Point of Inquiry: I thought I’d be done with the AMS in 2025. I’m glad I’m not.

Point of Inquiry is a reported column written about our student union’s governance and policies. It seeks to analyze the AMS with a critical — but constructive — eye. It occasionally contains novel reporting, but Point of Inquiry is written independently of The Ubyssey’s news team — which has no editorial involvement in the column and covers the AMS impartially.

Quyen Schroeder (they/she) is a fourth-year student studying English language and computer science, and they’ve been a committed observer of almost all AMS Council meetings since February 2023. She also ran as “Barry ‘Bee’ Buzzword” in the 2025 AMS Presidential election. They can be reached at q.schroeder@ubyssey.ca.

I hoped I’d be done with AMS Council in 2025.

My first AMS Council meeting was at the beginning of 2023 during Eshana Bhangu’s presidency. In 2025, after two years of near-perfect attendance, I was ready to retire from following student politics. I associated the AMS with negativity and hostility — within the AMS, and towards student organizers.

I wrote all my discontents into the Barry ‘Bee’ Buzzword joke candidacy. After that? I awaited my life of blissful ignorance, free from student politics.

Yet since my editor convinced me to write this column, I’m more involved than ever before — and gladly, too. This is the healthiest and most productive term of AMS council I’ve experienced, and my nearly three years attending council exceeds most councillors’ time sitting on it. With that, I’d like to take you through the previous year: where it started, how it progressed, and where I hope it’s going into this year.

A toxic culture

At the start of this year, the AMS was a noxious environment. It was known for one thing: the drama.

In November of 2024, then-VP Academic and University Affairs Drédyn Fontana was removed from his position. An internal investigation concluded he made a “misrepresentation to AMS Council” and demonstrated “poor performance and conduct.” It was the first removal of an executive in AMS history. Fontana contests the reasons for his removal and is suing the AMS for wrongful termination of his employment.

Two days after Fontana’s removal, then-VP Finance Gavin Fung-Quon took an indefinite leave of absence. (This was effectively a resignation. The only difference is that the AMS wasn’t required to hold an election for his replacement. This loophole has allowed the AMS to appoint unelected replacements for Fung-Quon, 2023-24 President Esmé Decker, 2023-24 VP External Tina Tong and 2022-23 VP AUA Dana Turdy).

Then, in February of this year, both then-VP External Ayesha Irfan and Fung-Quon resigned within 10 minutes of each other. Just over a week later, The Ubyssey’s news team published its investigation into Fontana’s removal. The report includes quotes from Fontana, Fung-Quon, Irfan, Decker and Turdy, all urging the AMS to improve its “toxic corporate culture,” to use Turdy’s words. “I was scared all the time,” Decker said. Fontana said “It’s a pattern of behaviour. I’m not the first victim.”

(Point of Inquiry is published in the opinion section, which is editorially independent from the news section. Neither the piece’s authors nor the news team have editorial control over what I write here.)

I believe the reports of a toxic culture. When the story came out, key AMS figures displayed their immaturity for everyone to see. Then-President Christian Kyle, former-VP AUA Kamil Kanji (who was Fontana’s predecessor and the partner of his successor) and EPA member and former-President Eshana Bhangu posted their responses to The Ubyssey’s media request on the r/ubc subreddit.

Bhangu and Kanji’s profane posts described The Ubyssey’s questions as “dumbass” and “[reddit censor lol]” while comparing the paper itself to TMZ and a “knock-off gossip girl.” Bhangu described The Ubyssey’s questions about potential conflicts and procedural biases in Fontana’s removal as “time to just troll a little bit.” This juvenile, schoolyard mockery shouldn’t be publicly posted by our elected representatives. (Admittedly, many adult politicians disagree with me.)

The Election

As those who have read any of my columns will know: I ran as joke candidate Barry ‘Bee’ Buzzword in the 2025-26 AMS Presidential election against AMS President Riley Huntley and Fontana. I described the criticisms that motivated my campaign in an opinion essay co-written by fellow joke candidates Eve Sankar (/u/sasamats) and Tony Kulenovic (Nobody).

During the first debate, I realized that we’d be in for more of the same. Huntley’s platform was plentiful but unfocused. Many goals would fit better in a vice president’s portfolio. Others were overdone and uninspired — such as the oft-promised exam database. (The AMS led the creation of an exam database a decade ago. Though it cost $80,000, few professors uploaded exams to it.) His campaign priorities echoed those of Kyle and Bhangu, whose presidencies perpetuated toxicity in the AMS.

The second debate only confirmed what I knew. I ate 200 grams of honey that night — a spoonful whenever Huntley used his debate time to attack Fontana. Throughout the debate, Huntley barely mentioned his own platform. He focused instead on Fontana’s inadequacies. The same toxic environment was playing out again.

Huntley wasn’t the first choice on my ballot. Nor my second. Or third.

