Oh dear, another essay question! Can the next one at least have a question mark?
You’re right though, Lee, it’s a two-way thing, but I really think that in our strategy to increase engagement, it should be seen more as a progression from one to the other.
The Union needs to make the first step. This, in many ways, ties into what I said above about improving communication:
We need to tell people what we’re doing on a regular basis. We need to show them our successes and prove that there are things they can achieve if they get involved. We need to campaign on things that genuinely matter to them, and do our best not to get bogged down in bureaucracy and constitutional changes. And when we’ve done all of those, we need to make it simple and easy for people to get involved if they want to.
People are only going to get involved if they know and can see that we do things which are important to them. Obviously, we have to make sure we don’t waste time on pointless things – messing around with boring documents, spending too long deciding policies, running ineffectual awareness campaigns, etc (although not all awareness campaigns are pointless, many are; especially when they’re the only action taken on any given issue), but by and large this is not currently the case.
Things like the How To Rent guide, local elections guide and How To Rent survey are great examples. Huge participation, large-scale advertising and real, useful information. The advocacy services we offer (both education and accommodation) are also excellent examples of non-commercial services provided by the Union, if not by the SRC. I’ve always thought that treating the Union primarily as a service provider was a good way of proving its worth, acting as a springboard to proper representation, which is why my committee has done so many of these things over the past year.
So, these ‘services’ show people that the Union “does stuff”, as the infamous slogan goes, which then allows us to show them who’s doing it. Planning and accountability are important here, and I’m afraid to say that, well, we don’t really have much of either of these at the moment. Representatives elected to the SRC are by and large left to their own devices, with both positive and negative outcomes. Some people really take the initiative and think up some fantastic campaigns to run; others just turn up to meetings, say nothing and go home.
But this isn’t because they’re the lazy CV-polishers some would have them labeled as (though unfortunately and undeniably, some of them are). It’s largely because they feel they have no coherent and structured way of working towards their aims, and that there are no measures for recourse if they don’t fulfill them.
First thing to do – planning. As DoR, I would ensure every member of every committee had at least some plan as to how to go about taking actions on the things they feel strongly about. SRC members need training on the structure of the Union and University, the relationship between the two, and how to use the system to their advantage.
Second thing – reporting. Even if SRC members were obligated to write a quick 100 words on their actions so far and plans for the future once a month, it would give any interested students the opportunity to find out what these people actually do without having to attend big scary meetings. We should also have job description-style remits for members (I’ve already started to develop these with Steve Savage) which would outline the minimum requirements of any given member.
Here’s an example:
http://james-shield.weebly.com/job-descriptions.html
Any member not fulfilling their remit would be subject to the usual measures for dealing with such matters.
A quick summary of the above:
- Do things that are relevant to the majority of the student body;
- Tell people about them;
- Make it easy to find out who’s behind them;
- Ensure these representatives have proper planning and reporting procedures;
- Ensure minimum standards and measures for recourse.
Once all that is done, the Students’ Association will have done its part in the process.
The second part is for the student body to do (I told you it was a two-step progression!). For them to do this, we need to make sure we (a) consult widely and (b) make it easy for them to get involved if they want to.
(a) Consulting widely. The question time event in the motion I wrote in November is a good example, as would be arranging for SRC Officers to hold regular meeting times and “office hours” (e.g. one hour each week in the bar).
(b) Making it easy to get involved. Again, regular meeting times are a good idea – we should make it clear that you don’t have to sit on SRC to be a part of what it does (Sarah’s Environment & Ethics committee does a pretty good job of this so far). Helping them solve their own problems helps too – I’m thinking here of the guide I’m currently writing for hall committees, outlining the entire complaints procedure. Once students are fixing things for themselves, they may well feel like fixing things for each other.
I really believe we’re in a good situation with regard to making both of these big steps (the Union doing its part and students doing theirs). We have a Students’ Association with an ever more obvious drive towards better communication, and we have a student body that is engaged with the issues, if not the system. So yes, it’s a two-way process, but it will only be like this if we act first.