Singh discusses Pivik, low election turnout, and principled leadership
On May 9, the Fulcrum spoke with the former president of the University of Ottawa Students’ Union (UOSU), Armaan Singh to reflect on his term in the union’s top role. What follows is a transcript of that conversation, edited for readability.
Fulcrum (F): Do you remember off the top of your head, the start and end dates of your mandate for President?
Armaan Singh (AS): I was president from May 1, 2022, to April 30, 2023.
F: And what would you say went well about the term? What were you really proud of?
AS: I was really proud [of our work] because it’s very obvious and increasingly clear that student politics is not an easy thing to do. It’s very challenging, and [can be] very tough on an individual’s well-being as well as academics.
But I’d say my guiding star was definitely making sure that we were adhering to principled leadership and good governance decisions, while also ensuring that our student union (UOSU) is a force for political change. The union is fully embracing progressive values and trying to not just decolonize itself, but make itself more accessible to marginalized communities, to women to racialized students, etc.
Rather than having one specific legacy project, my goal was to continue to build a stronger foundation for our union to do its work on, just because it is a very young union. And there’s so much potential to improve things. So it was more of an overarching [concern with] the principles in which the union governed itself. That is something that I’m very proud of, and I hope to see you continue as a board member as well.
F: You mentioned UOSU being young, the union was still finding its footing as COVID-19 hit. How have the last three years impacted the structuring of the UOSU?
AS: I would say, I can’t really comment too much on the first year of the Union because I was not very engaged. But I’ve [been in the] in union’s second, third, and now fourth term. COVID-19 has definitely marked its activities and operations.
Even before I was on the executive, I remember when Tim [Gulliver] was advocacy [commssioner, in 2020/21] and Babacar [Faye] was president, COVID-19 was top of mind. H There was a focus on having more supports for students – we had the COVID emergency fund, which [has been] integrated into our larger funds and scholarships programs. But it was a lot of reacting really fast to these ever-changing circumstances.
And the next year when Tim was president and I myself was [part of the executive committee not just students but workers at the university as well. We focused a lot on advocating against bimodal learning because it was creating really unfair work situations for professors and then consequentially very poor learning conditions for students.
But then again, COVID-19 was always top of mind. We made sure 101 Week was hybrid because there were a lot of students living in residence, but we also want to make sure that students who choose to stay at home or are immunocompromised were still able to participate. We advocated for vaccine mandates, and we advocated for a stronger mask mandate to ensure that campus is as safe as possible for everyone.
And now in the most recent year, in the 2022–23 mandate, we focus a lot on the straight-out ableism that’s coming from the central administration, forcing students back into classrooms when, for various reasons, they might not want to. [For example,] they themselves are experiencing health issues and they don’t want to be subjected to COVID-19, [or] if they live with their grandparents or immunocompromised folks who will be very negatively impacted with contact to COVID-19. We advocated for better options, for there to be online [formats]for all mandatory courses, so students who – for very rightful reasons – are not able to come to campus do have options.
And another thing is for the university to recognize that now it’s time to spend a lot more money in terms of student success rather than cutting back. After two and a half years, we have a large campus presence and problems with infrastructure, problems with services can’t go on unaddressed. There are crazy wait times [to see a] counselor with the University’s health and mental wellness center. There’s a huge queue to get support or there’s a huge line to get documents to prove that you go here. We advocated very strongly with the university [to] put students first in its decision-making, as well as making more collegial decisions with us and other partners on campus like the APUO [Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa] and APTPUO [Association of Part-Time Professors of the University of Ottawa].
But essentially, all that to say, COVID-19 has definitely had a marked impact on UOSU and its advocacy, its governance. For example, our board [of directors] meetings since the 2021 mandate, I can say for sure, have been [conducted] online or hybrid. We have not had a fully in-person board meeting. This also makes participating in the political process for our elected representatives more accessible if they have to travel for work, or family reasons, they can always open their laptops and join and be a part of that deliberative process debate openly; it also makes the political process more accessible to students at large. People can tune into board meetings from home, instead of having to come in person to a meeting that might not be too interesting to them for the whole duration of it. But you know, they can tune in. It also makes the whole governance process a lot more accessible to students at large.
F: I’m [going to] move away from the governance side of things. There are employed management roles at UOSU, and there’s been a lot of turnover there. Is that right?
