Richard Bagan In the race for vice-president (operations and finance), uncontested candidate Luke Statt was put under pressure at the second SUBStage forum. The main points of interest students questioned Statt on were his intentions of proposing another Students’ Union (SU) capital plan, increasing representation and inclusivity within the SU, and the number of uncontested races in the SU election.
The failed student spaces levy, would have seen students paying an additional fee to fund the renovation and maintenance of non-academic spaces around the U of A. Statt believes that increased transparency is key for the likelihood of a similar proposal passing next year, as he feels that many students were unaware what the funding would be used for, and even more students hadn’t been aware of the levy by the time the Council vote was taking place. To ensure this transparency, Statt suggested an SU town hall, which he believes would hold the SU accountable for the allocation of the fee’s revenue.
Upon being asked how he would ensure the student body feels a greater sense of representation, Statt divulged plans to bring about eight advisory committees (as opposed to the one reported on thus far). The goal of these committees was not entirely clear, though among other things he sees them as a way to represent minority groups across campus. In theory, this seems like a promising concept, but he will need to provide much more info beyond the number of committees he intends to create.
All the executive candidates were asked what they would do for women on campus should they be elected. Statt noted the current vice-president (operations and finance) Emma Ripka is a woman, and said that “she’s doing a good job!” This came across like a patronizing and slightly sexist remark, although he likely didn’t intend this. He went on to say supporting women across campus is the key to ensuring more qualified women feel confident enough to run, but offered no concrete idea as to how he would go about doing this.
When questioned about the large number of uncontested races this year, Statt suggested that the reason is that the majority of students aren’t willing to commit a large portion of time to a position outside their academics. He feels students want their ideas heard, but do not want to take on all the responsibility of being a member of the SU. To an extent this may be true, though running for election is not within itself an altruistic act; there may be many students that would take a more active role in student governance but do not have the time, nor the money, to take on such a feat. It seems an odd choice to spin one’s self running uncontested as being a martyr on behalf of the student body.
Statt, while appearing to have some unique ideas, makes a folly common amongst politicians: promising that which he cannot, such as the SU taking on the budgets of student groups and services that rely on dedicated fee units (DFUs) if voluntary student unionism is introduced. He has dedication to the position he’s running for, but students ought to bear in mind they have the ability to vote for none of the above, should they be unconvinced by Statt’s platform.
