Point of Inquiry: Scooter Dom dropped out. What does that mean for the election and the AMS?

Point of Inquiry is a column written by AMS Columnist Quyen Schroeder about our student union’s governance and policies. It seeks to analyze the AMS with a critical — but constructive — eye.

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.

Editor’s Note: In this column, Schroeder discusses The Ubyssey’s role in moderating debates for student political office. That moderation is performed impartially by the News section, which operates separately and with separate staff from the Opinion section, where this column is published.

Two candidates for the newly-created VP student life position attended Wednesday’s debate in the Michael Kingsmill Forum: Interim VP Student Life Kevin Heieis and campus microcelebrity Dominic Tomkowicz (known online as Scooter Dom).

Going into this debate, I was looking out for a candidate who had a strong vision for the future of the VP Student Life Office — one that would justify the position’s creation — and the competence to execute that vision. I also hoped to learn how each candidate envisioned their portfolio overlapping with other executives, given the broad scope of their mandate.

(I ran as joke candidate Barry ‘Bee’ Buzzword in the 2025–26 AMS Presidential election. One of my opponents, fellow joke candidate /u/sasamats, was endorsed by Tomkowicz.)

VP student life is a new position formed this spring through the passage of a referendum. The previous administration was careful to specify that the VP Student Life wasn’t just the VP of partying, but in its current state, the role is vague. Compared to other executive positions like the VP external — which, for example, has a clear mandate to represent student priorities to organizations external to the university, like the province or TransLink — the VP student life has a much less defined role. In the six months since its creation, the VP Student Life has taken on campus events, previously the domain of the VP administration, as well as responsibility for caring for student mental health. In previous years, the VP finance’s management of the AMS/GSS Health and Dental Plan meant they assumed responsibility over the insured mental health care coverage provided to students.

Here’s what I have to say about the debate, both candidates, and Tomkowicz’s decision to withdraw from the election.

On debate procedure

In a notable departure from long-time AMS election precedent, Wednesday evening’s debate was not moderated by The Ubyssey — the independent student press and the only media organization who regularly reports on the AMS. Instead, recently-appointed Speaker of Council Josh Bradbury moderated the debate.

Bradbury wasn’t an outright biased moderator, but the precedent of allowing the Speaker to moderate election debates is concerning. The proximity of the Speaker to the AMS calls into question the integrity of the debate. Although they are not intended to be a political extension of the AMS executive, speakers are confirmed by a vote of Council, which includes AMS executives like Heieis. (AMS President Riley Huntley said in a statement that Heieis recused himself from the September 10 Speaker confirmation vote.)

(I ran as joke candidate Barry ‘Bee’ Buzzword against Huntley in the 2025/26 AMS Presidential elections.)

The Speaker’s prewritten questions left much to be desired. Many of them were so vague as to be useless: “If you could introduce one new student event run by the AMS, what would it be and why?” Another question asked candidates their top three goals, and which one of the three was their “single main goal.”

Neither of these questions challenged the candidates. They were free to share their goals, but rarely did the Speaker’s questions force the candidates to consider the position’s complicated realities.

For the AMS general election in the spring, The Ubyssey’s News team should moderate debates — as has been tradition for at least eight years. The News team is independent from the AMS and has experience asking questions that challenge candidates.

Kevin Heieis

Last year, Heieis was the special projects lead in the office of the AMS president — a role which he claims was “instrumental” in the creation of the VP student life position. After the referendum to create the position passed this spring, he was hired into the role on an interim basis.

According to Heieis’ LinkedIn, he declined an offer to be put on the ballot as a Liberal MP in the recent federal election, writing that he’d instead taken “the single most influential position I could have to make a real positive impact on the wellbeing of these 60,000+ students” — the VP student life position.

Though perhaps “single most influential position” is a bit of an exaggeration, Heieis has proven competent during his tenure as an interim executive. He secured funding for 600 gym bursaries and engaged the Disabilities United Collective about accessibility in campus events. He is also working on revisions to the Student Experience Survey that will help identify demographics who feel separated from the campus community. By the end of his term, he says he’ll develop a multi-year student life strategic plan.

Heieis is also attentive to the fiscal limits of the AMS. For instance, ahead of Mental Health Week, he is planning to use funding from UBC Thrive — a UBC wellbeing initiative to promote mental health — and seek external sponsors.

Despite his experience in the AMS, parts of Heieis’ platform are unfocused and trivial. During Wednesday’s debate, Heieis said that “UBC has bleached our campus from bright blue and gold to navy and white,” claiming that UBC’s shift from official colours of blue and gold to navy and white prevents students from forming a shared campus identity (an idea he wrote about in a Ubyssey opinion essay last year). Heieis also wants to continue collaborating with the university in the aim of developing merch that is “interesting to students.” I question the value of one of our executives spending time and resources developing Thunderbirds baseball jerseys — regardless of how he was able to convince the university to contribute $3,500 towards the jerseys’ production.

