Quote:
Originally Posted by micadjems
Can someone post a summary of what happened at the debate today?
|
There were multiple people with cameras taking video, and people with notepads and laptops who may have been taking notes on the debates. Hopefully this means they intend on sharing later and can give a more detailed account of the debate.
That said, I sat through the entire debate and there were some points I thought were important to note.
- Candidates were directly asked about their stance on the Coca Cola referendum, specifically in relation to the humanitarian concerns with Coca Cola. For anyone interested:
Mary - Is against an exclusivity contract with Coca Cola, her reason being that she has talked to many students and feels this is what the general concencus of the student body is.
Casey - Did not take an official stance, says he will leave it up to the student body to decide. He said he previously did take a stance pro-exclusivity but has since changed that.
Kieran - For some reason I don't remember his stance, but I think he may have agreed that students should make their own decision based on the pros/cons they see. Hopefully someone else can remember exactly what Kieran's feelings on this issue were.
Ash - Said that we cannot base this on Coca Cola's alledged violations, bad actions etc b/c we would then have to apply that to every corporation [presumably in relation to McMaster related affairs]. He noted that even the company who built MUSC may have participated in percieved bad actions. I do not remember his official stance on the referendum, I don't remember him taking one.
Tauseef - Against Coca Cola due to their humanitatian violations etc, therefore he is against the exclusivity contract.
Candidates were at one point asked to pick apart the platforms of other candidates, or praise other candidates platforms. Most candidates chose to take on points from Casey's platform, including their perception that he has chosen to focus on certain unimportant or less important issues like a bus shelter at the stop near the Museum.
Casey took issue with Mary's farmer's market, instead he suggested the MSU work towards providing transportation to the Hamilton farmer's market. Other candidates shared this concern with her idea, she defended the idea. Also he took issue with her community kitchen idea, as it would take place in a denominational enviroment (a church) and students may be uncomfortable with this. Mary said this was true but it was the reality of the platform point and some students may feel uncomofrtable with it.
Ash wanted to clarify some points from Kieran's platform, specifically his ideas about cloud computing for MUGSI/SOLAR. Ash felt Kieran had the definition of cloud computing wrong and that this proposed solution wasn't a legitimate solutation to the problems of MUGSI/SOLAR.
Kieran took issue with Casey's desire for more informal communcation with students and feels we need formal accountability structures.
Tauseef addressed the above mentioned concerns about Casey's platform, the issues he feels are less important like the bus sheleter and more snacks on campus are issues he felt Casey's campaign highlighted but perhaps shouldn't be a primary focus on the MSU president.
Casey rebutted the many concerns about his platform, mostly he said these are issues he knows are important to students based on talking with students.
They were also asked if they had decided who they'll will choose as their number 2 on the preferential ballot.
Kieran - would vote Ash 2nd.
Mary - would vote Ash 2nd.
Ash - would vote Mary 2nd.
Tauseef - would vote Kieran 2nd and explicity said that if you don't vote for him vote for Kieran.
Casey - said he hadn't made up his mind, Tauseef's campaign team didn't seem impressed that he wouldn't take a stance, this reaction seemingly caused him to say he was leaning towards Tauseef.
Other questions asked involved issues of finances, questions about lobbying and OUSA, there was debate between contestants in regards to lobbying. There was discussion about accountability and how each candidate planned to accomplish this.
The editor of the Sil asked about closed session, each candidate gave their stance on the closed sessions held in recent times, and their feelings on closed session.
Most felt, Ash especially, as well as Tauseef that closed sessions should be avoided at all costs. Ash stated he was personally against them but they are needed for legal reasons. Kieran and other candidates made clear that closed sessions should be reserved for HR matters. The Sil followed up with a question about a financial matter (a $500 000 PST audit) and why this was discussed in closed session, why the SRA wasn't informed in a timely matter and why the minutes of this session were not released in a timely matter if it is not an HR matter (which Kieran agreed was not an HR matter as was part of the question). Most candidates seemed to feel that closed sessions should be reduced, but some seemed to feel they were more important than others (Casey, and Mary to a lesser extent).
Early on they were asked what they felt made their campaign platform and their run for MSU president unique. None of the answers given imo were particularly adequate, much of what they said were things many of the candidates have in common and are not unique.
There was a lot of echoing of previous comments going on in the debate, specifically from some candidates. Some candidates definitely stood out and did a better job, at least imo than others in this first debate.
If anyone would like to clarify or contest any of the details I've given feel free, I don't have an iron clad memory and some of these things might not be as accurate accounts as they could be.
There was a decent turn out of people listening in the student centre so hopefully others can provide accounts of specific answers to other questions I have mentioned but not elaborate on, or not mentioned at all.
Sam Minitti was the moderator, yay!
All the campaign teams were there cheering their candidates on loudly in the crowd.
What I did notice though and took note of was the way certain campgian teams interacted, and the way certain candidates interacted. There was a lot of laughter, and good will between most of the campaign teams. Most candidates seemed very friendly with eachother, I saw candidates and campaign teams talking prior to the debate and congratulating eachother afterwards. One campaign team was not really involved in this comraderie but all others seemingly were, and supporters of certain candidates were very supportive of other candidates responses during the debate.
