This letter is in response to the feature article published by the Argus regarding the election. First of all I want to commend Doug Diaczuk for his courageous position of taking a dump all over each and every candidate. Those who chose to run in the election for whatever reason spent a lot of time and energy because they felt they could offer themselves in service on the behalf of students. You sir are a shining example of journalistic integrity. If only the rest of us had the strength to ride such a high horse.
I am personally offended that you stated in your piece that I had no plan. This suggest to me that you were asleep during the election and the debate in particular. Not only did I outline a specific 6 point communications strategy to engage and inform students, but I also outlined how to generate more revenue through specific job creation and the application of new monies through various government programs to help pay for other new services without raising student fees. I also outlined a detailed plan of how to improve campus security, i.e. reviving Foot Patrol an EFRT. Of course these are merely a few items in a highly detailed plan which was extremely well advertised.
Your feature suggest to me that you had no plan to accurately cover the election. While I understand that you are such an enlightened being that no mere mortal deserved your vote, it is deplorable that you would spend half a page telling people not to vote. Student apathy is a problem and you and the Argus have made it clear that you are part of the problem not the solution.
On another note, the Argus Editor Mike Bennett deserves some criticism here too. Mr. Bennett had the audacity to call me foolish and reckless for believing that we can involve more students in the democratic process and create a new culture on campus. You may recall I proposed raising quorum from 10% to 25%. The editor cites financial reasons and poor turnout in the past. Furthermore, the editor believes I “insisted” on this new figure where I specifically made clear that this was a flexible proposal. I believe that the editor of the Argus is himself foolish and reckless for perpetuating an apathetic attitude and distorting facts. Again, the Argus is a part of the problem. It is easy to sit back and criticize people who are passionate and want to make changes for the better. If only the Argus had the same courage to hold itself to a higher standard.
P.S. Isn’t it funny how we managed to get close to 25% after only two weeks of talking about it, despite the Argus telling you not to vote? Imagine what a concerted effort would bring to this campus. Alas, it is not to be.