WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013
13
www.ufvcascade.ca
OPINION
Why My Safe Ride Home should make you angry PAUL ESAU
THE CASCADE
Last week I published an article on UFV SUS’s soon-to-beabolished My Safe Ride Home (MSRH) program, an article that took me nearly a month to research and write, as well as forcing me to make numerous long distance calls at your (students’) expense. The day after it was published I walked into the SUS office and asked if any of the board members present were worried about my comprehensive analysis of one of the biggest SUS blunders in recent history. “No,” one member said, “your article’s too complicated for anyone to understand.” I took that as a challenge. Here are (in my opinion) the four most important things that you as student need to know about the MSRH program, explained so simply that my cat, who routinely forgets where his food-bowl is, understood them instantly: The My Safe Ride Home program is NOT a scam. There is a rumour circulating at the moment that SUS is being fleeced for hundreds of thousands by a shady group of entrepreneurs who stumbled onto the cash cow that is the UFV student body. This is not true. MSRH has been tested and tried in other circumstances (most recently by the Waterloo Regional School Board in Ontario) and it does work – it’s just not very efficient. And frankly, the people
involved in this program are important, respected figures in the Lower Mainland. They can no more afford to scam you than you can afford to be scammed. The problem with the MSRH model is that the pay-off, for the consumer, is simply not worth the investment. The backers of MSRH have poured hundreds of thousand into developing secure software with GPS synchronization that allows their cards to be swiped like a debit or credit card – all to save a student (best case scenario) 10 minutes waiting for a taxi. If the $25 taxi credit were part of a group of essential core services provided by the program (and MMC has been desperately trying to add services since MSRH was launched), I might find it more valuable, but as it stands MSRH is cost-prohibitive and reward-deficient. The program is really only valuable to a student in a crisis with no cash, no credit card, no debit card and no friends who could help with any of the above – but how often does that combination really occur? Is it worth a mandatory $25 per student? In 2009, your UFV SUS signed a contract to create MSRH, apparently without reading the contract. The real problem of the MSRH program has never really been the program itself, but instead the blunders SUS has made interpreting and amending the contract with MMC. It is very clearly stated
in the contract that a student’s enrolment in the MSRH lasts a single year, and therefore their $25 credit is active only for a single year. For some reason, your UFV SUS decided at the end of 2010 that they either had (a) misinterpreted the contract, or (b) no longer liked the contract, and instead desired the MSRH credit to last for the entirety of a student’s time at UFV. How the board could either play along for a year-and-a-half completely ignorant of how the contract worked, or abruptly decide they no longer agreed with the contract (not even two years into a five-year term), is beyond the understanding of this humble reporter. The fact that they did, and that the program spent the next year in contractual limbo, is a major reason for the imminent cancellation of the program in April Your UFV SUS finds math scary difficult. Some of you learned this last November during the EGM that “saved” AfterMath, but it’s disturbing to see this numerical nonsense as a general SUS trend rather than an isolated incident. In October 2010, SUS got a check from the MSRH program for $105,000, or half of the program’s profit from the first year of operation. If the program was meant to last the entirety of a student’s time at UFV, there was no possible way for 4200 students ($105,000 divided by $25 per student) to have “left” the program after a single year.
Meatless Mondays: not just for hipster cred anymore MELISSA SPADY
CONTRIBUTOR
I started working meatless meals into my diet about a yearand-a-half ago due to my naturally poor digestive health. For as long as I can remember I’ve struggled with tiredness and lethargy. I spent the latter half of my teens combating a slew of food allergies and chronic abdominal pain. In 2011 I gave myself an ultimatum: I could make an effort to change my bad habits, or let myself be victimized by my dietary restrictions forever. I chose the former and never looked back. I’m not going to say it was easy but it was definitely worth it, and in more ways than you think. Eating bread or cheese all day and saying “I ate vegetarian today!” is technically correct, but the whole idea behind eating “meatless” is that you’re putting more iron-rich and protein-rich fruits, vegetables, legumes (beans, lentils, peas) or nuts into your diet instead. Hard lesson learned, I admit. After plodding around on the internet, I found articles and recipes that aided me in getting a better idea of how to properly substitute meat. While my health improved dramatically and my energy levels were better than ever, something extra came along with it: my wallet was notably fatter. As students we are constantly looking for new ways to save money. From cheap textbooks to cutting personal expenses, every little bit helps ease our already tight budgets. This is why I feel inclined to talk about meatless eating, because I have only done myself as well as my budget favours by introducing it in to my meal plan. In dollars and cents: a can of beans goes for $2 or less,
Image: www.themeetingplacenorth.co.uk
A meatless diet can be tasty. whereas any type of meat (meaning beef, chicken, pork, turkey) will cost you $6-9 for one meal. Side tip: try heading to a farmer’s market for your fruits and veggies to get more bang for your buck. Every time I’ve been to a farmer’s market instead of the grocery store I’ve walked away with an armful of fresh goodies and a bill around $20 for both fruit/veggies that last me up to two weeks. Learning to cook with your vegetables makes cutting corners easier as well. Making a pasta? Instead of getting ground beef, grab a can of kidney beans. Stir fry? Have a wide variety of vegetables in lieu of throwing some chicken in there. “Meaty” vegetables like zucchini, mushrooms, eggplant and cauliflower are good ways to substitute without feeling like you’re missing that heartiness in your meals. These suggestions are just what I’ve found tasty for me, and I don’t expect everyone to have the same
love affair with beans as I do. Start by working with foods you know you already like. The best part about taking on a new food challenge is getting to be creative with what you eat. If you don’t know where to start, go to your biggest resource: the internet. I’ve found that vegetariantimes.com has a lot of different recipes for meals without meat that aren’t just centred around tofu or soy products (which I personally have found difficulty adjusting to). I’m not advocating that you never eat meat again, or that becoming vegetarian is right for everyone. I am by no means a health professional, but I can share my own experience and hope that someone else sees the value in trying it for themselves. I still eat meat and I don’t think I’ll be giving it up entirely anytime soon; I just have found that eating a variety of different proteins has done wonders for my health, my conscience and my wallet. All it requires to start is some swapping on your grocery list, a little extra attention in the kitchen, and the desire to try something new. I now spend less time slaving away over the stove and I can make my meals go a lot further. I don’t expect anyone to turn their eating habits upside down overnight (in fact I don’t recommend that at all) but having an awareness of your food choices I believe can, and will, lead to more benefits than grievances. Why not try stepping out of your comfort zone one night a week with a new vegetarian-friendly recipe and a friend or significant other? You have nothing to lose, and so much delicious food to gain.
