Paper on SRC Reform Options

[Ben Reilly]

As people may know, the current SRC was brought in as an experiment a year ago. It appears fairly obvious that the experiment has failed- the multitude of positions has removed any competition for posts, yet the new positions- that are supposed to represent stakeholder/interest groups are neither elected by, or answerable to, those groups.
These failings are not those of any specific individuals, but rather of the system.

The two proposals are very different from each other, but represent a return to traditional systems. One has the advantage of proportionality and clear issue/policy areas, the other takes the increased size of the present system, and returns it to the classic legislative/executive system that it is more appropriate to and returns stakeholder representation to the stakeholder groups.

This consultation will run until Orientation week, at which point, if there is a clear consensus on the best route forwards, a motion will be brought to the SRC to enable change before the October diet of elections. Please reply either here, or by email to me at LINK:mailto:dorep@st-andrews.ac.uk

The consultation paper is at http://www.yourunion.net/system/systemp ... tation.pdf

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[Bryn]

Jesus Christ, Ben. All SRC seems to do these days is restructure itself. Is that really what it's supposed to be doing? Fine, maybe it's not working, maybe a system of subcommittees would work better, maybe not. Try it, whatever. It won't change the fact that people seem more concerned with how to decide things than actually deciding them.

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[Ben Reilly]

Bryn- one of the major points of this is to try and get a system that actually has a philosophy behind it, so that we can leave behind the bickering about how decisions are made and get on with what we should be doing- representing the student body. How can we really say the SRC represents the student body when the majority of people on it were elected unopposed?

Bryn, we need to be able to work together and do things, rather than having to fight a system that just gets in the way and doesn't really represent the student body. Any system should be there to help things happen, to enable, not to disable.

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[Bryn]

Sorry. I'm just rather disillusioned with the whole thing.

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[Al]

This is what happens as a result of needless tinkering. And all that appears to being suggested is more needless tinkering. If you want a model that worked, why not look at the formation and structure of the SRC before all the changes started?

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting Al from 23:30, 11th Sep 2005
This is what happens as a result of needless tinkering. And all that appears to being suggested is more needless tinkering. If you want a model that worked, why not look at the formation and structure of the SRC before all the changes started?

Al- both of the changes being put forwards are of a fundamental, structural nature. I totally agree with what you're saying, which is one of the reasons it is being done like this: a systematic, strategic change to a system that can last without endless tinkering.

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[David Bean]

Exactly. I can never get my head around the argument that tinkering around with the system in the past has messed it up, so we're better off leaving it messed up than trying to change it into something that actually works. And that isn't to say that none of the Spires-Atkins proposals were any good - formalising the distinction between members and officers, for instance, made it a lot clearer to everyone what was actually going on - but the current multiplicity of positions is, as Ben stated, untenable.

I'm going to go on record in saying that of the two systems Ben proposes, his 'policy model' is the one that I favour, specifically because it looks far more likely to work. I've already written an extended response to this, which Ben has seen, but for the purposes of fuelling discussion some of the main points I made were:

- The policy model is a lot smaller, which is good because it takes account of the size of the university, increases competition for positions and thus promotes diversity, and should be a hell of a lot easier to manage, in terms of making sure members are doing their jobs.

- The stakeholder system, meanwhile, essentially abolishes sub-committees, and relies upon ad hoc working parties being formed by officers who might not necessarily bother to do it (or know how to go about doing it), given that there would be no formal mandate for them to do so.

- Both systems shift the balance of power throughout the SRC, but in different ways. The policy model places the emphasis on the subcommittees, relying on them to formulate policy that would then, following examination, be adopted by the full SRC; this ensures that the groundwork of decisionmaking is being done by those who know most about the issue areas (presumably, since they would have been elected to a dedicated sub-committee), and who should be closer to the electorate. Meanwhile, the stakeholder system shifts power upwards, away from the electorate, by concentrating it in the power of the kind of 'executive committee' used by most other Associations around Scotland (who use this model because they're much larger than we are, and this is the only practical way they would work). I don't see the point in creating this extram, more remote layer of bureaucracy - this is one area where our small size is to our advantage, and we'd be wise to use it.

- The stakeholder system relies on people being elected from specific constituencies, some of which are self-defined, which would be an absolute nightmare to organise (never mind the unweildy committee it would result in!). Think about it: are we going to require students wishing to vote for a hall rep, say, to prove their address when they go to vote? I can't imagine that would do wonders for the turnout figures. Or, worse, do we farm the elections off to the halls themselves? We all know how free and fair a hall election is, and short of calling in the UN, I don't think there's much we can do to change that.

