The candidates for the University Students’ Council presidential elections had their second official public appearance today, when they were interviewed in the Spoke for The Big Purple Couch.

The hosts interviewed each candidate separately for about 15 minutes. The format was more casual than last night’s debate, allowing the candidates more time to speak. Despite the more laid-back atmosphere, they mostly expanded on themes brought up in the debate.

Logan Ross came on stage first and appeared very much at ease. She continued on her somewhat risky path of drawing attention to her shortfalls—it was clear during the debate last night that she wanted to portray her lack of direct involvement in the USC as a strength, rather than a weakness.

At first I wasn’t convinced this would work—why try to sugar-coat your shortcomings rather than promote your assets?—but after the BPC interview, I think Logan might be able to actually make this work in her favour.

For example, some have questioned Logan’s plan to update her platform mid-campaign, saying it makes her look indecisive. But, as she clarified for BPC, “I can’t know every student’s concern before the campaign period.” She said her platform is feasible and won’t be changed completely—perhaps “adjusted” would have been a better word.

And again, she pushed her lack of direct involvement with the USC as a plus, saying she had “grassroots appeal.” I can see the tactic working now that Logan seems more comfortable in the campaign, but it remains to be seen whether voters will bite, or go with a more experienced (safer?) choice.

Jon Silver was next up, though unfortunately I missed the first few minutes of his interview—I briefly left the Spoke to follow what appeared to be an encore to yesterday’s protest.

When I returned, Jon was talking up his platform point of introducing a “Spoke Brew,” modelled after the infamous beer brewed in-house at the Ceeps. “Everyone loves Ceeps Brew,” he said as I sat down—hang on now, Jon, let’s not say things we can’t take back. I admit I’m intrigued by this idea, but I just don’t see how brewing beer with student fees could ever get off the ground [Update: I've been informed that Silver only plans to buy beer, and brand it as Spoke Brew].

Contrary to Logan, when asked to differentiate himself from Adam Fearnall, Jon pushed his extensive experience at various levels of student government. He claimed his experience was “much more well-rounded” than Fearnall’s, which is arguably true.

But while Jon continues to push his experience and impressive knowledge of the USC, is it possible he’s alienating some voters? It’s obvious that the average student knows far less about student government than Silver, and he might risk turning them in favour of Logan or Claire, the “average student” candidates.

Claire McArthur was all smiles—practically a platform point of its own for her. I couldn’t help noticing her boots were untied—perhaps it was part of her image as an average student (you know, the kind who eats lettuce while hanging out in Middlesex College).

To her credit, Claire defended her somewhat-criticized use of pop culture references in last night’s debate (she referenced four TV shows and a celebrity breakup, each in a separate answer), by saying she thought it was important to stay light-hearted in order to engage students, and even made another—this time to Napoleon Dynamite. She has a point—I’ll concede that some of those marathon five-hour council meetings could have gone by a lot quicker with some comic relief.

Though she answered questions directly for the most part, Claire continued to seem the least comfortable speaking in front of a crowd. Her answers tended to ramble and lack focus. However, as far as I can tell, Claire McArthur has more enthusiasm than any other candidate in this race. But how far will that take her?

Adam Fearnall is in his element in front of a crowd. Maybe it’s all that time he’s spent sitting in front of the USC as the speaker this year, but he seems to exude confidence when speaking to an audience.

At the same time, though, this confidence might be off-putting to some, crossing the line to insincere. Good politicians are great speakers, after all, and who’s ever heard of a sincere politician?

Adam defended his platform point for an interest credit for students, which was criticized as unfeasible by Jon Silver in last night’s debate—Silver said the credit would allow for far too many possible combinations to be researched, putting undue strain on an already struggling counselling system. Adam pointed out, however, that a similar system has already been implemented at other schools including McGill and Harvard (after all, Western is aiming to evoke Harvard-style prestige with their new branding), and said critics were just afraid of “big ideas” like this one.

When discussing his platform point to update the CHRW recording studio, Adam did drop one interesting nugget—reportedly he is working on an album of his own right now. Maybe it’s just part of one of his almost-too-well-rehearsed stories, but that’s something I want to hear.

The University Students’ Council presidential debate was held in front of a full house in the Mustang Lounge Wednesday night. #voteusc became a Twitter trending topic, and the tweets were shown next to the stage using a live feed.

At the debate councillors asked the candidates general questions which were answered by the candidates with a time cap of two minutes. There was no clear winner of the debate, as each candidate had their own strengths and weaknesses in the group setting. Below is a review of how the candidates handled the crowd—but first, a tip from someone who’s been to a couple of these before.