When asked how the VP student life interacts with the VP administration’s role, Heieis said the former would serve as an additional resource to student groups; the VP student life would support with branding, events and colour selection while the VP Administration’s Office would manage room bookings and renewals. While an executive assisting a club in selecting colours hardly seems necessary, I am glad to see Heieis has a theory of how his responsibilities intersect with those of other executives.

Dominic Tomkowicz

On the Instagram Live announcing his candidacy, Tomkowicz failed to describe his platform or portray an understanding of the position. “We’ll think of that plan. The first plan is to address it first,” he said in response to a question about his plan for mental health before he answered a question about doing 10 pushups. The rest of the stream was equally vacuous. He incorrectly described the AMS’s existing health care coverage, prayed for mental health and described how he’d improve the mental health of a hypothetical person sitting on a bench. Commenters noted he didn’t even have “concepts of a plan.”

For the debate, Tomkowicz arrived with plenty of ideas and precious little knowledge about their feasibility. He pitched peer-based resource groups — a concept nearly identical to the extant AMS Peer Support. He sought to speed up club approvals, unaware that the number of AMS Clubs was capped this summer at 350. When asked about funding his events, he said he’d “definitely cut out some things” — only specifically mentioning the start-of-year AMS student planners. The cost of planners pales in comparison to events like the AMS Block Party, which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

On Thursday evening after the debate, Tomkowicz announced on his Instagram that he’d be withdrawing from the race. “The position I am running for isn’t for me. I admit that I was way too rash,” he wrote.

That same evening, AMS President Huntley sent me screenshots of a conversation he had with Tomkowicz in which the two discussed Tomkowicz’s withdrawal. This is not the first time Huntley has messaged me about AMS politics. I did not solicit Huntley for this information, and he did not request that these messages about the by-election be off the record or on background.

"Mohkam Malik was the one who put me up to this," one of Tomkowicz's messages read. "He approached me one time and told me about the position and how easy it would be."

Malik has run for various positions in both the 2024 and 2025 AMS general elections, including for Senate in 2025, Board of Governors in 2025, VP Finance in 2024 and The Ubyssey’s Board of Directors (which has no control over our journalism) in 2024. He lost or withdrew from every election. While campaigning, he was abrasive. Much of his debates were spent attacking his opponents. On his social media, he misinterpreted other candidates’ statements — often removing context or simply misquoting his opponents to cast them in a poor light.

Tomkowicz added, "he wanted to work under me if I was elected."

I reached out to both Tomkowicz and Malik about these allegations; Tomkowicz did not respond. Malik denied Tomkowicz’s allegations, saying his only involvement in Tomkowicz’s campaign was filming and logistics. “I have no personal, academic, or financial stake in who holds any AMS executive office, and I do not stand to gain from the election of any individual candidate,” he wrote. “While I wish the AMS executive team success in their roles, my responsibilities as a student and employee are unrelated to AMS executive portfolios.”

I struggled with writing this piece because it was clear that Tomkowicz was a fish out of water. He cared about the UBC community, even though he didn’t know what the VP student life position entailed or what resources would be at his disposal. In a message to Huntley, he wrote “now I know the responsibilities of [the VP student life] and I care too much about the people who know me to fail them.”

It would be easy to judge Tomkowicz for his four days of campaigning, but I think Tomkowicz’s approach to his candidacy parallels how many students interact with Council. He was passionate about student life, hoping to make a difference. He decided to run, showing up without having done his research. Because of his lack of preparation, he was ineffective and left without having made an impact.

The arc of Tomkowicz’s campaign is a familiar one. Students find an avenue to improve our university. They advocate — to the AMS, to the university, or to social media. But without having made the effort to understand the audience of their advocacy, they are unsuccessful.

Last month, this familiar arc played out beat for beat at AMS Council. Students rallied by the Migrant Students United Vancouver Instagram account arrived at Council to oppose a policy that would allow certain AMS staff to use body-worn cameras. Their Instagram story asked “Who will review footage? Who will have access to the footage? … Will footage be shared?” — all questions answered on the second page of the publicly available three-page policy. After fifty minutes, the policy passed unamended.

You don’t need to have extensive student governance experience to run for a student governance position or oppose a policy change at Council. But even a first-time candidate or Council newcomer owes their fellow students a perspective that is well-researched and thorough. Passion alone does not make change.

To conclude

Neither candidate excited me — either in their platforms or during the debate. I still question whether a full-time executive position dedicated to campus events and mental health is worth the Student Life Office’s $97,000 price tag. However, the VP student life position was almost literally made for Heieis. I expect he’ll fill it competently.

With the near-certain election of Heieis, four of the six members of our union’s executive team will have won their positions in uncontested elections. Only VP Academic and University Affairs Zarifa Nawar and Huntley beat out other candidates at the polls. For what this administration lacks in the legitimacy of competitive ascendance they should make up for in taking particular care to respond to student concerns — such as those they’ll hear at the AMS’ Annual General Meeting on October 22.

As for this election, I will be voting for Kevin Heieis — albeit, unenthusiastically.