- Finally, the policy model is geared to getting things done, trating this marvellous concept we know as 'representation' as a means, not an end. The stakeholder system does the reverse. Since the SRC's sole purpose should be to work to make students' lives better, that's the way we need to go.

[hr]

I'm your Guardian Angel.

[Al]

I presume the people who brought in the seemingly annual changes to the structure of the SRC did so in the belief that they were making things better. The fact that they had the reverse result is the reason why many people question the constant restructuring. Is there any reason to believe that this change will not be swept away in a year or two? I seriously doubt that either proposed change will have any great success in reconnecting the SRC to the student body.

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting Al from 19:11, 12th Sep 2005
I presume the people who brought in the seemingly annual changes to the structure of the SRC did so in the belief that they were making things better. The fact that they had the reverse result is the reason why many people question the constant restructuring. Is there any reason to believe that this change will not be swept away in a year or two? I seriously doubt that either proposed change will have any great success in reconnecting the SRC to the student body.

Al- you are of course perfectly right in that these changes are most certainly not enough to reconnect the SRC with the student body. There are a number of other things coming up that hopefully will do though.

As to the system being endlessly reformed, I would hope that the move to a system with a consistent philosophy (whichever one it is) and following extensive consultation (both within the student body and external to it) will mean that there is an understanding that, for once and at last, it is time to get on with things rather than talking about the system.

The important thing is to get a system that will allow us all to do our jobs properly. Under each system the jobs of the officers will be very different (under the policy model, policy will be foremost, under the stakeholder, campaigns), but so long as we are being enabled rather than disabled (as at present) by the system, that doesn't matter.

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[Midget]

Quoting David Bean from 17:21, 12th Sep 2005

We all know how free and fair a hall election is, and short of calling in the UN, I don't think there's much we can do to change that.
[hr]

I'm your Guardian Angel.

Hall elections are actually alright. I mean what are we comparing them to? Union Elections? In some halls at least there is the Warden or leaving students who are often quite impartial. Whereas the Union? (Sorry if this sounds like Marco) Just students monitoring other students, sometimes with fairly extreme consequences that we all remember. No one has ever got as pissed off/insane/raging/mental over hall elections (there's been the occasional one but compared to the Union???).

[hr]

IMAGE:img9.imgspot.com/u/04/241/18/160019.jpg Too far.

[Thackary]

People probably get more pissed off because the union elections are bigger, and for some positions result in a year long contract...

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting thackary from 09:18, 14th Sep 2005
People probably get more pissed off because the union elections are bigger, and for some positions result in a year long contract...

"Student politics are the most vicious, precisely because the stakes are so small."

Henry Kissinger.

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[Little Miss Giggles]

Nice quote Too true.

[Ben Reilly]

Something that I've thought of that should be in there but isn't:

At present the SRC does not appear to be successful at either making policy or running campaigns. Most students' unions in the UK mainly run campaigns on a local level, helping on a national level, and leave policy issues up to the NUS.

They usually have what is called the "stakeholder" model in the paper- but it could also be called the campaigning model.

The question that people really need to answer is if they think we should be focusing on campaigns and leaving policy up to one or two individuals (or even joining the NUS and leaving it to them) or on policy and trusting to a campaigns officer and committees with clear remits to run the campaigns?

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[someone]

That's a great idea, Reilly--- "oh, why don't I just sneak it in there that we should perhaps join the NUS?" Brilliant.

It's not the "system" that is the problem--- anytime an officer of the Union wants to do anything and make it binding, they can just propose a motion to SRC.

You're not running a Soviet Socialist Republic, Ben (although you might like to.) The Association is not terribly complicated, its laws are as binding on independent human activity as bluetack and it has 30-odd officers. If you can't manage to marshal them for a campaign other than Simon Pepper's then I would suggest to you that the problem isn't the SRC... it's probably the people who sit on it.


[hr]

Swing down, sweet chariot
Stop, and let me ride

[someone]

That's a great idea, Reilly--- "oh, why don't I just sneak it in there that perhaps we should join the NUS?" Brilliant.

(By the way, that's what we in the automobile industry call 'sarcasm.')

