Meet the candidates
- Readership is going off the charts again with election fever in high gear. We're not expecting a huge crowd at Don's tonight with BUSA Handover also going on, but there should be a good crowd.
- Most of the candidates emailed me back to tell me that they'd be there this evening - which is a good sign. I was planning on "calling out" the one's that didn't, but I changed my mind to seem somewhat impartial.
- There will be a poll tomorrow morning on where the candidates stand. I will most likely make it up, but it may get a little more official if i decide to ask the dog next door to bark for the candidate he thinks will win.
- This comment just in from Bronte Campbell. If you take the time to write something as good as this in the comment section, you get your own spot on this page. It's a long one, but worth the read. I haven't been around as long as Bronte, but have to agree with him. Here's his comments:
I will be part of the '07 Student Council. What disappoints me is that I will be part of Council because of my decision alone to nominate myself to run as social director. While I would have been equally disappointed to run and lose to another candidate at least then I would know the student body has taken notice, and made a choice. I know everyone who reads this blog is aware of this situation. However, for five positions to be uncontested, especially positions such as clubs and societies and social which have an immediate effect on you as students, is deplorable.
It's very easy for me to sit and criticise the student body as I have put my hand up. The reality is, because of the lack of interest in elections and a general feeling of apathy towards bond, I do feel a slight degree of hesitation in becoming part of council. Not because I don't want to make a difference, but because a difference cannot be made without people caring.
The soon to be decided council faces an uphill battle not only against the VSU but more importantly against a student body that really gives the impression it just doesnt give a fuck any more. I guess we're all happy to rock up to club 20, palava, wednesday by the water, pub crawl, uni games etc.. and take advantage of the drinks, food, transport etc.. but someone has to organise these events. Someone has to keep these traditions going. With 5 uncontested positions on student council, and ONE CONTESTED position on BUSA, these events and traditions are very much in danger of becoming extinct. I for one will not be blaming it on the VSU, but on student apathy.
While I may feel hesitant, I certainly do not feel that this is a lost cause. While characters from the past may have left, there is no shortage of exuberance in the new kids to Bond. The difference is, the introduction I got to Bond, the baptism of alcohol induced fun and chaos that was my first semester, is not the introduction these kids have been given. Whos fault is that? It is our fault. It's not student council's fault for not having a good enough o'week. From what I hear the o'weeks that council has provided have been fantastic. Realistically though, maybe 10% of continuing students would attend o'week. They simply cannot carry the rest of us. It was/is up to us to make this place awesome, to meet as many new faces as possible, to pack out dons and continue the traditions of semesters past. We quite simply have to pull our finger out or we are going to become boring, and for those who were around in 051 (and I hear the semesters before were even better) we know Bond is anything but boring.
I do attribute Bond's situation a great deal to apathy. I do feel though, the administration of Bond is having a great deal to do with encouraging this apathy. Once upon a time a VC Scholar (I am not) was chosen because they were not only brilliant in many fields but very social people who were more than willing to get involved with Bond and its activities. I can honestly say I do not know a single member of the '06 VC Scholars. Yet I could quite easily name a good percentage of the 04 and 05 groups. So either these students have somehow dodged my attention for two and a bit semesters, or they are simply not getting involved. I put this down to two things, firstly the actual willingness of the student to get involved. Secondly I believe the selection process for such scholarships has shifted from selecting all round people that contribute to the university in many ways, to recruiting the best academic students to bolster Bond's academic reputation.
I also feel the way that the administration is slowly, but ever so effectively, turning the screws on the various councils and faculty associations is having a massive effect. While it may be 'sensible' to limit the amount of drinks a person can consume at club 20 or empire, I ask what effect has it really had. I haven't seen a reduction in alcohol related incidents, simply because I hardly ever saw an alcohol related incident that could be directly attributed to the open bar of these events. While Bond may have a few strays here and there, over all we have a social group who only has more fun with alcohol involved. We are a great group of students. If one of us gets too drunk, we make sure they get put in a cab home to Bond. I honestly dont believe there was a problem before these changes. I more believe this problem was conveniently 'discovered' to nicely coincided with the new VC's apparent silent policy of removing the party ethos from Bond. As far as I understand, the current Bond administration has a policy of if we don't like it, we change it to be the way we'll accept it, and if you don't like that then you don't have an event. Of course smaller events such as club 20 and empire are hit as a trial run. I wouldn't be surprised if you're only allowed 4 drinks at Palava and Grapes, Hops in future semesters. I promise I will fight this as hard as I possibly can
Don's is a complete joke too. Don's didnt need a new set of walls to make it better. Who the hell decided that? It needed a revamp in decor and an attitude shift. Its a pretty negative attitude to say "Well we're not getting the same amount of people in anymore, so let's make the place smaller". Why not do something to change the fact that you're not getting the same amount of patrons? Again, you don't have to look any further than the current administration of Bond to work out what's going on here. The students, ever so softly I might add, asked for a revamp of Dons. The administration saw the perfect opportunity to continue their crusade of closing down Dons by making it worse, yet some how convincing the student council and other bodies that it was a 'great change'. All that has resulted is a smaller and uglier Dons, which is perfect for the administration. Less people will come, less money earned by Dons, less of a reason to keep it. Well done guys, we all fell in to that trap quite nicely.
On the side note of the comments of Brendan and Gord. I do not wish to weigh in to the debate, only to say that its fantastic to see that people still care. Gord the simple fact that you post these comments for everyone to read is invaluable. It causes controversy, causes people to think and brings attention to what's really going on at Bond. Equally invaluable is Brendan's willingness to hold Gord accountable. The fact that you two guys, and the rest of the readers/posters here take notice proves that Bond has a fighting chance of getting back to what it once was.
I apologise for this being so long. As I'm uncontested though, I'll never get the chance to tell the student body what I think in the candidates debate. So the above was some of the reason's I decided to run as Social Director. If I can ask anything of you as students, please give me feedback through-out my entire time as a director. Tell us what you want. Tell us what you're not happy with. It's people like Gord and Brendan that do make a difference because they say something. If we're not told, and if we don't hear, we can't change anything. I promise I'll do my best to hear if you start talking.
Bronte
posted by The Vitamin's Blog @ 10:40 p.m.
9 Comments:
Bronte, you have my respect brother which is worth more then my vote, I agree with you 100% on all that you have said.
It is nice to see another person willing to fight the administration at Bond, I hope we both get on to ruffle a few feathers.
In other news the fine for setting off the fire alarm has risen almost 500 dollars from last smester, Skuller will be arguing this outragous whether elected or not, Such a raise is unjustifable and i am fighting Finchy again, I have asked for reasons to justify, but i am also asking the question i and some of the students want to know, Who Mercedes of the Bond Administration is this money going to.
Make sure your at Club 20 tonight everyone
Skuller, supporting the responsible consumption of alcohol.
I stopped at deplorable....can you paraphrase that "comment"
This isn't about the administration at Bond or whether students care. Students can be a part of Bond without running for election and can show support for Bond in other ways. It's about whether they think they'll be elected and whether they want the positions. Admin probably limited drinks to minimise legal action. If they at least have the pretence of caring it might help their defence.
So have a look around and find out why people don't want the positions and find out if they didn't run because they don't like their chances of success.
From my view point I can't run for these positions as the timing of them means I either can't complete the term in office or had to nominate after only one semesters study (a time I would not have had the connections to get elected).
There are lots of reasons people don't put their hat in the ring. One surely is the perceived pressure of the position but other reasons include impossibility, apathy and the realism that any attempt at election would be futile. Just realise that not all students are apathetic.
Drew,
To clarify; my arguments are more aimed at a general apathy at Bond. It's not specific to elections. People don't turn up to Dons any more. Less and less people spend time on campus. I'm too hungover to write out more examples, but I'm sure you can find your own. It's not as if it isn't obvious.
It is also very easy to pull arguments of 'perceived pressure of the position' and 'any attempt at election would be futile'. Without a doubt these are factors in this election. My issue is that these are factors in every single election Bond has had, yet those elections have been heavily contested. It is a cop out to use that as an excuse to why so many positions are uncontested.
And, quite frankly if you're too scared to run for council because you're too scared of losing then you're running for all the wrong reasons. Too many people only become involved because it looks great on their resume. Its a shame that people don't run because if they lose then their 'reputation' at Bond might be damaged. Its pretentious, and something that I hate, you'll struggle to find any support from me towards these characters.
I agree with your comments that people should not run for election if they fear their reputations or are doing it for their resume - they should be running to be elected and make a difference, for the long term benefit of Bond.
I am one of those people who spend less and less time on campus. Mostly it’s a time management issue, I simply have other commitments (for the record I'm trying to encourage the LSA to organise functions for people who can't attend night functions). We need to give people an alternative way of showing support for the university.
I feel that there is more pressure on representatives now as I see and hear the politics of it. Perhaps I was blind/deaf to it before - I don't know. I have no idea what kind of readership the blogs get but I do think they have increased the pressure as the LSA responds to issues on them. So they at least function as a communication tool. That can be both a good and bad thing.
I don't agree that fear is the absolute reason why people don't run if they feel they won't be elected. I see it more as a time management issue (but perhaps if they don't have time to contest a position then they don't have time to be productive once elected). It's not always about reputations, sometimes it’s just about being realistic.
Someone made a point about contested seats being good as they get a discussion going. Bronte is in an uncontested seat - yet we still have a discussion going.
Drew
(This comment was also posted in response to Nitay's comments)
As one of the candidates for the elections I have to say that Nitay's and Bronte's comments are one of my greatest concerns.
I believe that apathy on campus is one of the greatest challenges to the student body building their university and achieving more in the next coming year, and years after, than 'only the sum' of what has happened over the last council term or even struggling to hold onto that status quo.
At the risk of repeating Nitay and Bronte, it is both the quality of our life here and our legacy that is at stake if we do not resist indifference being the architect of this campus' future.
We are not large enough to allow politics and campus development to be a club of the concerned, the assertive and the administration. Rather, everyone has passions and interests that can and should be harnessed to ensure that in the future Bond will still reflect a vibrant independant history and not one that went down with a whimper.
Bronte, More people need to be motivated. It is a problem that students dont care, and it is not just at Bond. In the last stages of my undergrad motavating people to join a rugby club was hard we had over 15,000 students and could hardly get 12 to show up. We even offered free beer.
My old university was facing the same problem with their university bar. I think since Dons is failing then you should use that as a pushing point to take control from the university, Take a sinking ship off their hands. The admistration at bond is not the only problem but they dont make it easy.
Good luck at fighting the oppresive bureaucracy. You have my support.
I wouldnt be so hard on the VC Scholarsm, some (or i should say most) are very involved and its a bit alarming that the new social director isnt actually aware of who they are and what they contribute to this uni. My guess is that the following have dodged Brontes attention.
One, Tom, is on LSA as the social director (good to see the social director for student council has done his research)
Another, Ben, just got elected President of HSA
Nobody can say that Becarra isnt a social face on campus and is a prominent figure in this years Bondstock committee. (She is in fact, if you look several posts down in a photo with the administrator of this blog)
Claire has only just turned 18, but has always had her face around campus, so much so rumour has it she will be in the up and coming BSA election.
Ashleighran on the Wanted ticket for in the 052 LSA campaign.
Tori is a lovely girl who i havent seen miss a single Bond event this year (look on the student portal and this will demonstrate this). Considering her sister is the current secretary of the Council, even if she wanted to she couldnt detach herself from Bond life!!
I cant think of the others off the top of my head at the moment, and admittedly a couple of the VCs for 06 have disappeared off the face of the earth, but not all of them.
Nonetheless, Thats 6 out of the 60, one isnt actually coming until next year aswell, so 6 out of 9 that are actually here. I suggest before Bronte criticises the 06 VCs for dodging his attention he considers that the reason perhaps he doesnt know the people are VCS (because im guessing he would know who most of these people are) is because they are modest and wont talk about it unless asked.
Point Taken. For the record I do know Tom, Becarra, Claire and Ben quite well. I wasn't aware Clarky was a VC, nor Becarra. I only realised a couple of days later that both Ben and Claire were VCs. I should have made an update to that on here, I apologise. I was also under the obviously wrong impression that Tori was on a different scholarship, not a VC.
Like I said, I do know all these people quite well, and admit to my short-sightedness. I agree with your comment regarding the modesty of all these people. They are incredibly modest, and all great people.
Unfortunately I do not know Ashleigh.
Your point is taken, and obviously I was hasty to point the finger without doing proper research. While modesty should be commended, should the VC students not be promoted more? As I said in my post, everyone was/is aware of the VC students of the past, yet these students have not got the same recognition?
It is a VCs job to contribute greatly to student life, and I agree with you that all of these kids are doing their share. But as I understand it, and when I was applying for a VC Scholarship, I thought it was also a part of the job to promote the University? Obviously the uni has to utilise the VCs to put them in a position to promote Bond. I just wonder, if the VCs are meant to be promoting the uni and contributing to student life, shouldn't all the students have been made aware of who the VCs are? At least for their achievement to be recognised and congratulated. These are meant to be the leaders of the university, or so it says on the Bond website, shouldn't we be given a chance to at least know who they are?
Again I apologise for the short-sightedness, and I'm thankful someone called me out on it. As for it being 'a bit alarming that the new social director isnt actually aware of who they are and what they contribute to this uni', I am very aware of these people and what they contribute. However, I wasn't aware that some of these people were VC scholars and the others it had obviously slipped my mind at the time I went on my rant.
I hope you find the rest of my points valid though, and if I've lost your vote on this slip up I totally understand.
Post a Comment
<< Home