This year’s University of Toronto Student’s Union (UTSU) executive candidates election forum featured some difficult questions and some strong responses from both slates. Having sat through the opening and closing statements, as well as question periods, for each of the other prospective portfolios, the presidential candidates from the competing Change and Brighter U of T slates finally took the stage.
When the time came for Brighter’s Ben Coleman to launch into his opening statement, he encouraged the assembled crowd to ask him questions. Among Coleman’s suggested queries, he said, “You should ask us, how do you listen to students… how are we sure our board can keep us accountable, since we’re running on slates… how have my opinions changed in the last year, and why?”
It is refreshing to hear someone in Coleman’s position — challengers to incumbent slate presidential candidates are perenially disappointed — advocating for the importance of vigourous questioning. U of T’s undergraduate population has a voter apathy problem which has unfortunately resulted in superficial and perfunctory debate in past years. Too often have candidates been allowed to skirt their way through elections by towing the party line and refering back to platform points.
Unfortunately for those in attendance, Coleman’s invitation came too late in the evening; by which time the candidates for the other executive portfolios had already taken and left the stage.
On the whole, there were some thankfully practical suggestions floated from some of the candidates in response to inquiries regarding the union’s finances, accountability, and governance structure. However, these rational responses to questions were punctuated by less informative emotional appeals, distraction, or, at other times, silence, in response to tough questions.
Such was the case when Ryan Gomes and Grayce Slobodian, of Brighter and Change U of T, respectively, were asked to respond to some questionable discrepancies in the previous year’s budget. Where Gomes, who has never occupied an executive role with the UTSU, was quick to stress the importance of transparency and accountability in financial matters, Slobodian, the current vice-president, external, declined to answer, citing confidentiality.
Where she may have been tightlipped regarding spending, Slobodian spoke at length on other issues, including suggesting that UTM students have been made to feel lesser than their St. George counterparts in the past, a concern that moved her to tears.
This disparity was not necessarily reflective of the slates as a whole — vice-president, external candidates Agape Amponsah-Mensah and Jasmine Denike, from Change and Brighter, respectively, both offered solutions to issues such as reaching out to UTM students; Amponsah-Mensah said she planned to advocate for lower parking prices at UTM and Denike declared her intention to visit the campus on a bi-weekly basis in order to establish a union connection.
The purpose of highlighting the disparity between the two slates’ vice-president internal candidates is to demonstrate what students should be asking for from their candidates — clear goals and plans to accomplish them — as Coleman put it, “a plan, not a wishlist.”
Many executive candidates took time in their closing statements to encourage students to do just that — read their platforms, ask them questions after the forum and, most importantly, to vote for candidates because they held appeal as capable individuals, regardless of what slate they belonged to.
This is the sort of message that should be championed throughout the campaigning period, and as students head to the polls this week. Particularly in an election that features no independent candidates for executive positions, it is imperative that students make informed voting choices based on each individual candidate’s experience and priorities. To achieve this, we must be prepared to ask questions, and lots of them. We must choose the students we feel are most to able represent us — not the slate who seems friendliest, or whose campaign materials are most attractive.
UTSU executive elections have boasted an abysmally low voter turnout in recent years, typically hovering just about 10 per cent of eligible voters. This year’s contest features an unprecedentedly qualified group of candidates in every available field. It is imperative that we as the voters take full advantage of the opportunity to put our would-be representatives through the paces. They deserve to be asked the tough questions just as much as we are entitled to ask them. With voting days occurring throughout the week, be sure to cast not only a ballot, but also an informed one. Do your research, make sure your questions are answered, and encourage others to do likewise. It would be misguided to assume that others would do the work of holding leadership accountable for you and vote conscientiously on your behalf.
The Varsity‘s editorial board is elected by the masthead at the beginning of each semester. For more information about The Varsity’s editorial policy, email [email protected].