To add to the problem, SUS had not actually created a mechanism to determine when a student had indeed “left” the program short of (presumably) graduation. Simply put, any SUS board member active in 2010/2011 who claims they misunderstood the program to last for the entirety of a student’s UFV enrolment could never responsibly have cashed that check. And any board member who cashed the check could not have ethically claimed two months later that they misunderstood the program. Of course, even after the renegotiation of the contract, SUS still didn’t bother to institute a mechanism for tracking student enrolment (even though such a mechanism was assumed in the new agreement). Your UFV SUS negotiated MSRH with no regards for basic principles of business. Now some of this mess can be attributed to the fact that the MSRH program has been supervised by four different boards and three different SUS managers, but even so there are some scary blunders. In 2009, MMC approached the SUS board with the MSRH program and not a single signed contract with any other major institution. After SUS became the first major contract for the whole MSRH program, your SUS handed over roughly $225,000 of student money without supervision and without an escrow clause to ensure that the “profit” money would protect-
ed from possible bankruptcy. In short they locked themselves into a five-year deal with a business model that had yet to prove itself, gambling with your money. In the last contract amendment in 2012 that negotiated the eventual termination of the contract, SUS agreed to invoice MMC for SUS’s half of the profit at the end of the April 2013. This would be fine, except that SUS agreed to invoice MMC based on the numbers MMC provided which SUS has no way of verifying. In this scenario, MMC doesn’t only hold all the cards, but the entire pot as well (and possibly the table, the house, the children and the wedding photos). As any first-year business student (or, frankly, an above-average dolphin) could tell you, this is not good business. In short, if the MSRH program was not run by respectable people, SUS (bankrolled by you and me) could have been very screwed. Hopefully by the end of May or so SUS will receive back the appropriate portion of the profit moneys and the circus that has been the UFV’s MSRH program will simply be a bad dream. But the question remains, why do we persist with a student governance model that allows this kind of scenario to perpetuate itself? Who is going to change the system?
Turning on the right light: the hazards of CFLs KATIE STOBBART CONTRIBUTOR
In my basement, I have a hidden stash of incandescent light bulbs. Canadian Tire had them on sale about a year ago, and because there were already indications that compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) would make them obsolete, I stocked up. For the moment, I am able to choose which type of bulbs to use, but this will not always be the case. The Government of Canada plans to phase out the old incandescent bulbs in 2014. It is not dangerous to use the old bulbs, just less efficient, and the choice to use CFLs could result in a slight decrease on my energy bill. However, I have concerns about CFLs, and I think we should have the right to choose whether or not we want to continue to use incandescent bulbs. CFLs contain small amounts (about four milligrams in each bulb) of mercury, which is a neurotoxin. According to the World Health Organization, “mercury may have toxic effects on the nervous, digestive and immune systems, and on lungs, kidneys, skin and eyes.” It is also included in their list of the top 10 chemicals of major public health concern. CFLs do meet Canadian standards for electrical safety, so we shouldn’t have to worry about bulbs spontaneously bursting into flame or zapping us on contact, but the Environment Canada fact sheet on the bulbs does not address the potential hazards of light sources containing mercury in the event of a house fire. Not all fires are caused by electrical devices. When heated, mer-
cury emits toxic vapours into the air. Exposure to these vapours can cause serious health complications, especially in pregnant women. To call CFLs safe simply because they are unlikely to cause an electrical fire underplays the severity of this exposure. There may be only small quantities of mercury in each light bulb, but most homes have many light fixtures, and some of those use more than one bulb. It is much more likely to shatter a light bulb than it is to have a house fire. CFLs cannot be disposed of in the same way as incandescents; as hazardous waste, they are not to be thrown in the garbage, and direct contact with skin must be avoided when collecting the shards of the bulb. Is it really worth saving a few dollars on the energy bill to risk having mercury in our homes and workplaces? Surely there are ways to be energy efficient without compromising our personal and environmental health. My other concerns with compact fluorescent light bulbs include electrical pollution and ultraviolet radiation. It is recommended on the CFL fact sheet that people stay about a foot away from the lights while in use and “limit close exposure to three consecutive hours.” That kind of advice does not inspire my confidence in CFLs, so I will continue to use incandescent light bulbs, at least until the choice is taken away from me. After the old bulbs are phased out, at least I’ll have my stash.