AS: The turnover in terms of management is obviously much less than the executive team. But, one of the problems we did face, and I think that really marked my mandate, was the goal to fill our management team fully. Historically, we’ve always had vacancies here and there, but we experienced a lot of challenges and had to fill certain positions which was [the duty of the] operations commissioner and myself to fulfill those obligations. But generally, the executive committee was on the same page that we needed to prioritize having those positions filled because being incomplete really did slow down our operations.
It really impedes the UOSUs management. [The staff are] kind of the foundation, they help manage all our [operations]. When a decision comes in from the board or one of its various committees, including the executive committee, it’s the management’s duty to make sure that we are executing them well. If there’s a lack of managers, that execution is going to slow down.
So very happily, I’m able to say that by the end of my mandate, we have filled the management entirely but we did experience a lot of problems. Both budgetary problems that had a ricochet impact onto UOSU [as well as] the labour shortage that was going on, and the huge upward mobility that we saw in the workforce. Some of the managers did leave and [we had] some trouble finding other managers or other professionals to fill those spaces.
Obviously, those are things that are somewhat out of our control, but there’s so much that we can do in order to fill those jobs more efficiently. But I think that we tried to work as much as we could within our capacity to get that done.
F: Okay, back to the governance. It’s difficult, I’d imagine, to feel sure of yourself in this role. What were you doing this year to guide yourself and make sure you felt like you were on the right path?
AS: Very good question. I encouraged all the executives to do this […] I know some of them for sure did. But, you know, student leaders are 20-year-olds who are in charge of a whole nonprofit organization, and that comes with a lot of responsibilities. Because [there are] a lot of obligations, it’s very overwhelming. You know, it almost feels like ‘Oh, I got myself into something that is too big for me’. But whenever my friends would ask me [how I was doing], I would always say ‘Oh I’m in raising spirits’ because you’re always facing challenges, but you have to have an optimistic attitude or else you’re not going to enjoy yourself.
But listening to students is a big part of leadership, especially within UOSU. So when there’s an issue, talking to the relevant students, talking to relevant activist experts, staff managers. I even reached out to previous years’ executives. I [also] had access to a network of Student Union executives within the entire country where we all were able to obviously share our qualms, but also share our successes with each other. To help everyone with their problem-solving experience, like problem-solving processes, because there’s a lot that comes up and especially when you have a turnaround of year over year.
A transition report can only capture so much. Having conversations on the phone, and having a list of people I need to call on a certain portfolio or file before I’m able to confidently make a decision; was definitely something that I think has marked the experience of every executive on any student union.
F: How do we feel about Pivik? Are we happy about how that’s going?
AS: The last executive really pushed hard on reopening Pivik. So the [2022-23] executive continued this responsibility that Pivik is something that students want – we need more affordable options on campus. We need options that are not just affordable but also cater to various dietary restrictions. The point of Pivik is not for us to be just like the Tim Hortons or be just like the Second Cup or the Thai Express on campus because clearly, their interests are not student interests.
Pivik is a store that is run by students, financed by students, and then primarily catered to students. So I really prided ourselves in being able to have prices that were less than most competitors at Pivik, so students could get drinks, food, and candy if they wanted at a good price. We also focus a lot on sustainability at Pivik, choosing sustainable options over options that are more environmentally egregious. I know that right now, there are a lot of ideas on how we can improve Pivik and the second year hasn’t even elapsed yet. And so there’s so much for us to improve.
We want Pivik to be more successful, of course, but that just means more students need to go to Pivik and see what we have to offer. And Pivik is always taking recommendations as to how we can improve ourselves and cater better to students. Recently, something that we really pushed for was having more vegan options because [our] campus lacked that. Now we have a whole vegan section of Pivik.
I, myself, also noticed just as someone who goes to Pivik quite often, we should try to get low prices for students. Then maybe, at least my opinion is, we should have a little bit more of a competitive price for non-student members. So as a member of the finance committee, something I want table and action is to give, for example, all students a blanket discount of 10 per cent. So essentially you would need to be a member of the organization [UOSU]. So that means community members, professors, and, you know, other non-undergraduate students at the U of O, who are frequenting Pivik wouldn’t maybe need to pay just a little bit more for that or for the stuff. But that would help contribute better towards our organizations, initiatives, programs, and advocacy while continuing to ensure that students are paying even less.
