How to make Union elections interesting

[James Shield]

Quoting Bizarre Atheist from 22:08, 6th Jan 2008
the [General Manager] position is one of very few constants in an ever-shifting organisation [...] his experience might be more valuable than a system whereby we mash up the constitution every six months

On the SRC side of the Union, I believe Iain Cupples already provides the sort of experience you're talking about.

[Al]

Quoting RobFett from 22:22, 6th Jan 2008
I will put my hands up and apologise for the lack of minutes on my Education site. The simple fact is that I cannot write minutes at the same time as chairing a meeting. The DoR is usually there to write minutes but I think I have only had one of these emailed to me. Why is this? Because he has better things to do - all of the sabbaticals are working something like 12 hour days 6 days a week (despite the working time directive)for tuppence and still don't get everything done they need to. There was a plan to get the general office secretaries to do minutes but we are still waiting for that to happen (now we have a new GM there is light at the end of the tunnel). Also, I find it very hard to do my publicity for my events because the Oli Walker also has too much on his plate.

We need:
- a couple more Sabbs
- an extra design officer
- secretaries to do minutes

This is exactly where dicking around with the by-laws gets people. Some bright sparks strip the VPC of half its remit and add it to that of one of the other sabbaticals. They then have too much to do and the VPC hasn't enough. Answer? Get rid of the VPC and add all its remit on to the other sabbs. Never mind that already overworked sabbs are now even more overworked. What a stroke of genius that was. And just to make things even worse, the posts of Association Treasurer, UMC Trading Officer, SRC Campaigns Officer, UMC House and Fabrics Convener, Association Publicity Convener, and Association Design Convener are all deemed superfluous as well. Still, I am sure the SRC Member without Portfolio can take up the slack.

[Steveo]

Quoting James Shield from 22:54, 6th Jan 2008
On the SRC side of the Union, I believe Iain Cupples already provides the sort of experience you're talking about.

His years of running the fantasy football and getting dissertations written in pidgin English a mark well above what they deserve will no doubt prove invaluable to the SRC.

[hr]

Get off my internet.

[s] Edited for too much faith in an in-line spell checker.

[David Bean]

First of all, I'd like to say that the General Manager is there to look after the financial stewardship of the Union and oversee its financial arms - not to have anything to do with anything that looks like policy, and that includes representational structure. Over many years too much power has been handed over to permanent staff already, and to allow any say whatsoever on representational matters would create a dangerous precedent.

Second, we don't need another sabb - if there are problems getting minutes for a committee, why doesn't the chairman just find himself a minutes secretary? It can't be that hard. For God's sake, I've been here arguing over several years that the DoSDA position shouldn't be scrapped as useless, and I happen absolutely to believe that it shouldn't - but I most definitely don't think we need any more sabbaticals than we have now.

Al - they didn't get rid of the VPC; they just made it firstly an appointed position with the title 'Head of Media, MArketing and Design' and then a staff position with the title 'Design and Marketing Officer'. The rationale for doing this at the time was that what matters in someone in that position is their design skills, not that they've been elected, and I supported that reasoning at the time it happened. Unfortunately, what has happened is that the incumbent of that position has lost the accountability that an elected sabbatical used to have to the student body they were meant to be serving. To me, one of the greatest challenges the Association faces isn't its representational structure, but the accountability of its permanent staff. Formally Board is supposed to hold staff to account by means of its Staffing Committee, but historically it has proved itself utterly incapable of doing so effectively. Were I still a student, and particularly if I remained involved, that's something I'd want to ask some serious questions about.

Now, Lid initially said that James' suggestion of electing the SRC at annual general meetings of the committee would fail the cross-capmpus test; well, as exnihillo has already told us, no test exists, but even if it did a vote that took place at an AGM is just as cross-campus as one that involves going into the library to swipe your matric some time during the day. So it's a viable solution - but is it the right one? Would it really improve turnout just because there were fewer positions on the ballot paper - and, presumably, fewer election posters around town? I doubt it; so the question becomes much more one of how worthwhile the positions actually are, and whether their presence helps or hinders the operations of the SRC.