It's not the "system" that is the problem--- anytime an officer of the Union wants to do anything and make it binding, they can just propose a motion to SRC. If they want to run a campaign, they can go ahead and do it.

The SRC's "philosophy" that you keep referring to should be "for the students, for the students, for the students!" We should be focusing on lobbying for increased A.U. club funding, longer library hours, perhaps even protesting tuition hikes imposed without warning on international students (contrary to popular belief, many international students are here on scholarships and, contrary to what the Saint might tell you, we don't ALL blow our minds out on coke on a daily basis).

Why do you think Brian Lang isn't doing any of it? Because the Union isn't putting any pressure on him.

The Association is not terribly complicated, its laws are as binding on independent human activity as bluetack and it has 30-odd officers. If you can't manage to marshal them for a campaign other than Simon Pepper's then I would suggest to you that the problem isn't the SRC... it's probably the people who sit on it.


[hr]

Swing down, sweet chariot
Stop, and let me ride

[harmless loony]

And here we go guys.....welcome back to the SRC Preston.....I look forward to watching another year of bickering between all you officers.....sheesh...I see you waited till after you got elected to open your mouth..*rolls eyes*

[someone]

Quoting harmless loony from 12:58, 29th Oct 2005
And here we go guys.....welcome back to the SRC Preston.....I look forward to watching another year of bickering between all you officers.....sheesh...I see you waited till after you got elected to open your mouth..*rolls eyes*

This isn't bickering, whoever you are--- I plan on harrassing General Yabroff and Director Reilly very little this year and doing my job. Plus, what is posted on a sinner messageboard qualifies as what we in the business call "rhetoric" and "goofitude," not "hostility." Hostility is walking down the street and throwing a brick through Ben's window, which isn't going to happen.

I assure you that Ben and I get along far better than a certain other director and I got along last year. And as Ben is basically my boss (as he is the DoR and I'll be sitting on SRC) I'm giving him a not-so-subtle nudge to say "get the other officers in line and put them to work on a campaign already." Ben is a good DoR and let me assure the 266 people who voted RON against me that they have nothing to fear. I've already e-mailed Ben asking him what his plans are for campaigns and I've offered my full support for what he, as the elected DoR, should choose to support to benefit the student body. I'm hoping that, this year at least, we'll spend less time on co-op housing and more time on immediate concerns. Given that Co-Op was supported in a referendum by the student body, I see no further need for debate and hopefully we can just do the study and focus on other stuff.

Furthermore, I simply like using the word "communist" as often as possible, even if it's in the improper context, and Ben (as a Labour party type) is the perfect target.



[hr]

Swing down, sweet chariot
Stop, and let me ride

[Midget]

You know I think fate was kind to be in not getting me elected to sit on the SRC.

[hr]

IMAGE:img9.imgspot.com/u/04/241/18/160019.jpg Too far.

[harmless loony]

Quoting someone from 14:31, 29th Oct 2005

Quoting harmless loony from 12:58, 29th Oct 2005
And here we go guys.....welcome back to the SRC Preston.....I look forward to watching another year of bickering between all you officers.....sheesh...I see you waited till after you got elected to open your mouth..*rolls eyes*

This isn't bickering, whoever you are--- I plan on harrassing General Yabroff and Director Reilly very little this year and doing my job. Plus, what is posted on a sinner messageboard qualifies as what we in the business call "rhetoric" and "goofitude," not "hostility." Hostility is walking down the street and throwing a brick through Ben's window, which isn't going to happen.

I assure you that Ben and I get along far better than a certain other director and I got along last year. And as Ben is basically my boss (as he is the DoR and I'll be sitting on SRC) I'm giving him a not-so-subtle nudge to say "get the other officers in line and put them to work on a campaign already." Ben is a good DoR and let me assure the 266 people who voted RON against me that they have nothing to fear. I've already e-mailed Ben asking him what his plans are for campaigns and I've offered my full support for what he, as the elected DoR, should choose to support to benefit the student body. I'm hoping that, this year at least, we'll spend less time on co-op housing and more time on immediate concerns. Given that Co-Op was supported in a referendum by the student body, I see no further need for debate and hopefully we can just do the study and focus on other stuff.

Furthermore, I simply like using the word "communist" as often as possible, even if it's in the improper context, and Ben (as a Labour party type) is the perfect target.



[hr]

Swing down, sweet chariot
Stop, and let me ride

So what are you planning to do for the ethnic minorities you now represent?