F: This can’t be right. Was the turnout really 3.8 per cent for the general election?
AS: The turnout was unfortunately 3.8 per cent. This is something that I am not satisfied with at all. This is one thing I think we all need to take a hard look in the mirror and be like, ‘What can we change?’ I know that on our side, we’ve tried to do as much as we could with the resources that we had, trying to push students to present themselves in the election but also to participate in the election by voting.
But I think something that we are missing or something that often doesn’t go into account is [that] now is not an easy time to be a student. This has been something I’ve opened up so many of my remarks with– unemployment among students is high and affordability is high. Our rents are going up, our wages are low, and we have added academic pressures, tuition went up, there’s just so much going on. And I don’t blame a lot of students for not voting in our elections, because their material conditions are so poor. We have tried to make it a priority to advocate for better material conditions, not just to our governments [and] to our university, but even community partners to see how we can make life better for students.
So while I do agree that I think we should definitely be trying to proliferate UOSU elections as much as possible, I would love to have an extremely high election turnout result, it would only strengthen our governance and the culture that we are trying to cultivate for our entire campus community. But I think we should also [consider] the fact that there [ also a lot of harmful ideas that brought to the table such as charging students who don’t vote more [than those who do vote], which is extremely inequitable, in my opinion, and I advocated very strongly against it.
Students who aren’t voting – likely voters working jobs or taking care of family members – have so many obligations and to subject them to higher rates of student levies for the union, just because they didn’t vote in my opinion is extremely inappropriate and inequitable and very short-sighted. But I do think that we should try to find initiatives as to how we can get students to the polls.
Whether it means reforming the electoral code, which is something the elections committee can look into, whether it means spending more money on advertising, whether it means working with the university to try to get bigger posters up during our elections period. And this could mean getting something with good campus real estate where a lot of students are able to see what’s going on. [It could mean] working better with our campus media groups to get debates set up to get more coverage. There are so many ideas, but I think we should look at ideas that are constructive as to how we can increase participation rather than ideas that only push students further away from our union, like charging them more for an empty ballot.
F: Who chaired the elections committee last year? Do you remember?
AS: Yes. The elections committee was definitely hard to fill this year, because, for a variety of reasons, some people have personal interests, some people want to run again, etc. You can’t be on the elections committee if you’re running in that election, for very obvious reasons. And the executive committee, for also very legitimate reasons, tries to distance itself from the elections committee as much as possible. So we had a few chairs throughout the mandate for the elections committee. But I know that those people that were involved were doing their best in order to administer the election in the best way possible.
I know that Nicolas Michaud, who was our arts director at the end [of the term], was the chair of the elections committee for the last few months. We had other executives. We had, until the by-election, Chelsey-Lynn [Rousselle], who was the [2022-23] advocacy commissioner who supported that committee after the by-election. Zachary Flahaut, who was the club and services commissioner, also helped with that committee in order to be the executive liaison.
But otherwise, it was an ever-changing committee. People were joining to support here and there, people were leaving because they realized that they want to run in the election, etc. So it definitely was a hard experience for a lot of folks. I think it also maybe points to the fact that we need to look at other solutions. We could work under a communications department responsible for elections. That could be an idea, but that is something that the BOD and the executive committee can study so decisions can be made. I strongly believe that no good decision is made in haste and so we should probably examine all our options before we use student funds to execute whatever it is.
F: That sounds like a good position to take. There seems to be a belief both amongst people engaged and unengaged with UOSU that student politics are toxic. Do you think that is distinct to the U of O, or is that just across the board? Any student union is going to get really ambitious people in the same room and it may get unpleasant at times.
A.S: Good question. And honestly, this is something folks talk to me about quite a lot. I would say ‘toxic’, ‘mean’ and sometimes ‘disrespectful’ are sometimes words that can describe student politics, not just here but student politics in general. We are a whole bunch of people with a lot of good ideas for a lot of common goals and it’s very unfortunate that at times, things turn out to be inefficient, unproductive, and personal.
Again, I remember I did an interview with [The Fulcrum] where I kind of talked a little bit about this before, but I think that as student leaders, we are given a big responsibility when we are elected to our mandates. I think that we should prioritize the collective interests rather than our personal feelings towards one another because, at the end of the day, we all have to work with each other. Student politics is not like Parliament Hill. It’s not like Queens Park where you get elected with a bunch of people on a common platform. It does get messy, and it does get difficult, but I think we’re all adults. We should all treat each other with respect and fairness so that we can actually focus on executing the changes we want, the reforms that we want, or the different programs that are going to help students, rather than being stuck in perpetual conflict.