I was excited for the vice presidents, though they mostly ran unopposed. And I was especially excited for VP External Solomon Yi-Kieran’s vision for advocacy and was impressed by VP Finance Gagan Parmar’s computerless debate performance. However, once presidential results were in, I started making predictions about who would be the first executive to resign.

I was wrong.

The toxic culture of years prior has been excised from our union. I haven’t seen evidence of destructive internal strife in the AMS. No longer are reporters being publicly berated for “dumbass” questions. Instead, our union is focused on working for students, from organizing advocacy campaigns to repairing relationships.

Huntley has been the best president I’ve experienced in the AMS. Throughout the year, his demeanour has been markedly different from Kyle’s. From the start of his term, Huntley has proven willing to engage and adapt to feedback. (One of his executive goals was inspired by a conversation we had via direct message.)

In my first essay for this column, I called on the AMS to be a leader and resource for student movements on campus. Since then, the AMS has mended relationships that were strained by previous executive teams — such as those with resource groups. Our union also started advocacy campaigns of its own, inviting students to participate in a Rally for SkyTrain. Though I was critical of the event, I’m glad it happened.

That essay also challenged students to be willing to work with the AMS, rather than attack our representatives at every misstep. Though there have been some instances of hostile student engagement with council, interactions have mostly been respectful and professional. Our union has also succeeded in drawing students into its governance activities, such as during this year’s quorate annual general meeting — a rarity in the past half-century.

The AMS has kept students updated on its advocacy. On the AMS’s Instagram, we’ve seen our executives speak at Vancouver City Council, photos after lobbying the premier and video from a televised press conference delivered from Victoria.

Advocacy continued on the Point Grey campus, too. Vice-President Academic and University Affairs Zarifa Nawar continued to run the annual Textbook Broke Campaign, which advocates for UBC to use more free or low-cost educational materials.

Our union has made impressive strides in clawing its way out of a years-long deficit and has shifted from a defensive posture to a long-term outlook. The AMS changed its investment strategy, accepting more year-to-year risk in exchange for greater long-term gains.

Though in the short term, we still feel the AMS’s budgetary strain. AMS businesses have been struggling. (Council has cited low alcohol sales and the Friendlier’s reusable containers as potential reasons.) With the failure of this spring’s fee-increase referendum, council was forced to limit the number of AMS-sponsored clubs.

The year ahead

2026 will be a good year — if the positive momentum continues through the AMS elections in March. This isn’t just blind optimism. This year’s executive team has built a strong foundation for our union’s future success. The future of the AMS isn’t toxic culture and constant resignations. The coming year will focus on improving our union and student experience. Executive infighting will be left behind in 2024 and early 2025.

The AMS will continue the important work of reducing our operating deficit. I expect we’ll see another fee-increase referendum during the election. Should students vote against it, we’ll continue to face tactical cuts to AMS services like the club limit imposed this summer. Our deficit is currently just under a million dollars (down from over $5 million in 2022). It’s possible we’ll eliminate the deficit in 2026, though if we don’t, it won’t be much longer.

Despite the efforts of the AUA office, our tuition will likely continue to increase. If we’re lucky, it will only be by 2 per cent for domestic students — but the AMS has raised concerns that it may be higher if the provincial government ends the Tuition Limit Policy that has capped annual increases at 2 per cent since 2005. If the province does so, I hope for an AMS-organized rally built on the foundations of the Rally for SkyTrain. We need more AMS-organized rallies in general. Students shouldn’t feel like someone else is responsible for fighting tuition increases or securing renter protection on campus.

I’m excited to see whether the creation of the VP Student Life role pays off in the coming year: I expect Block Party to be a major indicator of that. I’m curious what ideas other candidates for the VP Student Life will bring to the nascent portfolio. I’d like to see candidates eager to collaborate with the VP External on advocacy events like the Rally for SkyTrain, which will both entertain students and involve them in AMS advocacy.

As students, we’ve contributed to our union’s governance and advocacy in a way we haven’t in recent years. This year has brought fewer negative student–AMS interactions. This is good, but we can do better. I want to see students productively engaging with the AMS in the coming year. You can come to the council meetings to observe or speak to council as a student-at-large. (There is free food.) I especially want to see you at council meetings if you’re planning on running for an executive position next year: you owe it to your fellow students to be familiar with the union.

I’d like to imagine this column does its part in modelling a more productive engagement. One whose criticisms and celebrations are based on facts, not overheard half-truths or unread policies. This column’s success is not predicated on every reader agreeing with my positions. That would be a sign of failure. You can and should disagree with me. If you do, join the conversation! Reach out to the Opinion Editor at opinion@ubyssey.ca or fill out the new opinion essay form. (He’s really good; you’ll be lucky to get to work with him.)

I’m excited for the AMS’s year ahead. I hope you are too.