How to make Union elections interesting

[Bizarre Atheist]

I've got it.

The problem with the SA elections is that there are simply too many of them in the campus-wide Union-administered March/April diet of elections. You might care who becomes Education Officer, DoR or (heaven forfend) Charities Convenor, but perhaps you're not bothered about the less prominent roles.

So my question is this; why is every one of the forty-eight thousand people on the SRC chosen in the main election? SSC subcommittees are composed at their respective AGMs, why not allow the relevant SRC officer to organise an AGM at which the members are chosen? This would reduce the monstrous pile of paper we're bombarded with in campaigning week and indeed the paper used to vote with.

Contentious? Maybe. Sensible? Most certainly. I'm no expert on election or SA rules on this matter, but certain Sinners are - how can we do this? Bloodless coup?

[hr]

[Steveo]

Quoting Bizarre Atheist from 18:45, 3rd Jan 2008

So my question is this; why is every one of the forty-eight thousand people on the SRC chosen in the main election?

They're not - a fair few are elected in October (I say more should be, if we're to keep them at all).

SSC subcommittees are composed at their respective AGMs, why not allow the relevant SRC officer to organise an AGM at which the members are chosen?

That's different, in that the SSC subcommittees (Societies excluded) come from an organised, specific interest body, such as debaters for debates etc.

My personal preference is to shrik the SRC back closer to the size it used to be, with less pointless positions.

[hr]

Get off my internet.

[Lid]

I may be horrendously wrong, but there's probably something under the pesky Education Act 1994 that says it has to be elected by Campus-wide polls. And while everyone is a member of the Association, not everyone is a member of the SRC - or something silly like that.

Don't get me wrong though, I agree wholeheartedly.

There's probably a way of getting round it with some big hatchet job at the constitution, but then again how that would fit into the current rewrite of the articles of Association, god only knows, as you, Mr Atheist will appreciate.

My advice? Can of petrol and the keys to the archive. And as for a bloodless coup, perish the thought!

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[Lid]

Quoting Steveo from 19:24, 3rd Jan 2008
That's different, in that the SSC subcommittees (Societies excluded) come from an organised, specific interest body, such as debaters for debates etc.

But then it begs the question is that working either? At the last Debates AGM, we had the Board of Ten there, the new Board of Ten (of which the difference wasn't immense, lets not pretend there were 20 people there), a few interested stalwarts like ourselves and one person ineligible to vote due to their bad standing within the Union.

Add on a few more that were dragged along from to the bar to vote or ushered in when the ballot box opened and I think there were just over 20 votes cast. Democracy in action, folks.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[James Shield]

Quoting Steveo from 19:24, 3rd Jan 2008
My personal preference is to shrink the SRC back closer to the size it used to be, with less pointless positions.

I certainly suspect we could cut the SRC by at least a third without noticing much of a difference, and would be very much in favour of doing so if someone would be so kind as to navigate the Association around the relevant bureaucratic hurdles.

I don't mean for this to sound like some sort of ruthless cull, but year reps, faculty reps, and one of each of the private & University accommodation rep positions could be done away with for a start - and that's 10 positions gone already. Here's a question for you though - which of the following consequences would this have?

1. The intended consequence - elections get more competitive due to the smaller number of positions, meaning that people who manage to win a position make damn sure they do a good job. More work gets done despite the smaller membership because everybody is motivated and has had to think up a convincing plan of action in order to win. SRC's reputation is improved - it now does more things for more students and makes a better job of both doing and publicising them. More students make use of its representational facilities and run for positions in subsequent years. The whole thing is a riproaring success.

2. The slightly less bad of the two potential unintended consequences - the same amount of work gets done as before because the positions that were eliminated were pointless positions anyway. However, the smaller membership means word-of-mouth encouragement to run for SRC positions declines to a new low. Elections become less competitive, attracting candidates from a smaller and less representative pool of people. Winning candidates are less inclined to do work because (a) they didn't have to put much effort in to win the positions and consequently (b) there was no need for them to think through a convincing plan of action in order to win. SRC becomes less effective over a period of several years.

