Joshua Storie Each year, The Gateway publishes an evaluation of the Students’ Union executive and the Board of Governors representative. It is impossible to discuss every aspect of their tenures, so these reports are largely based on the major components of the platform each executive campaigned on, and the most significant responsibilities of their respective positions. These evaluations were informed both by interviews with the executives themselves, as well as a survey of student councillors. The grading rubric can be found below. And if you’re short for time, check out our TLDR for a bite-sized breakdown.
Ilya Ushakov: B
The vice-president (student life) is in charge of improving the student experience as much as possible. Ushakov largely campaigned on improvements related to residence, student mental health, and the management of student groups, and while Ushakov hasn’t made any dramatic changes with the portfolio this year, he has shown an admirable commitment to a few important initiatives. Many of Ushakov’s projects remain in their infancy, and will certainly require improvements along the way, but have already provided some benefits to students.
It’s been a dramatic year for residence associations, with the disbanding of the East Campus Students’ Association, the delays in setting up a residence association for Peter Lougheed Hall, and a record number of RAs quitting from Lister and HUB. Ushakov ran on the promise strengthening residence associations, and though it’s hard to give him credit for fulfilling that promise, there are some less glamorous improvements Ushakov has made to residence life that are still significant. Most importantly, Ushakov has been working with residence associations to maintain better documentation outlining the needs of specific associations, building details, and recommendations for the future. This isn’t a particularly complicated change, but the effective organization and institutional memory contribute enormously to the success of residence associations, both now and in future years.
Ushakov’s progress on student mental health largely comes down to the launching of the UASU Cares website, which centralizes links to a variety of resources students can access for support. The site is only in its infancy, and so Ushakov can’t really be blamed for the series of IT problems that have plagued it so far (when it was first launched, the site could not be found on Google, for example). That being said, the success of UASU Cares will depend entirely on whether or not students are aware that they can use it, and the absence of a widespread marketing strategy has certainly limited the number of students who are likely to access the site. According to Ushakov, the numbers of returning visitors to UASU Cares has so far been fairly high (in November the site averaged 10 to 100 hits per day, according to Ushakov), and the overall usage of the site remains unimpressive. And without any other landmark achievements in this area, it does seem a little disappointing that Ushakov has done little to help struggling students except put some links together.
Ushakov says that a BearsDen review is underway, but that the platform will continue to be used for another full year, starting in September. Ushakov also claims to be making improvements to many of Student Group Services’ policies — which is welcome news for anyone who has had to endure the extensive process to register their event 15 days in advance — but so far little has changed in the registration process. Ushakov does get some credit, however, for working on improvements to student group autonomy, and an effort to change the way that student groups are disciplined so that they have a fair appeals process where they are represented by fellow students as opposed to university administration.
TLDR: There have been few stand-out achievements from Ushakov so far this year, but he has overseen pretty consistent progress in the areas most important to student life. There are some growing pains with his newest initiatives, and some projects have not yet shown the desired results, but Ushakov has generally shown a commitment to improving the campus experience of students.
Rubric:
A-range: This person has fulfilled the promises they campaigned on, has created tangible change during their tenure, and has shown a commitment to improving the lives of students. Their GPA is looking good.
B-range: This person has done their job consistently well, but has not made any remarkable changes, or has fallen short on important goals they set out in their platforms. They’re doing fine, but it’s nothing to phone home about.
C-range: This person has done their job sufficiently, but has failed to make significant progress in the areas most relevant to their portfolio, or has essentially abandoned a major part of their platform. They’re still passing with a safe buffer though, and Cs get degrees!
D-range: This person has done a very lacklustre job, and has not sufficiently fulfilled their campaign promises or the responsibilities of their position.
F-range: This person has not done their job, has not represented students, and has not fulfilled their campaign promises whatsoever.
