A 50-50 ballot

Mark Locicero
Mark Locicero

With promises backed by their own salaries, CYZ is proving they value accountability

At this time last year, I remember opening up the Journal and finding three opinion pieces similar to this one. They made each campaign sound so impressive. But I cannot, for the life of me, remember a single idea any of the teams proposed, let alone whether or not the winners accomplished their goals.

I’ve seen the AMS from the bottom-up. I was a Gael and an OC, a member of the Salsa Club and Jazz Band and I currently work at Alfie’s and the QP. There have been many changes to the AMS during my time here, not all of them positive. I believe that Team CYZ will bring the positive change all students can appreciate.

Team CYZ’s six commitments, which are backed by $18,000 of their own salaries, prove that they are willing to be accountable to us on issues that we, or at least I personally, find important.

I have been so impressed by the depth of Michael Ceci, Leslie Yun and Adam Zabrodski’s platform. Their plan to restore autonomy to faculty societies while strengthening working relationships with the AMS is sound. It’s nice to see Team CYZ’s proposal to have priority sidewalk snow removal for our neighbourhood so we can walk around safely and easily after a snowstorm.

I also like that Team CYZ will also actively work to heal the divide that has torn our University apart. The Not At My Queen’s campaign is a clear and definite way to show what is acceptable, what is not and how we as a campus can work together to celebrate diversity. We are Queen’s University, the best university in Ontario, the breeding ground for future leaders and a place I am proud to call home.

Michael Ceci, Leslie Yun and Adam Zabrodski are all very experienced and have the required character to be the next AMS executive team. I will be casting my vote for Team CYZ.

But don’t just base your vote on my opinion or what you read in the Journal or hear on campus. Come out to meet Team CYZ, talk to them and hear their passion for the issues and their dedication to making Queen’s a better place. You can also check out their website at voteCYZ.com.

We all have a say in the future of our University, and I hope that after your research you will join me in voting for an AMS executive that will be accountable to all of us. Vote CYZ.

– Mark Locicero, ArtSci ’09

Their realistic and well-researched platform gives MAP a decisive edge

I have a simple system for voting in AMS elections: I pick the team with the worst campaign platform and vote for the other team. But this year is turning out easier than ever—team MAP has a great platform; team CYZ has more of a great gimmick.

Team CYZ has a central campaign platform consisting of six pledges and a commitment to giving back $3,000 from the team’s salaries for each pledge not kept. This campaign commitment doesn’t just feel like a cheap gimmick; it actually represents a serious conflict of interest. As Michael Ceci himself said to the Journal, “If we want that money, we’re going to have to work for it.” It makes you wonder whether, if elected, team CYZ will do what’s right for students or what’s right for their salaries. Worse, several of these six campaign pledges seem implausible and may not even be good for Queen’s. Consider the proposal to increase clubs funding by 500 per cent to $30,000. Where will this money come from? CYZ certainly hasn’t explained it in their platform—but don’t worry, CYZ has you covered. They are going to work their hardest to make sure someone (student body perhaps) pays for this $30,000 campaign pledge, otherwise they could lose part of their own salaries.

Team MAP and Team CYZ appear to have some similar policies, but if you read the fine print, you’ll realize the difference between them. Take, for example, sustainability. Both teams seem to have the same platform, which asks the university to sign the University President Climate Commitment (UPCC), an incredibly progressive environmental policy for Queen’s. Team CYZ has promised that, if elected, the university will sign the UPCC next year and they leave it at that (another salary gimmick promise).

Here is where the differences start. Team MAP, unlike CYZ, did their research, taking the time to talk to students and staff involved in advocating for the UPCC at Queen’s about the possibility of it being signed. And do you know what they learned? That Queen’s, which is well over budget on the Queen’s Center, will probably not sign the UPCC next year. So what did they do? They made a real sustainability platform, which will negotiate with the administration on the UPCC to ensure that parts of the commitment are signed. Further, they will perform an environmental audit and overhaul of AMS services while pressuring the university to do the same.

This is an example of the differences between the two teams. Team MAP will lead the way not just for sustainability at Queen’s but for all issues because they are willing to put in the time and do the work to make sure that what they do is realistic and good for Queen’s. Team CYZ seems more than happy to rely on campaign gimmicks without actually checking what they are supporting. Don’t be confused by the similarities of the platforms. It’s like confusing words with real action.

– Daniel Myran, ArtSci ’10

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content