I think it's a pity Ben Reilly abstains from this discussion, too, because I always thought he had the right idea about this; I think the plan he proposed in our year together as sabbs was basically a good one, but (depending how sympathetic a view you want to take of either party) either he couldn't explain it clearly enough, or the honourable members of the SRC were too stupid to understand. There were, I think, some unnecessary complexities to his plan, but in essence what he was saying was that we should declare that each committee would have a certain number of members, and candidates would simply stand to be elected to that committee - so those candidates who placed high enough on the poll would get elected to the committee, and whoever topped it would become its chairman and Officer. That way you get rid of all of Ben Spiers' pointless positions (ooh, looky, I mentioned Ben Spires again! Somebody go and give Bonnie a heart-massage) and keep the size of the SRC exactly as you like it - you could even decide that the SRC proper excludes the non-officers completely, if you wanted to. The down-side, as far as I saw it at the time, was that it's possible a person, say, standing for the first time, might not want the potential responsibility of becoming a committee chairman, whereas someone who already had plenty of experience mightn't like not being able to do it just because of an electoral fluke - but then you could alter that by having the chairmen elected separately from the committees and, I don't know, letting the losing chairman candidates take up any positions that remained vacant.

I'm sure there's a ton of other points I wanted to raise, but then I've got my own election campaign to worry about for now.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Al]

Quoting David Bean from 00:05, 7th Jan 2008
Al - they didn't get rid of the VPC; they just made it firstly an appointed position with the title 'Head of Media, MArketing and Design' and then a staff position with the title 'Design and Marketing Officer'. The rationale for doing this at the time was that what matters in someone in that position is their design skills, not that they've been elected, and I supported that reasoning at the time it happened.

I don't question that such a post should be a non-elected and paid one. I just can't understand how the post of VPC with a remit that essentially consisted being a) the Association Secretary b) the Association Senior Elections Officer and c) responsible for disciplinary matters within the Union could somehow end up being responsible for Media, Marketing and Design? Did someone mess up copying out the by-laws and transpose sections of the VPS and VPC remits? It wouldn't be the first time that a typographical mistake ended up set in stone.

[David Bean]

When was that the VPC's remit? I know the VPC used to be the SEO, but I thought the AP was always Association Secretary, and the VPS was in charge of discipline. I could be wrong, of course, but either way to me the VPC was mainly about doing posters, the web site (ha!) and the Vine.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[exnihilo]

Al's right, that was the VPC's remit.

The loss of Treasurer was madness, it was an important role apparently got rid of because one sitting Treasurer felt he had nothing to do - which rather suggests he didn't understand the job, when I and the half dozen before me held the position it was very much a real post, and almost as much work as some sabbaticals did.

Not having a Secretary, ditto, idiotic. The rationale at one point was nobody would stand for such a post which makes one wonder how every society manages to get one. Of course, when it was the VPC's job they simply paid someone to do it - at that time it was £10 for a UMC and £20 for an SRC. I did it, and I can assure you that minutes were produced both in full, in English, and in double-quick time. So if they're not appearing now, there's absolutely no reason why not.

[RobFett]

We pay someone to do SRC and SSC Minutes. I wonder if I could sequester her to do subcommittee minutes. Now there's an idea! Good job exnihilo!

[Al]

Quoting David Bean from 01:57, 7th Jan 2008
When was that the VPC's remit? I know the VPC used to be the SEO, but I thought the AP was always Association Secretary, and the VPS was in charge of discipline. I could be wrong, of course, but either way to me the VPC was mainly about doing posters, the web site (ha!) and the Vine.

When the sabbatical VP posts were created, the role of Association Publications Officer was given to the VPS. That of Association Secretary was made part of the VPC's remit.

[exnihilo]

Quoting RobFett from 08:38, 7th Jan 2008
We pay someone to do SRC and SSC Minutes. I wonder if I could sequester her to do subcommittee minutes. Now there's an idea! Good job exnihilo!

We did. I have no idea whatever if it's still done. I very much doubt you could pay someone to take a subcommittee's minutes - though if you still had a Treasurer it would certainly have been something you could have discussed with him/her when deciding your budget.

