Studentsí Union end of year reviews: President

Publication YearIssue Date 

Julie Bogle has done a proper job leading the Students' Union as president. She managed a cohesive team, updated many inconspicuous but important policy changes and introduced a much needed affordable housing paper.

Over the last month, university administration announced the decision not to allow the option to pay tuition via credit card. Although personally I would have rather seen a protest over the $230 tuition hike in Dec., students were up in arms over the decision and the SU did the right thing by representing their constituents concerns in the form of organizing a protest and a letter-writing campaign.

With the position of being president comes the benefit--or bane--of privileged knowledge. Bogle sat on many closed-door sessions with high-level administration, making her privy to information that would be beneficial to students if shared. That, paired with the SU replacing their longtime communications manager this year, makes for a frustrating limbo between confidence and representation. However, towards the end of the term, with the credit card issue, Bogle was more willing to loosen up her words.

Many minor, but substantial changes were made to SU policy including the Roles and Responsibilities of each portfolio, changes to the Students' Academic Association policy framework and creation of the position of Government Relations Advisor.

Good job aside, Bogle's professionalism may have hurt the SU as a whole. The close relationship with administration distanced the SU from students and didn't pay off, as admin didn't disclose their plans over the credit card decision, arguabley the biggest issue for students this year.




It's also amusing that the person assigned to write the story about the protest wasn't even there.

Am I the only one who finds it funny that the news editor's copy has an gregarious typo in it? It's arguably, not arguabley.
yeesh. that can be caught with spell check of all things.

A gregarious typo, huh? So the typo is, like, sociable?

I realize this is hypocritical, but understand words before you use them (Especially if you're going to go around ignorantly nit-picking honest mistakes in people's copy).

Too bad there isn't a program that does that for you, huh?

By the by, I think the word you were struggling (and epically failing) to find was "egregious."

I thought the communications manager was replaced during the previous year's SU...actually I'm sure it was. These reviews sound like they were tossed together at the last minute. The gauntlet missed a lot of important issues, both good and bad that happened this year. Its very noticeable with the review on the president in particular. Oh well, we can't really rely on campus media to give students what they need to hear anyway. Slackers. If you aren't going to do a decent job don't bother. We all know you were probably more focused on your spoof issue than the effectivenes of undergarduate student representation anyway.

Awww, Former SU guy, does the reviews hurt your feelings? Boo hoo. Don't forget your handchiefs and paper towels. These reviews must be hurtful to make you tears up, eh?

Instead of complaining about how the Gauntlet missed "lot of important issues", and how the newspaper ignored these "vague issues", why not explain what kind of issues happened this year? How about you explain what issues happened on campus that the newspaper failed to cover?

Or do you need a new Communications manager to do that instead?

Frankly, many students cared about the University disregarding their voices on credit card and the new credit card policy changes. And in this situation, the newspaper has a point - where was the SU in this mess when the University decided to announces their policy as one small line on their website? Or how the Students' Union was left in dark for several months? Bogle complained about no consultation on the policy, but if the SU had a professional and friendly relationship with the Administration, then what happened there?

Finally, I have one comment to make: it's remarkable when only 80 students show up to a credit card protest and the SU celebrates this turnout number as "victory", while the Board of Governors and UofC Administration ignored the protest. Doesn't look good.