Jeffrey Aho

Levi has mentioned more than once in the past few weeks that he thinks I’m becoming more and more conservative of late. I didn’t think I have been but it is hard to be objective when judging yourself. A year or two ago I took the Political Compass test and I got a 6.5 on the Economic axis and -4.0 on the Social axis. Today I decided to retake the test to see what has changed. This time I was 5.0 on the Economic axis and -3.9 on the Social axis.

Comparing these tests I’ve become less right on the Economic axis and essentially remained the same on the Social Axis. Since the Political Compass is a two axis measurement, to convert it to the simplified Left/Right scale it seems best to rotate the axis 45 degrees clockwise and project the data point onto the new horizontal axis. This leaves just right of center (random side thought: While centre is most likely the proper Canadian spelling, it doesn’t feel right using it for a location. Centre feel right when I use it for a facility, but I feel the need differentiate them through spelling. Maybe it has to do with the fact that programming languages use American spellings), but very much a centrist.

It appears that I’ve actually moved a little left since the previous test which if I equal the left/right to liberal/conservative respectively, as is often done, I’ve become more liberal making Levi wrong (I just had to point that out). I don’t feel like pulling out a textbook to remember how to find the perpendicular distance of a point from a line so I’m really just eyeballing the vector projection. Either way, I’m moving more to the left again, which I’ll attribute to the substantial reading in economics and political economy I’ve done over this last year. I’ve become a little more pragmatic about government intervention.

Political Compass has a great little app that you can take the test on and plot you against your friends scores. Here is mine:

As you can see, I tend to have friends on the socially libertarian side (Chris and Kevin being the only authoritarians). On a Left/Right scale there would be 34 on the Left and 6 on the Right with Andrew Falcao being most Left and Kevin Royal being most Right (of course we all know from The Next Great Prime Minister that Kevin is an extremist who the poor, minorities, and women won’t vote for). It is pretty evenly distributed on the Left and my friends on the Right hug the center.

As a ending note I will be heading up to TBay after exams. I’ll be taking off the term so I’ll likely just play which city I’m in by ear, but I’ll likely be in TBay for at least a month, part of which will be me house siting for my parents when they go to California and their “puppy” (he looks full grown to me) Baxter (a black lab) needs taking care of. Now that I got Atlas Shrugged off my desk (I DO NOT recommend it) I can do some varied reading now so I expect to do that alot over the next 6 months.

Random Wikipedia Article: LaVeyan Satanism

Currently Listening to: Heat Of The Moment - Asia

Yesterday was the first day of my 3A Mechatronics term, and it will be a contrast to the Political Science Minor term I just completed. It is the first time I haven’t had a co-op term in between my school terms but it will be a good summer with everyone in town.

If you had not heard, I decided during finals to purchase a house and took possession less than a week ago. I’ve had my eye on the property for a while and had previously lived here for three school terms so I’m very familiar with it. The sale came together very quickly and I was a little overwhelmed by all the details that needed to be worked out. Dealing with the real estate brokers, lawyers, and the bank was confusing, as it was the first time I purchased a house, but my parents assisted me through the process (my dad is a manager for Ontario Realty Corporation) and I’m pleased with the result.

I got an excellent deal for financing, 4% interest rate (Prime minus .75%) because rates are so low currently. The Bank of Canada has lowered rates by 100 basis points over their last two scheduled dates. I decided to go with a 5-year variable rate mortgage (amortized over 25 years) and take a little risk. A fixed one would have been at 5% and with the slowing economy and inflation under control (in Canada at least) interest rates are likely to remain stable or be lowered. When I got it the mortgage it was 4.5% and it is already at 4%; I’ll track the rates and after three years (about the length of time I plan on holding it) I’ll evaluate if it was a good decision or not. I’m also doing bi-monthly payments to also help reduce the interest I need to pay.

Overall I think it is a good investment. I’m renting to three people and living there so the rent I collect will pay my mortgage and other costs so I’ll live rent free for the next few years (saving thousands of dollars) and when I sell the house I should make a profit given the appreciation of the house and the amount being paid into the mortgage after the interest. Of course I need to deduct lawyer fees and other costs, but the recent trends indicate that the value should increase. With improvements to the area such as the iXpress and the universal bus pass for students (I can’t believe I’m pleased with the UPass but it makes my property more valuable for renting) where one of the stops is only 1 minute walk away, I should have no problem renting. In fact I have tenants committed for roughly the next two years. I was able to transfer leases from the previous landlord, which also made the deal more appealing; less work for me.

In other news, I am officially not a student councillor or board member for Feds as of May 1st. I’m also no longer a member of the Student Services Advisory committee and the only official position I have is Genius Bowl director for EngSoc (to be held on May 26th!). I’ll now have lots of time to work on other things and Waller and I will be starting up an Optimist International club on campus. It will be different being on the other side of the room for IAC asking for approval instead of giving it. I found it intriguing this last term when people claimed my work in Feds was only to a) pad my resume, and/or b) practice for being a real politician. For the jobs I apply for, employers care more about my technical experience at NRCan, Nemak (Ford), and GM than the volunteer mention Feds gets on the second page of my resume. As well, I said I don’t plan on being a politician, either a Feds Executive, or elsewhere. I don’t have any interest in that form of public service.

Right now I believe there are 3 vacancies for engineering councillors. I feel no obligation to help fill them. For the most involved people, you get very little out for the work you put it. I don’t know how Councillor/Director/Governor/FOC Neal does it. He should have won either the President’s Circle award or the Feds Leadership award but instead he didn’t even get a piece of council gear or a meal at the end of the year. Volunteer appreciation severely lacks at Feds and along with apathy it is not surprising why 8 council seats remain unfilled. There is also a definite lack of empowerment. If I ever have a problem I’ll go straight to Chris, Justin, Del, Andreas, or Andrew. The fact is that my representatives are inexperienced (due to the fact of being new to council). It looks like only three councillors have previously served a full year on Feds.

So for now I’m going to focus on school and catch up on my growing book shelf of unread books. On Justin’s advice, I believe the next book I’ll read will be Rawls’s Theory of Justice to be quickly followed by Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Currently Listening to: Still Alive - Jonathan Coulton

Random Wikipedia Article: Dulce et Decorum Est

Still continuing with my policy of not registering for or posting on LJ, I do see a post by the CKMS Board Treasurer Selene MacLeod (Atmydiscretion?), AKA Synaesthetik (MySpace) and a new discussion spawning from it. Since she makes defamatory claims that the ‘Yes’ Committee and I broke referendum rules, I will respond to her comment here. After all, civil discussion is the proper response instead of threatening legal action.

In terms of her ability to express her opinions, she (as well as all non-student CKMS members) has always had the right to talk to the ‘No’ Committee chairs to provide arguments, opinions, or rebuttals. I will use an analogy of the House of Commons. This was a student referendum issue deciding a topic pertaining to student funding. It would be akin to a US Ambassador walking into the House and yelling out their opinions on the Canadian budget. Yes, this student decision will impact the radio station, just as many decisions our government affects the US. The US has the ability to send us their opinions but they have no right to interfere in the process. CKMS interfered in the process by inhibiting information flow to shareholders, using staff members to prepare an advertising campaign (which used CKMS funds), and by intervening legally. (BTW, is paid CKMS staff participating in information sessions the best use of their time and CKMS’s money?)

Furthermore, three CKMS volunteers (one being a CKMS Board member) were the ‘No’ Committee Co-Chairs. If the board member (who participated in one of the forums) doesn’t have an intimate knowledge of the corporation (which for the record, I believe he does), then that would be a serious concern. In reality, the ‘No’ Committee had access to CKMS Board information and other resources provided to them that were not provided to the Yes committee, despite being requested and promised (i.e. number of student volunteers requested January 23rd, promised January 24th, that was never provided but later was released by the ‘No’ Committee). They had the information advantage all along.

She states that she “felt the adjudication during the committee was biased toward the Yes committee, and that the adjudicator was not an impartial judge.” That is quite a defamatory claim about the Referendum Committee and its Chair. Knowing all the councillors on the committee, I am confident that they worked in an impartial manner. I will also note that there is a separate Referendum Appeals Committee that does not have councillors that any decision can be appealed to.

To address the first defamatory comment, the one claiming that I violated referendum procedures by having a Facebook group soliciting members of ‘Yes’ Committee, I will state that I believe there were no rules violated (given my experience on the Referendum Committee last year). Soliciting members of the committee, which the ‘No’ Committee did as well, is not a violation of procedures as it is not campaigning. The group never discussed the campaign, only informing people of the date of committee formation. I will also note that if you review the Referendum Committee’s decisions, they were never fined for having their Facebook group, even the “I support CKMS” group that they turned into their main campaign group (which I believe is it in violation of referendum rules since it was created outside the campaigning period). As always, someone (even non-students) could have (and may have) filed a complaint.

I will not comment on the document mentioned for legal reasons, but I do appreciate Selene confirming that the CKMS Board knows that I was not the author. I will note that my sources are not limited to that document and I consulted numerous past Board members and staff including ones within the last 3 years. It continues to be my assertion that all information my committee provided is truthful and the facts were not misrepresented.

I found out about the motion for the referendum at the same time CKMS supporters did. I had the same time (and substantially less resources) to prepare my campaign as the ‘No’ side. The referendum was called and was run in a fair way (except, of course, all the violations by the ‘No’ Committee). As per her last comments about me not being at CKMS Board meetings, I’ve never claimed to have attended them. Selene has not been at all the Students’ Council and Referendum Committee meetings in the last year, yet she criticizes their decisions. I am able to my make my claims in the same way; by talking to sources and reading documents.

I think fees for students should always be debated and the organizations that receive them should be held accountable if they aren’t transparent or are poorly managed. I like Imprint and believe they are run transparently and are managed well. Athletics falls under the Student Services Advisory Committee in which funding is reviewed constantly. You don’t think Plant Operations and Employees have reviews and are held accountable if they screw up? This came down to students deciding if they wanted the fee. They resoundingly supported its removal.

I never claimed that campus radio is a bad thing, and I agree that it could fit within the Feds mission statement. CKMS, on the other hand, does not.

EDIT:

Selene has continue to post on LJ and I have more to add now (and will continue to add).

On February 14th I had communication with her that explained the referendum process. It seems this went in one ear and out the next. I stated: “While Feds does not administer the fee, they are the sole representative of students and the only body that the Board of Governors listens to on this matter. While what you state is technically true, in practice it is Feds that yields influence over levying student fees by long standing agreement with the University.” Her “paranoid” “theories” (her words) are just that: paranoid.

Selene has posted a comment that has patently false information (which was even ruled on and explained why it is false in Referendum Decision 5 - Has she even read the decisions she criticizes?). She says the $230 fee (There exists no $230 fee but a range from $163.56 to $241.87) is non-refundable, which is a lie. The Health and Dental plan are refundable (online opt-out) and the non-refundable part is the bus pass. These have all been approved by referendums. I will continue to refute her misrepresentation of the facts. Students put a value on CKMS. It was $0.00.

The Board of Governors will pass this fee removal at their April meeting.

It has been very enlightening reviewing the general meeting minutes of the past few years. The September 2005 meeting minutes discuss how Heather intervened (saying it “sucked”) and stopped a legitimate vote under CKMS’s bylaws (which is noted in the next minutes that their lawyer said was perfectly legal). Too bad it took 7 weeks to get what I requested from CKMS or I would have been able to present more facts to students of CKMS’s ongoing (and still present) issues. Well, I received most of what I requested. CKMS has yet to produce an up-to-date copy of their bylaws. A change occurred at the March 2007 AGM and yet they only have produced a copy from March 2006. So coming up to their March 2008 AGM where new directors will be voted in, shareholders don’t even know the process by which they use to vote.

This is a transparency and accountability issue NOW, occurring under Selene’s time on the CKMS Board. It will be interesting if shareholders hold her accountable for losing 90% of the station’s revenue while she was Treasurer.