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting David Bean from 00:05, 7th Jan 2008
I think it's a pity Ben Reilly abstains from this discussion, too, because I always thought he had the right idea about this; I think the plan he proposed in our year together as sabbs was basically a good one, but (depending how sympathetic a view you want to take of either party) either he couldn't explain it clearly enough, or the honourable members of the SRC were too stupid to understand. There were, I think, some unnecessary complexities to his plan, but in essence what he was saying was that we should declare that each committee would have a certain number of members, and candidates would simply stand to be elected to that committee - so those candidates who placed high enough on the poll would get elected to the committee, and whoever topped it would become its chairman and Officer. That way you get rid of all of Ben Spiers' pointless positions (ooh, looky, I mentioned Ben Spires again! Somebody go and give Bonnie a heart-massage) and keep the size of the SRC exactly as you like it - you could even decide that the SRC proper excludes the non-officers completely, if you wanted to. The down-side, as far as I saw it at the time, was that it's possible a person, say, standing for the first time, might not want the potential responsibility of becoming a committee chairman, whereas someone who already had plenty of experience mightn't like not being able to do it just because of an electoral fluke - but then you could alter that by having the chairmen elected separately from the committees and, I don't know, letting the losing chairman candidates take up any positions that remained vacant.

I'm sure there's a ton of other points I wanted to raise, but then I've got my own election campaign to worry about for now.

Not really what it said, but as I said earlier, I'm not going to comment.

In fact, apart from being bored, I'm not sure why I'm even on here.

[James Shield]

Quoting David Bean from 00:05, 7th Jan 2008
Now, Lid initially said that James' suggestion of electing the SRC at annual general meetings of the committee would fail the cross-capmpus test...

Sorry David, but that wasn't my suggestion; I think it may have been that of he-who-must-not-be-called-Dave. [img]http://www.thesinner.net/littleicons/yellowtounge.gif[/img]

I actually agree with you that electing the SRC at sub-committee AGMs would be nothing but detrimental to turnout of both voters and candidates.

[Bizarre Atheist]

Quoting James Shield from 22:54, 6th Jan 2008
On the SRC side of the Union, I believe Iain Cupples already provides the sort of experience you're talking about.

Fair enough, I retract my earlier suggestion completely.

Quoting James Shield from 12:24, 7th Jan 2008

Quoting David Bean from 00:05, 7th Jan 2008
Now, Lid initially said that James' suggestion of electing the SRC at annual general meetings of the committee would fail the cross-capmpus test...

Sorry David, but that wasn't my suggestion; I think it may have been that of he-who-must-not-be-called-Dave. [img]http://www.thesinner.net/littleicons/yellowtounge.gif[/img]

Yes, that was my suggestion - hilarious reference to your violation of the Terms of Use of The Sinner and to Harry Potter, by the way.

I actually agree with you that electing the SRC at sub-committee AGMs would be nothing but detrimental to turnout of both voters and candidates.

Perhaps, but the original topic of this thread was to discuss a means of making Union elections more interesting, less convoluted and generally more accessible. I doubt this would lower voter turnout, in fact I would suggest that the average student only votes in March/April because of the interesting positions (Sabbs, SSC/SRC officers, etc) - demonstrated by the fact that only about 300 bothered to vote in October (many of whom only did so because they were lassooed by a member of the EOC upon trying to enter the library or Union). The majority of the 1939 students who voted in March clearly aren't motivated about these minor positions, so why bother going through the herculean effort of a campus-wide election about which the electorate doesn't care?

Instead, let's have a series of AGMs. If you care about who becomes the next Serjeant-at-Arms, you go to the UDS AGM. If you care about who becomes the next PG Accommodation Member, you go the Accommodation AGM. Simple, relevant, unlikely to ever happen.

Good lord I must revise.

[hr]

[James Shield]

Quoting Bizarre Atheist from 14:45, 7th Jan 2008
Yes, that was my suggestion - hilarious reference to your violation of the Terms of Use of The Sinner and to Harry Potter, by the way.

Such are the times in which we live, Mr Atheist - cultural resurgence of wizards and whatnot, and flagrant disregard for silly Sinner rules left right and centre, not least by the proprietor of this very interweb argument board! Oh my!
http://www.thesinner.net/messageboard-v ... read=30949

[David Bean]

Quoting Al from 09:03, 7th Jan 2008
When the sabbatical VP posts were created, the role of Association Publications Officer was given to the VPS. That of Association Secretary was made part of the VPC's remit.