3. The rather more bad of the two potential unintended consequences - much, much less work gets done. This is because (a) the allegedly pointless positions are not pointless after all (certainly, not all of those in these positions do a great deal, but each year a few bright sparks pop up as year reps, faculty reps or whatever else and make a good contribution or go on to make much larger contributions in more senior positions) and (b) everything that was mentioned in point 2 ensues.

Contributions welcome from Union types of Christmas past, present and future, and everyone else of course.

[Lid]

I'd like to think 1, but not for the reason stated.

I do think more work would get done, the result of the committee being more streamlined, there being less bickering, backbiting and concensus being easier to form.

A lot of the time, once you're elected into one of these positions of sinecure, or even with a remit, there's no recourse against you, except maybe recall. I think a genuinely lazy person still could and would be lazy.

However, I think BA has a point - need these positions, if they are indeed deemed valuable even if it's because we get some genuinely motivated people every year as James mentions, be elected in a cross-campus diet of elections in the general election, or at just an open AGM of the various subcommittees. I think it could work, but then again looking at the turnout of the Association's AGM each year (and the fact it's been aquorate since time immemorial), I'm not too hopeful on the democracy front.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[RobFett]

I'm in favour of culling the positions you mentioned, and instead introducing a rep chosen from each school's Staff-Student Council (namely it's Convenor, which according to Senate should now be a student). This means:
1) Fewer positions at union elections, yet retaining a big involvement at SRC.
2) All schools get representation on SRC, and with it a good diverse range of poeple (which is supposedly what all these year/faculty reps do).
3) The Union find out who the reps are on the Staff-Student Councils are * thus improving representation throughout the university.


*This has been the bane of my life for the last two years because the majority of Director's of Teaching are useless at communicating anything. And it's prevented any meaningful discussion about the Library, ITS or internal education matters. Bearing in mind these are 3 biggest parts of my job as Education Officer it's left me feeling pretty bored.

[Lid]

Quoting RobFett from 22:44, 3rd Jan 2008instead introducing a rep chosen from each school's Staff-Student Council (namely it's Convenor, which according to Senate should now be a student)

Is this allowed under the legal mandate the SRC has (as awarded by Queen Victoria, or as amended by the Education Act)? I thought the voting members of SRC had to be cross-campus elected, hence why science students can vote for the member for Arts faculty, etc.

I may be wrong, but in which case, the members from the Staff-Student Councils would only be eligible to be sine suffragio members. Not that it matters really.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[Bizarre Atheist]

All worthwhile and sensible suggestions, gentlemen. Unfortunately, I suspect that Lid may be correct in suggesting that

Quoting Lid from 19:28, 3rd Jan 2008
there's probably something under the pesky Education Act 1994 that says it has to be elected by Campus-wide polls. And while everyone is a member of the Association, not everyone is a member of the SRC - or something silly like that.

Whilst rewriting the laws of the Association is indeed enormous fun, I fear that the sheer volume of red tape involved in reforming the SRC election system via grown-up legislation is beyond even the most aspirational of officers, members and sabbs.

What does it take to eliminate or instate SRC posts? I confess myself to be hideously ignorant of SRC ways and means.

[hr]

[Daniel]

Interesting analysis, James. I'm inclined to believe that the third outcome would occur as a fare bit of what SRC's policy implementation is voluntary -- for example, individual members volunteer to create posters and distribute them whenever there is a perceived need for information dispersal among the student body. People who run for SRC tend, by and large, to be fairly active individuals within the community. They tend to have roles within society committees, perhaps even convening or presiding over a few. They tend to be on the committees of their halls, or to be class reps, or to be involved in the union in some capacity other than SRC. Thus, prospective representatives (or at least those not running "just for the CV") tend to be fairly busy people with high workloads and I fear that the cull of various representatives would lessen the total amount of work that the SRC is able to do. People who run for their CV tend to sit idly in SRC meetings saying nothing or very little -- at best they take up space, at worst they take up time by pointless pointification. Neither outcome is, I feel, sufficiently detrimental to warrant a cull.

