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.
Robyn Paches: A-
Returning for his second term as the SU’s vice-president (operations & finance), Paches has made significant improvements to campus bars, and is ambitiously promoting the Myer Horowitz renovations and Student Events Initiative (SEI). Despite falling short on deferred maintenance, Paches has built on his progress from last year and has shown a very real commitment to student consultation.
The SEI is certainly the largest-scale project Paches has pursued this year, and, if passed in referendum, it will impact every student on campus. The project was originally solely focused on renovating the Myer Horowitz theatre, but the initiative was expanded in response to feedback from student groups that an expensive renovation would only make the space even less accessible to students. The SEI now includes a series of grants for student groups in order offset that issue, and includes a far more comprehensive plan for using the space. Paches has shown willingness to make big, long-term changes, but has also made tangible progress on the initiative during his tenure and has remained receptive to student feedback.
Whether or not you like RATT’s new look, both revenue and diversity of programming have increased in campus bars this year, consistent with Paches’ campaign promises. A focus on giving students a reason to stay on campus and engaging with the community has grounded many of the initiatives Paches has overseen this year, and he has been reasonably successful in doing that.
Paches loses the most marks for his work on deferred maintenance. Despite being a major part of his platform, Paches admits he didn’t start his advocacy work in this area as early as he would have liked, and although it will be a focus of his last trimester, it is likely that no major progress will be made by the end of his tenure. That being said, Paches is still in the process of consulting with residence associations, faculty associations, and members of the Greek community, and will soon be able to at least provide the university with a list of student priorities for deferred maintenance.
TLDR: Paches has been successful in ensuring that the SU runs efficiently while also thinking big about the future. He has maintained a consistent vision for campus, and has successfully followed through on many of his campaign promises, but has never hesitated to adapt projects based on student feedback.
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.