Ah - when it was created, I see. But I do know that at least as early as Richard Poet, the VPC was editing the Vine and doing posters.

Ben: that's what you told me the policy said, anyway, and I'm damned if I could figure it out any better from the paper!

James: my apologies; once you've waded through this number of pages about SRC policy, summoning the will to carry on breathig is difficult enough, never mind remembering who said what on top. By the way, this whole thing about not 'revealing' people's names is a bit bloody stupid when the Strange Heathen would have been forced to reveal as much when he was standing to become the SSC Charities Officer and reveals his status as such in his user profile; terms of service or no, there's such a thing as common sense.

Anyway, my suspicion is that if we adopted the system you're proposing, Disconcerting Unbeliever, the other half of the Sinner would start moaning about how these metings of yours were poorly advertised, inaccessible to normal students, packed with cronies and undemocratic. And that's exactly what they'd be - contests won by whoever can pack most of their friends into the room, just like the SSC subcommittees' AGMs are (I should know, I rigged enough of those in my time by doing exactly that). For the SSC, one might legitimately take the view that it doesn't really matter - something approximating to the best people will probably be elected anyway. But the SRC, representation - bah, I just don't think it's a good idea. This argument about turnout is irrelevant, anyway. When turnout in local elections falls, do people then start talking about electing their councillors at a caucus? Of course not.

I like the October elections, in principle, anyway. They're a chance to have certain members' terms of office be offset from those of the others by about half a year, providing experience and continuity when a new officer's term starts. They also give first years a first crack at a cross-campus campaign (although Heaven knows it's easy enough to gt into the game later, and standing for that job doesn't seem to have done most of the last lot much good).

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting David Bean from 20:50, 7th Jan 2008
Ben: that's what you told me the policy said, anyway, and I'm damned if I could figure it out any better from the paper!

Yeah, well...

Of course, you could try reading it again. If you're bored enough to post on here, you must be bored enough for anything.

[Al]

Quoting David Bean from 20:50, 7th Jan 2008

Quoting Al from 09:03, 7th Jan 2008
When the sabbatical VP posts were created, the role of Association Publications Officer was given to the VPS. That of Association Secretary was made part of the VPC's remit.

Ah - when it was created, I see. But I do know that at least as early as Richard Poet, the VPC was editing the Vine and doing posters.

Yes, the remits were changed. We already knew that. The question at hand was why they were changed in such a pointless manner. And the first VPC served 1991-92 and Richard Poet served, what?, 2001-02? Wouldn't that make him one of the last? His time in office hardly merits an "at least as early".

[RJ Covino]

Quoting David Bean from 00:05, 7th Jan 2008
I think the plan he proposed in our year together as sabbs was basically a good one, but (depending how sympathetic a view you want to take of either party) either he couldn't explain it clearly enough, or the honourable members of the SRC were too stupid to understand.

Firstly, I'd like it noted that I object quite strenuously to this for obvious reasons. The system as created by Ben et al. was sound; however, as it was never properly implemented, particularly on the SRC side, there are, now that at least one St Andrews generation has come and gone, difficulties.

That said, I am baffled by the whole discussion. Seems to me that the Union is doing better than ever in its present form - or at least that's what keeps getting shouted about anyway. Your Union: Now with bold new Strategic Plan and everything! etc. How could a system so apparently inherently flawed have produced such sterling work?

[RJ Covino]

And by Ben there, I mean, of course, the DoS variety.

[exnihilo]

Quoting David Bean from 20:50, 7th Jan 2008

Quoting Al from 09:03, 7th Jan 2008
When the sabbatical VP posts were created, the role of Association Publications Officer was given to the VPS. That of Association Secretary was made part of the VPC's remit.

Ah - when it was created, I see. But I do know that at least as early as Richard Poet, the VPC was editing the Vine and doing posters.

And earlier than that they edited Newsreel while the VPS organised the poster run and a marketing team actually produced many of said posters or simply distributed them on behalf of those who had produced them themselves. Poet, as has been pointed out, fine chap though he is, was a VPC whose job ad already been messed with a fair few times.