W ESTER NGA ZET TE.CA • @ UWOGA ZET TE
thegazette Investigating 5-foot long worms with two heads since 1906
THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 2015
TODAY high 14 low 3
TOMORROW high 14 low 5
Chakma controversy affects call centre >> pg. 3
WESTERN UNIVERSITY • CANADA’S ONLY DAILY STUDENT NEWSPAPER • FOUNDED 1906
VOLUME 108, ISSUE 100
The USC: A year in review The year has been an eventful one for the USC. Sweeping changes to its council structure, significant change to the Peer Support Centre, several highly successful events — shout out to Beerfest — and concerts, the first ever four-year budget and one of the biggest controversies surrounding presidential elections were some of the notable events of the year. The following analysis is how we saw the performance of the executives this year. Input was solicited from councillors and coordinators and informed our opinion.
MATT HELFAND PRESIDENT
JEN CARTER VICE-PRESIDENT EXTERNAL
EMILY ADDISON VICE-PRESIDENT INTERNAL
ANDREW LALKA VICE-PRESIDENT FINANCE
SAM KILGOUR VICE-PRESIDENT STUDENT EVENTS
EMERSON TITHECOTT VICE-PRESIDENT COMMUNICATIONS
STRENGTHS Helfand built a notable presence in both council and on campus. As an enthusiastic, decisive and determined leader, Helfand accomplished more than expected in his term, making him one of the most effective USC presidents in some time. His refusal to accept status quo meant that council was subject to significant, and ultimately positive, changes – such as a new council composition, an appeals board and two revitalized executive positions. He also spearheaded Homecoming on campus and a very successful Beerfest.
WEAKNESSES Though he may be one of the most effective presidents, he won’t be one of the most well-liked. Helfand’s strong presence has sometimes come across as abrasive, and council members noted the brash ways he’s spoken at meetings. Similarly, he can often steamroll his other executive members, involving himself in initiatives not necessarily under his purview. While this hands-on approach often expedited the process, it occasionally undermined his colleagues’ authority.
STRENGTHS Carter, unlike past external executives, was focused on addressing current issues with an eye to the longterm, especially municipally. Relationships with city hall, the London Police Service and the London Transit Committee cultivated by Carter will benefit the council for years to come. Articulate, intelligent and cooperative, Carter was a successful advocate and although her Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance presidency was a contentious topic during her elections, she performed both roles well. Her attempts to engage students in the municipal election also stands out.
WEAKNESSES Due to the multi-year advocacy nature of the role, it is often difficult to track Carter’s effectiveness or accomplishments. Likewise, Carter’s frequent travel comes with expenses, and it’s not always clear or transparent what will result from these travel costs – though these might be problems with the external role rather than with Carter herself. Also, some council members commented on her occasional lack of approachability and the difficulty in conversing with her about issues outside of her portfolio.
STRENGTHS Addison seemed to be a perfect fit for her portfolio. Approachable, pleasant and level-headed, a number of her coordinators have commented on the support they felt working under her leadership. Following a year where the internal portfolio was in a state of termoil, Addison’s friendliness and work ethic paid off. She also demonstrated flexability in working with the Peer Support Centre — something that wasn’t on her original platform.
WEAKNESSES As for the Peer Support Centre, Addison could have done more work consulting relevant parties when converting the space into a prayer room. While both Addison and Helfand reassured campus partners that all relevant stakeholders were consulted, the ensuing conflict in the chaplain community would suggest otherwise. Still, for a portfolio usually rife with controversy this was relatively minor.
STRENGTHS Throughout the year it was clear Lalka yearned for council to surpass its own limitations, bringing both honesty and a critical eye to his role. As such, Lalka was able to pass the USC’s first ever four-year budget and reinvigorate the way council funds new projects. His years of acting as speaker also worked to his advantage, as he demonstrated a strong understanding of governance and policy. Intelligence and hard work, balanced with a great sense of humour, made him a force on council.
WEAKNESSES Influence, however, sometimes worked against Lalka. Council members have expressed frustrations with the finance executive speaking up and debating issues far outside of his portfolio. By frequently engaging in the political fray on the council floor, Lalka contributed some wisdom but isolated himself from a few elected students.
STRENGTHS Easy-going and rigorous, Kilgour proved a good fit in student events. Because of his strong diplomatic and delegation skills there seemed to be little conflict or controversy in this overcrowded portfolio. He remained well-liked by council members and was successfully able to navigate the sea of O-week responsibilities, likely due to his own experience in the program. Also notably, there were a number of successful concerts this year that were sold out or near sold out — a great improvement on last year.
WEAKNESSES The O-week concert cancellation seems to loom over Kilgour’s head and performance. While he can control neither the weather nor the words of his president — since Helfand was the one to promise a free concert during the year — Kilgour should have been more forthcoming about the unlikelihood of an additional performer throughout the year. Additionally, there was little clubs system reform under his leadership – which is a portion of the student events portfolio needs updating.
STRENGTHS Tithecott was friendly and supportive to both council members and his executive colleagues. Additionally, his willingness to admit mistakes and take constructive criticism speaks to his perseverance and humility. He also oversaw a major transformation of the communications portfolio, including introducing a new promotions department to better promote the USC and communicate with students more effectively.
WEAKNESSES There was a significant amount of conflict between Tithecott and his coordinators, with multiple resignations. As a result, little was accomplished second semester — meaning a near non-existent USC elections campaign. He also was not always forthcoming when it came to addressing problems within the USC. While he did improve over the year, there were some problems with communicating with students about the goings-on of the USC. • Gazette News