If that happens, getting it back will not be an easy thing to do. According to Binesh, it could not happen until the proposed agreement with TransLink ended in two years, meaning that it would not be until 2018 when it would be discussed again.  

          While there has been no referendum that didn’t meet quorum in recent years, Binesh and others fear that complacency will creep in, and that will the deciding factor.

          “We’re confident that students will show their support,” said Binesh. “We’re just worried that students will think it’s a no-brainer or an easy win and they’ll flake out saying ‘I don’t need to, everyone else will.’ Usually that’s when surprises happen and we have unfortunate realities.”