You know, I firmly believe that’s not a problem that’s just at the UOSU – student politics is tough. I think people need to understand that people are sacrificing a lot to put themselves on the ballot. They are making themselves vulnerable and we should really embrace each other with open arms, rather than give each other a cold shoulder when trying to make life better for students. And it’s our responsibility collectively to just be more kind [and] compassionate. But also that doesn’t mean that we forego our ambition or we don’t forget the degree to which our reforms might be radical, but we can do that in a respectful, compassionate, and still engaging way.
F: So no execs are returning next year, and that’s new. Is that something you’re concerned about for consistency’s sake, or do you think that the interim roles will be alright to pick up [the responsibilities]?
AS: It is true, this is actually the first mandate of UOSU where no executive [committee member] is returning. There are a lot of reasons why, whether it be for personal reasons, whether it’s because people have reached their constitutional limit. It does concern me a lot and it’s actually one of the main reasons I ran for the board of directors [for social science] because I feel like that institutional knowledge is so priceless.
When I was president, I was always reaching out to previous executives for advice on various files, just so I could be set up for the best success, and therefore the entire organization. I have made it clear to everyone incoming that I’m always a call away to help because I know it is very tough.
Our BOD is also very fresh. We only have three returning board members and the entire organization is a body of 30. So it’s a lot of training, it’s a lot of going over the foundations of what the organization is all about. My main motivation to stay on as a board member is not just to continue that progressive change that we want to see within the union [and] to make sure that the union is an organization for the common good. [I also want] to make sure that we are able to provide that institutional knowledge, that kind of guidance on good governance because it is a very big mountain that now executives are faced with.
I’m always in contact with them, just to at least show them that I’m there to be a sounding board. I’m there to support the union’s activities in any way possible, despite my not having executive office anymore.
F: I’ve left the worst question for last, the media policy. Why? And do you understand how many people were upset about that this year?
AS: So there’s a few reasons why we have the media policy and a lot of it is because we want the organization to follow it better and more. [We wanted to implement] a better and more consistent process when engaging with media and outside organizations. We decided that, as stated in the UOSU constitution, the president is a spokesperson for the organization.
And so the president and the Director of Communications in consultation with the president can give authorization to anyone in the organization to speak with media. Otherwise, what we have done is because the executives are the people who are accountable for the decisions being made, and are the ones taking media requests because the buck stops at the executive. And so we have kind of tried our best to divvy up interviews based on what they’re about with the appropriate commissioner. Otherwise, I take them or we delegate them to a staff member who would have the expertise to answer them.
[A]ny kind of good governance process [will] make sure that a process is being followed. The way that we can keep track of what’s coming in and what’s going out is an authorization from the spokesperson or a manager in consultation with the president before staff or other members of the organization are able to speak through their UOSU capacity. I would say most nonprofits kind of follow this kind of model.
F: I understand you were advocacy commissioner before this role so that probably prepared you to handle a lot of the questions we would have had anyways. But also, you are an employer, you do have staff and those staff have knowledge that we would have loved to be able to access and work with. I wasn’t [part of the Fulcrum’s] news [team] this year, so it wasn’t as much my domain as it would have been another year. But I know it was very frustrating for some people to not get emails back and we understand how busy you are. So it just felt that the system was not working and there needed to be a change for the next year.
AS: Of course, and I think [that was] one thing I really tried to pivot on because I realized that there was a concern about the time being taken. I did my best to try to share my number with as many reporters as I could. It is true as president, it is very regular for me to get 70 to 100 emails a day. And so missing emails, and not responding to them fast enough is a perennial problem that I faced every single morning. I did three hours of emails a day and yet I was still always behind. And so, sharing my number with folks so that they could give me a heads up with deadlines and whatnot.
I did my best to make sure that the questions that were, I don’t [want to] say political nature, because I believe everything’s political. But asking us for reasons for decisions[that were] taken by the executives. But interviews based on [the] information [that was] needed, perspectives of certain communities, I did my best to try to delegate them to the appropriate staff members when they were comfortable taking those interviews.