I would agree, however, that far greater cooperation between the SRC and the staff-student councils should be achieved. Perhaps this should be done in the way Rob suggests.

Just my £0.02.

Daniel

[James Shield]

The point on reaching consensus is a good one. I also agree on the lack of recourse. It should be the case that any member can be kicked off if the majority of the SRC decides they're not fulfilling their remit. The remits that exist are necessarily sparse, however I could certainly write a few things that members of the accommodation committee who do not have a remit should be stipulated to do each year, and I'm sure the other sub-committee conveners could do the same. I will look into this shortly and hopefully have something to bring to SRC. Likewise for shrinking SRC membership, though this could take longer to do and is likely to be far more contentious.

[exnihilo]

All voting positions need to be cross campus? What errant twaddle. A myth that's been put about for some years and which is simply that: a myth.

The SRC can, and should, elect from specific constituencies - every other one does.

Sine suffragio is not a real term, it was made up (by me) as a joke.

The SRC should either be large, representative, and meet infrequently but have a smaller Executive Committee for day to day matters as it did once. Or it should be small and meet more frequently, be more managerial and devolve many decisions to sub-committees as it also did once. What it cannot be is a large, frequently meeting, managerial committee.

[Al]

I believe that the Education Act merely states that all members should be allowed to vote in Union elections. It says nothing about all members being allowed to vote in every constituency. I for one find it ridiculous that - for example - anyone other than a first year can vote for First Year Rep. However, that's by the by.

Is the SRC too large? Not necessarily. I can remember the days when there were fifty or so people on the SRC. The problem isn't the size. It's the posts that make up the SRC. Are they all really necessary? There does seem to be be a lot of repetition. If they are all needed, do all need to be full members of the SRC? I looked - as a former Welfare Officer - at the make-up of the present Equal Opps and Welfare Committee. There's not one person on it who doesn't already sit on the SRC. What's the point of that? That I think is the problem. The majority of the work of SRC should be done in the committees. If all the "little posts" are needed, why not just put them on the relevant committee?

[Lid]

Quoting exnihilo from 23:23, 3rd Jan 2008
All voting positions need to be cross campus? What errant twaddle. A myth that's been put about for some years and which is simply that: a myth.

Well then it's impressive how these myths perpetuate - it was something I was told in my first SRC member training by the then head of HR / DoR, I forget which.

Sine suffragio is not a real term, it was made up (by me) as a joke.

As you and Mr Bean have lamented here in the past - however as it is used in the laws, and under the section on interpretation is defined in the laws, I can't see any harm in using it, people can take a stab at what it means, and if in doubt, refer to the correct section. If only you'd forseen your own success, you could have had people saying really silly madeup words.

The SRC should either be large, representative, and meet infrequently but have a smaller Executive Committee for day to day matters as it did once. Or it should be small and meet more frequently, be more managerial and devolve many decisions to sub-committees as it also did once. What it cannot be is a large, frequently meeting, managerial committee.

Am I right in thinking it need meet every 14 days in teaching weeks? I know the laws say this, but I'd also heard rumours that it legally must too - probably more of your aformentioned errant twaddle too.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[exnihilo]

It can meet when its own laws say it should meet. So, yes, more twaddle.

[Edit: speaking of errant, a stray apostrophe. My apologies.]

[RobFett]

"(d) appointment to major union offices should be by election in a secret ballot in which all members are entitled to vote;"

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/uk ... #pt2-l1g20

One could argue that "major union offices" might only include sabbaticals and officers.