First thing’s first—candidates need to know their audience. USC councillors know their stuff, so don’t try to fool them. This gang know what the finances of the USC are and what’s feasible. Some of them are idealistic, and some are jaded—but all of them care about this organization and the students it oversees. Many of these students are already on campaign teams as well. What I’m trying to say is these friendly looking people pack a bit of a bite, and know where to place it. There’s a time and a place to talk about warm fuzzy things, but this place is about the issues.

Claire McArthur attempted to make her points using frequent television analogies. Which would have been great if her audience had watched as much TV as she does. And if they didn’t have access to Twitter to pick on her.

She threw her “real student” pitch well. She frequently mentioned things like her finances and her parents. McArthur also showed a more than passing knowledge of the USC, mentioning things like the presidential initiative fund and her meetings with several managers. The knowledge of the USC came as a bit of a surprise.

Her weakness, on the other hand, was her rambling responses, and the fact that she didn’t always answer the question. For example, when she was asked about changing the USC’s brand to reflect the university’s, she explained how much she loved the school and quoted Shakespeare. She also appeared confused on initiatives which were already in place. She explained the USC should have monthly meetings with administration—the president currently has regular meetings with several key members of administration, and sits on several committees which feature key members.

Logan Ross seemed underwhelming during the debate. She avoided several questions and appeared unsure for several as well.

She frequently praised the current council, saying she would continue the peer phone line and supporting the current council’s habit of sending out surveys. Ross aimed small and relatively feasible with her platform, which she could have highlighted more in the debate. For example, she mentioned she would lobby for recycling to be a higher priority on campus, but failed to mention how this would actually happen.

Ross has learned to use her lack of experience to her advantage, however. She explained how she would be able to stay in touch with students after becoming president, and also noted her desire to continue using the tools of the current USC, such as Facebook, to communicate. She also explained being a student at large allowed her to critique it, and make it more accessible. She mentioned having town hall style meetings, because students at large cannot currently speak at USC meetings.

Jon Silver clearly showed he was at ease with the crowd and knew what he was talking about. He frequently mentioned specific people who he has spoken with, showing his knowledge of the organisation.

Jon Silver spent a good chunk of his answers praising past executives. He praised past vice-presidents of university affairs for their lobbying work, because it takes so long to make the university move on an issue, for example.  He also frequently dropped his extensive USC knowledge, including a shout out to former president Fab Dolan, who tried to sue the university.

Silver mentioned he would trust his managers and his team, frequently mentioning he “was not the expert.” While this is true, it sometimes undermined the point he was trying to make. For example, he mentioned when choosing to offer a new service, he would consult with partners in the community so the service would be feasible. This is the smartest idea when you’re in the president’s chair, however to the average student it may sound like an excuse.

Adam Fearnall let his experience shine this meeting. He often highlighted his role as Huron University College Students’ Council president. He noted this was a similar position to what he was going for as USC president. He neglected to mention some of his main campus USC experience however, which may lead students to think of him as “the Huron kid,” and not a Western student. This also meant he failed to share some of the USC knowledge he currently has.

Fearnall came off as one of the most approachable candidates during the debate. He openly admitted when he did not necessarily know the answer to a particular question.  He frequently told stories about his peers and his Grade 1 self, making it sound as if he has actually spent some time with students. This also included acknowledging that many students were involved at Western, just not in the USC.

The USC presidential candidates’ videos launched last night at 12:01 a.m. and have since wracked up several thousand views (err, well, most of them). A large chunk of the view counts are likely from the Gazette editorial board who watched, re-watched, critiqued and discussed each video meticulously. Tonight, the news team sat down to finally hash out what we thought of each of them. Here’s what we had to say:

Adam Fearnall

Fearnall’s take on the viral video Move by Rick Mereki might not have been so apparent if he had been the only candidate who was inspired by the video style (more on that later). At 3,250 views at the time of our evening pow-wow, Fearnall’s video was the second-most popular of the four, which could be a nod to the high-quality editing of the video, the fairly strong message and “the sneeze.” His message—basically that Western students are great and he can represent us—may be vague and rhetorical, but at least the video has a message at all. It doesn’t say much about his platform or experience, but it does show him connecting with real students and the fun, lively side of student life, which at the end of the day really is in the USC president’s portfolio. The cameo by Rick McGhie pre-hip-surgery doesn’t hurt, and the variety of shots was appreciated—however our news team felt the lift at the end was a little too monarchical, rather than presidential.

Claire McArthur

Unfortunately, McArthur’s video didn’t go over as well with our news team. While we appreciated the decent quality of the video, the effectively catchy song choice and the fact that she was trying to demonstrate her fun side by connecting with students, the video fell short. It came across more as McArthur trying to convince her voters that she is more popular and has more fun than them. The main message of the video seemed to be “look at me, look at me” with nearly two and a half minutes of McArthur laughing, high-fiving, hanging out in Conron Hall and eating a raw head of lettuce (as all typical Western students do). The video concludes with her living it up at a bar, in true Premier Life fashion. At the end, our news team felt we all deserved more than this video.

Logan Ross

Ross’ video was cute but underwhelming. With only 1,038 views at the time of our critique, it was the lowest-viewed video of the bunch—by a few thousand views. Looking at the video, it’s not surprising why—the rant portion tipped the video way beyond an acceptable viewing length, was poorly-lit and fell flat. While we were impressed that Ross presented actual platform points in her video—the only candidate to do so—and was humble and honest about her lack of experience, the overall message got lost. What we did learn from the video is that Ross has friends who are on exchange, likes a lot of stuff about Western that has nothing to do with the USC (exchange program, Rick Mercer’s visit) and seems to be Andrew Forgione’s biggest fan. Although she claims that being a student is the only requirement for being a great USC president, after watching this video, we think it may take a bit more than that.

Jon Silver

The concept for Silver’s video was good—unfortunately Adam Fearnall did it better. The longer cuts and slower pace hurt the overall feel of the video, especially when juxtaposed next to Fearnall’s quick cuts and upbeat pacing. There were some appreciated cameos, including one of the Gazette itself, but these likely went unnoticed by the average student, who more likely only noticed the nod to Ceeps. And while the overall quality of the video was crisp and well-edited, there wasn’t really any message—at all. In fact, there wasn’t even a word of dialogue. At 4,305 views, it was the most popular video of the bunch, but overall our news team felt it was too safe and lacked any real substance. All of this might not be as noticeable had two candidates not done essentially the same video. That, and he wasn’t wearing a coat outside in the winter—we like common sense in our USC presidents.

Your Say

Now, we want to know what you think of the videos. Leave a comment below and vote in our poll for which video you liked the best:

It’s officially that time of year again. Tonight, to a crowd of about six—including their own campaign teams, the Gazette and BPC—four candidates officially announced they are running for USC president.

Two guys and two girls, each with different backgrounds and levels of involvement with the USC, should make for an interesting campaign race. Here’s a quick breakdown of the candidates at first glance:

Adam Fearnall

Continuing the trend started by Omid last year, the USC’s speaker is throwing his hat in the ring this year. Holding a more visible role on council (i.e., sitting at the front of the room every council meeting) could be an advantage, although history shows it’s not enough alone to win an election. But this kid already has a presidential line: his previous positions have included president of the Huron University Students’ Council. His quiet, gentle demeanor betrays that this candidate is a force to be reckoned with.

Claire McArthur

Beaming from the weekly galleries of Premier Life, you may already recognize this vivacious bundle of energy. A Twitter aficionado, with over 3,000 tweets under her belt, McArthur obviously has a lot to say. It will be interesting to watch how her social media campaign shakes down—expect fun videos and outrageous tweets. But she has a serious side too, she’s also an active social science soph eager to make the leap to the head of the pack.

Logan Ross

A third-year science student and current science soph, Ross doesn’t have a huge presence on campus or a ton of experience under her belt. She may seem like the underdog with her quiet presence, but often these types of candidates can surprise us early—or late—in the race and suddenly surge to the top. I wish I had more to write about Ross, but unfortunately there’s not much else to say. Somehow I expect that to change very soon.

Jon Silver

As student representative for the Board of Governors—a two-year tenure—Silver regularly rubs elbows with university elites, including the big C, Amit Chakma, and his worship Joe Fontana. This should mean he’s comfortable working with and representing students with higher-ups. He’s outgoing and well-dressed, with a Forgione-esque way of making you feel like you’ve been friends for years, which as we’ve seen before can be powerful tools in an election where many of the voters have never heard of any of their candidates before they saw their photo in the Gazette.

On Wednesday night, councillors gathered in the newly-dubbed Mustang Lounge to discuss the University Students’ Council next three-year Strategic Plan.

“Welcome to the Academy Awards,” Adam Fearnall, speaker of council, quipped once all had assembled, gesturing to the twinkling light curtain that hung behind him.

Strategic plans are basically a “Where do we see ourselves in three years?” Councillors spout out suggestions, research is conducted, and in the end the plan is created. The new plan will be the fourth of its kind—2002 saw the creation of “From Gauntlet to Stairway,” followed by “Built to Lead” in 2006 and “Vision to Lead” in 2009.

The meeting kicked off with President Andrew Forgione (sporting a maturing moustache), vice-president campus issues Marissa Joffre and vice-president university affairs Patrick Searle discussing the importance of the plan, followed by a flashy video to the tune of the 1990s hit “Praise You.”

Interesting fact from the video—apparently the USC, founded in 1965, “built” the Gazette. Not like our slogan is “Since 1906” or anything. Maybe the USC should hire a fact-checking intern, in addition to the Food and Beverages intern?

But it turns out the new plan doesn’t actually exist yet, nor has it been named—although Forgione suggested the title of “Forging Forward.”

Instead the meeting evolved into more of a recruitment session for volunteers to conduct a student survey in off-campus neighbourhoods.

On the afternoon of Saturday, November 26 councillors will go door-to-door in student neighbourhoods handing out surveys to the unfortunate ones who happen to be at home. Oh, and they’ll have a chance to win an iPad if they fill out the survey.

Forgione noted they hope for a 35 per cent feedback rate, and will focus on targeting the student demographic that doesn’t vote in USC elections.

With the formal portion of the evening over after only 15 minutes, the floor was opened for questions from councillors.

Alex Lu, accessibility commissioner, asked Searle how they would distinguish student housing from non-student housing.

“This will be a great opportunity to meet our neighbours,” Searle laughed, indicating they wouldn’t be able to differentiate between houses.

After questions from all the usual councillors—Stephanie Sugar, Andrew Shaw, Laurence Batmazian and Neha Chandrachud—Jonathon Silver, charity orientation commissioner, asked the question on everyone’s mind—how much will the survey cost?

The answer? $5,000, according to the executive.

The money will come from the USC’s contingency fund, or “rainy day money” as they explained it.

Still, while $5,000 may seem like mere pennies in the grand scheme of the USC budget, it’s still $5,000 being spent on a “harvest lunch” for volunteers, and T-shirts and scarves.

Is anyone really going to question a councillor’s authenticity and refuse to fill out a survey if they aren’t wearing a special t-shirt and scarf? No. The general student population knows no one besides councillors would bother giving up their Saturday afternoon to help circulate a student survey.

Although, maybe this will be a new disguise for the laptop bandit breaking into student houses.

The survey will formally launch on November 14, so stay tuned if you’re abnormally keen to fill it out.

Gazette sports editors Ryan Stern and Jason Sinukoff will be there, offering updates and analysis on a Gazette Sports live blog. Join the live blog at 1:00 p.m. to chat with Jason, Ryan and other Mustangs fans.

Of the 19 Canadian schools reviewed, Western was surpassed by 11 schools and tied with another three. Surprisingly, notorious treehugger school—the University of Guelph—ended up lumped under the same B- heading as Western. At the top of the pack were the University of British Columbia, University of Calgary and University of Toronto. Even York, which often ranks the most poorly on national reports (see Globe and Mail Canadian University Report), managed to receive a B+ alongside McGill.

According to Analise Hoffman, this year’s EnviroWestern coordinator, there are several initiatives being undertaken by the student service to increase the school’s grade.

“During EnviroWeek we [had] a few booths set up to poll students on how O-Week can be made more sustainable, what they [thought] about privatization of water and what students [wanted] to see at Western by 2022,” Hoffman explained. She added EnviroWestern was in the process of teaming up with other clubs on campus to engage broader groups of students.

“I would like to see more student engagement and active participation in the sustainable programs on campus—like properly using the numerous recycling bins and especially the organic waste bins that I constantly see full of landfill-bound waste,” she said.

However, in the realm of Food and Recycling, Western received its highest grade—an A.

According to the report, Western’s dining services spend 31 per cent of their food budget on local and organic items, while all eggs on campus are cage-free. The University also recycles electronic items and manages to divert 70 per cent of generated waste from landfills each year.

And Western hasn’t accepted defeat in any of the other categories either. In fact, the school has already improved a full letter grade since the introduction of the report card two years ago. Beverley Ayeni, energy and environment manager for Western, noted Western is currently in the process of installing water faucet upgrades in residences, adopting Green Seal cleaning products, adding electric vehicles to their fleet and erecting five buildings constructed to a minimum of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Silver.

“There are a number of things we need to be aware of when approaching new sustainable technology,” she said. “If you think of the how quickly a smartphone or computer becomes obsolete, much of the green technology can be equally fleeting. As stewards of Western’s resources, we take our responsibility very seriously and make decisions that are lasting and will improve efficiencies for years to come.”

Ayeni pointed to the fact that many roofs on campus are not compatible with photovoltaic (solar) panels, due to snow and wind loads.

“No matter how we are rated there is always a benefit, because it generates good discussion. Western has some work to do, but we also have an impressive level of achievement in sustainable initiatives and the campus community should be proud,” Ayeni concluded.

For the full report, visit www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2011/schools/university-of-western-ontario

I was already planning to attend the University Affairs standing committee last night. It wasn’t because of Pat Searle’s expressed enthusiasm over the Access Copyright discussion, or because Jon Silver has this strange habit of making Gazette members feel like welcome, wanted participants at standing committee meetings, rather than “those scary journalists who take notes in the back of the room.” No, the reason I wanted to go to this meeting came from a brief mention at the last USC meeting of a “third party” requesting “funds” that was passed to the UA committee. Sounds juicy.

The “third party,” Big Brothers and Big Sisters of London and Area, kicked off the meeting with a presentation about all the good they do in the community and a request the USC put a referendum to students asking for a $2.00 levy on their student fees to help support this organization.

Wait a minute. Haven’t we been here before?

I wasn’t the only one suffering from déjà vu. After thanking BBBSOLA for their time, the committee started discussing the moral implications of the USC even posing such a referendum. The same moral implications the USC wrestled with during the SRP referendum debacle.

But, didn’t we already deal with this? Turns out a motion for a change to the bylaws outlining specific procedures for third-party groups seeking referenda was passed at the first council meeting of the year on March 30. The changes were sent to the bylaw committee and then…nothing. UA agreed Silver should talk to the by-law committee to get an update on the changes, since yes, we did already deal with this.

After that was sorted out, the other big news was indeed Access Copyright. It’s a complicated situation that’s difficult to slog through in any medium, and this post is definitely not the place. As a general synopsis, Access Copyright is a group which acts as a middle man between post-secondary institutions and publishers. Over the past year, changes in their fees have caused many post-secondary schools to end their affiliation with the group and seek other ways to gain copyrighted materials. So far, Western hasn’t opted out, but they have made changes in the fee they collect from students and are waiting for Access Copyright to finalize some decisions before they know how much money they owe.

For details and updates on the intricacies of the university’s contract and user fees, stay tuned to the Gazette news section where they will be keeping an eye on the situation and breaking it all down.

Or talk to Pat Searle. That’s not a joke, he’s done a lot of research and currently sits on a board representing you, the students, to work out what the school should do with regards to Access Copyright. Send your questions and concerns his way, he’s a veritable expert on this sticky situation.

Yesterday evening, after putting in my dinner order at the Wave, I overheard University Students’ Council communications officer Eliot Hong saying he was pretty sure last night’s meeting would wrap up by 9 p.m.—well, he was almost right.

To be fair, last night’s meeting wrapped up after a fairly reasonable three hours, especially considering the amount of ground covered. The exec kicked things off by beating that dead horse we like to call the retreat, taking time to make sure councillors had a chance to raise any lingering questions or concerns and highlighting two things each VP learned from the trip (none of which were interesting or surprising enough to bother listing here). I applaud them for making good on their promise last meeting to give everyone a chance to read the report and react last night, but I think council is over it—at least for now.

The exec then gave their portfolio updates, including a mysterious “big event or concert” in the works, and the naming of the student lounge in the renovated UCC gyms (“mustang lounge” got the most votes, straying from the tried and true “purple ______”). Vice-president university affairs, Patrick Searle, announced he will be sitting on a working group to discuss the possibility and merits of a fall reading week, something students seem to casually question around this time every year.

Oh, and they had a jack-o-lantern competition. Vice-president student events Nicole D’Alessandro won. Just for the record.

Laurence Batmazian, science councillor and student events chair, delivered the good news that “students care!” The student events committee sent out a survey to get feedback regarding this year’s homecoming and actually received a 50 per cent response rate. Batmazian was maybe more thrilled about this fact than the rest of council, although, to be fair, he admitted to having “half a steeped tea” before the meeting.

Mostly the updates were looking ahead at upcoming projects and possibilities—from the new USC website to be linked to their old domain soon (check out their new digs here), to cell chargers in the UCC and a USC app—but nothing is set in stone or ready for reveal as of yet. Stayed tuned to the news section of the Gazette for all the updates.