Even if my interpretation of the act is not correct then there are certainly ways around it. For example: let us say that we elect staff student council convenors onto the SRC. This would be done through a vote in each school where any member of any school is entitled to vote. In reality it is highly unlikely that any student outside of the school would vote. We would of course need to ensure that a member of say English could not run to be convenor of Maths. I suspect that this would be a reasonable rule to impose under any act, but should it not be then one could get away with introducing the rule that a candidates degree subject was written by their name on the ballot paper. In effect this would be condemming them to almost certain failure in the election. "almost certain" of course but perhaps there are other ways and means to deal with this problem.

Another suggestion on a different tangent: have the convenors elected to the Senatus Accademicus then by way of office put them as 'attending members' on the SRC (and they wouldn't need to show up to Senatus because it's all devolved to Academic Council which has fewer members). We could even give them votes if we liked. In short, there are clever ways around these Acts.

In answer to Mr Atheists point on the methods by which to culls/add posts: there is an annual review of the laws and constitution of the Association. This takes place at a meeting of Exec at the same time as Honorary Life memberships are decided, sometime toward the end of the academic year. I also has to pass through Board and perhaps even the Sheriffs office, although this is merely a formality. Changes are made every year so it's not really a big-un to propose yet more changes (although Steve would probably huff and puff if we attempted to do so).

I have shown that there are ways and means of achieving pretty much anything we would want to do. Let us therefore concentrate not on the ways and means, but on what we would change.

[Al]

Quoting Lid from 23:37, 3rd Jan 2008
Well then it's impressive how these myths perpetuate - it was something I was told in my first SRC member training by the then head of HR / DoR, I forget which.

All it takes is it to be repeated for a couple of years. By that time anyone who knows better will have gone and everyone else will know no different. Then, eventually, people will be adamant that things were never any different.

[James Shield]

Rob - I'm sure you know your way around the red tape better than I do, and as such it seems that there probably would be a way of adding staff-student council conveners to SRC. But the real question is whether this would be preferable to having the 20 or so members with specific portfolios we currently have - would they be more or less inclined to campaign on things, more or less likely to pick up specific issue-areas such as widening access or private accommodation? Which committees would they sit on? More to the point, would they even turn up to SRC, given that they perhaps didn't realise that their staff-student council convenership would also entail roles beyond simply helping to improve their school? And what's to stop these conveners being on the SRC as it stands, by simply running for the existing positions?

[RobFett]

Replacing existing members with convenors would be done to cut out all the elections that currently happen (which just piss everyone off) whilst still maintaining a large SRC.

I would then suggest making full SRC meetings happen 2/3 times a semester. Exec would include all officers and sabbs and would meet weekly. This would give officers a bigger say in what actually happens and would make the sabbs more accountable - things like national representation would move along faster for example.

Each member of the SRC would sit on at least one subcommittee and would have to attend. Most business, the runnings of campaigns & events and policy decisions would be taken by the committees. We would have to make it explicitly clear to the convenors before they are elected what these positions entail.

Convenors would be elected in Week 1, Officers would be elected along with the Sabbs in April but would probably commence their position at the same time as Sabbs. There would be no Union diet of elections in October. Board could be co-opted in October at a full SRC meeting thus allowing board members to serve a full year. Student members on Board and Exec need not be the same.

[Lid]

I think what James was getting at, Rob, and I agree with him, is that having education-based positions filling up the SRC (I have no idea how many Student-Staff Council Convenors there are) would be very good if the SRC was an education body, solely targeted at education policy. The way of it is not. What does x convenor of Modern History, for example, know about housing policy and why should they be bothered to do anything.

Any changes to Exec / Board makeup would require a change in the laws, as at the moment they are defined as the same person sits on both. Further, as it stands, you must be cross-campus elected to both vote and run for board - assuming there are still some elected positions there, there's nothing stopping the two SRC positions and Chair from being elected from the cross-campus elected members.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin