The Insiders
-
Jan
31
Issue of the Day: Systemic Reform
Posted by: Neal Yonson | January 31, 2007 | 18 Comments
So, we can’t publish tomorrow. And elections are up. So, this post is designed to have a great deal to chew on in our blogging absence.
In short, a few ideas requiring bylaw reforms have been floated this election. If we can amend bylaws for one of them…. why not all? To begin:
AMS Fees Linked to Inflation
Discussed before. Let’s do it.
Turnover Change
The UBC AMS is pretty much the only SU in the country that runs its elections in January. The status quo has three major drawbacks:
- The summer is useless for getting stuff done, because no students are around. The spring term is useless because it’s taken up with elections, lame duckery, and transitions. That leaves only one workable term, the fall, to get anything done and engage students.
- It requires execs to take three academic terms off school, instead of two. This limits the pool, and throws a scholastic schedule for a loop.
- Elections are in January, when school gets back. People don’t know about them, and there’s no natural run-up to build momentum.
Change the turnover to May 1, and give execs the summer to get used to the job, and a school year to make a difference.
Exec Re-Organization
President stays the same. Re-purpose the lobbying VPs, creating a VP University Affairs, and a VP External lobbying. That’s basically the status quo. Conceptually easy.
The other two are more tricky. I propose a VP Admininstration and Finance, and a VP Student Life. VP Admin takes on the budget, and all renos/property, and questions relating to the physical space and business operations, in conjunction with permanent staff. VP Student Life takes on club administration. But there’s a demand for more. This past year I worked on “student life”-y projects with both the VP Finance and the VP Admin, in separate capacities. They would have benefited from a single contact, one person whom I could contact. And create a go-to person, hopefully one with a vision for campus life, club activities, events, First week/Frosh, first-year students… there’s just so much the AMS could do!
Council Re-Organization
I realise this is a pipe dream. But I don’t care. I see two major issues with Council, as is. The first is that it’s arbitrarily representative. There’s an underlying assumption that constituency reps are representative of students. But that’s just not the case! Students are engaged in their University in zillions of ways, including their undergrad societies. So I propose a student council with reps from residences, Greeks, clubs, resource groups…. yeah, that’s less voice for constituencies. But to organize representation on that basis is kind of irrelevant.
The second is to eliminate ex-officio appointments to Council. Buy-in to Council is often a problem, and can be with people whose other, non-Council jobs make them reps to Council. Usually this means undergrad society Presidents, but it varies by group. But we should make sure that students on Council want to be on Council, that they’ve sought election specifically to that job. Why? Ensures buy-in, and hopefully makes it more likely that they’ll get to committees, participate meaningfully, etc.
—
I realise that the above are fraught with practical improbabilities. But they’re all reasonably philosophical in nature… thoughts?
Comments
18 Comments so far
There were Referendums a couple of years ago for 2 reasonable council additions: International Students and 1st Nations Students. The bylaw was soundly defeated, even though both groups probably deserve a seat on the volunteer Council. (Cost is not a factor as they aren’t employed)
International Students pay way higher tuition fees than domestic students, and deserve at least some representation. First Nations students get different arrangements than typical students, plus UBC-V is still on Musquem land. First Nations also deserved a seat on AMS council.
The counterargument was that all ethnic groups would then have to get a seat on council. That would not have been the case, as the 2 groups had very reasonable reasons for holding a council seat.
There were Referendums a couple of years ago for 2 reasonable council additions: International Students and 1st Nations Students. The bylaw was soundly defeated, even though both groups probably deserve a seat on the volunteer Council. (Cost is not a factor as they aren’t employed)
International Students pay way higher tuition fees than domestic students, and deserve at least some representation. First Nations students get different arrangements than typical students, plus UBC-V is still on Musquem land. First Nations also deserved a seat on AMS council.
The counterargument was that all ethnic groups would then have to get a seat on council. That would not have been the case, as the 2 groups had very reasonable reasons for holding a council seat.
I agree completely. Specifically about the fact that the “all ethnic groups need a seat” argument is bullshit. It’s a slippery slope, and you’ve correctly identified why.
Yeah, it’s hard to get a bylaws referendum passed, but I think it’s doable if we actually engage people. And if we package them into one, it might actually get the trick done.
Also, thanks for the background. The context is very valuable, since the post just kinda jumps into it.
I agree completely. Specifically about the fact that the “all ethnic groups need a seat” argument is bullshit. It’s a slippery slope, and you’ve correctly identified why.
Yeah, it’s hard to get a bylaws referendum passed, but I think it’s doable if we actually engage people. And if we package them into one, it might actually get the trick done.
Also, thanks for the background. The context is very valuable, since the post just kinda jumps into it.
So I guess this comes down to what is the mandate of the non-executive council members? Are science reps there to represent their constituents ONLY as science students, or are they supposed to represent them as complete people? If the latter, then why do some people need to be represented multiple times? Does a student from Washington state who lives in Vanier and is in Chemistry need to be represented three times? Should a Richmond commuter be represented only once?
First Nations deserve a seat on council for sure – but I feel that is a special circumstance. I am less sure about (voting) seats for international students or fraternity students. I would be more supportive of using the committee system to ensure that these constituencies are consulted and their views taken into account, rather than actually have them sitting on council.
On a broader level, do we want to consider wider change to the council structure other than giving other groups more seats? Right now the council seems borderline dysfunctional to me – there is a pretty big split between those who view it mostly as a social club and those who are trying to get things done. The former group seems to often outnumber the latter. Most constituency reports revolve around parties, with some building renovation talk thrown-in. I would like to see a way to make the general council (ie. non-exec) more engaged in the substantive issues that the AMS deals with. I can count on one hand the council reps outside of the exec who consistently have intelligent things to say about issues larger than their own constituencies.
I’m not sure how to fix this, but I think it should be fixed. It might even come down to shrinking council somewhat and weighting votes (ie. Arts has only one or two reps show up, but they have more voting power than the education rep.)
So I guess this comes down to what is the mandate of the non-executive council members? Are science reps there to represent their constituents ONLY as science students, or are they supposed to represent them as complete people? If the latter, then why do some people need to be represented multiple times? Does a student from Washington state who lives in Vanier and is in Chemistry need to be represented three times? Should a Richmond commuter be represented only once?
First Nations deserve a seat on council for sure – but I feel that is a special circumstance. I am less sure about (voting) seats for international students or fraternity students. I would be more supportive of using the committee system to ensure that these constituencies are consulted and their views taken into account, rather than actually have them sitting on council.
On a broader level, do we want to consider wider change to the council structure other than giving other groups more seats? Right now the council seems borderline dysfunctional to me – there is a pretty big split between those who view it mostly as a social club and those who are trying to get things done. The former group seems to often outnumber the latter. Most constituency reports revolve around parties, with some building renovation talk thrown-in. I would like to see a way to make the general council (ie. non-exec) more engaged in the substantive issues that the AMS deals with. I can count on one hand the council reps outside of the exec who consistently have intelligent things to say about issues larger than their own constituencies.
I’m not sure how to fix this, but I think it should be fixed. It might even come down to shrinking council somewhat and weighting votes (ie. Arts has only one or two reps show up, but they have more voting power than the education rep.)
There was some extensive discussion about exec reorganization in my year and we came up with:
– President
– VP Education (everything involving academics from teaching and learning, to textbooks, to student financial aid and government lobbying)
– VP Community Affairs (UPass, development, safety, equity, student housing, municipal affairs)
– VP Operations and Finance (money and SUB management)
– VP Student Life (clubs, events, and communications)
The two things that can be done without a referendum are:
1) Ex-officios. There is nothing to say that presidents have to be the reps on AMS council, only that they be appointed by the constitution of the constituency, which can be overruled by AMS Council. I think a *very* beneficial thing would be a second round of simultaneous council elections in March where AMS reps were elected directly to AMS Council.
2) Mike’s point hits on the committee reform package precisely. Council is very dysfunctional and I have only heard minor technical reasons why the reforms I tried to push through weren’t viable, and *nobody* has been able to tell me where the proposal is today.
There was some extensive discussion about exec reorganization in my year and we came up with:
– President
– VP Education (everything involving academics from teaching and learning, to textbooks, to student financial aid and government lobbying)
– VP Community Affairs (UPass, development, safety, equity, student housing, municipal affairs)
– VP Operations and Finance (money and SUB management)
– VP Student Life (clubs, events, and communications)
The two things that can be done without a referendum are:
1) Ex-officios. There is nothing to say that presidents have to be the reps on AMS council, only that they be appointed by the constitution of the constituency, which can be overruled by AMS Council. I think a *very* beneficial thing would be a second round of simultaneous council elections in March where AMS reps were elected directly to AMS Council.
2) Mike’s point hits on the committee reform package precisely. Council is very dysfunctional and I have only heard minor technical reasons why the reforms I tried to push through weren’t viable, and *nobody* has been able to tell me where the proposal is today.
Mike,
Right now, a student who’s taking a double major across faculties is represented twice, while a student in one faculty is represented once.
But beyond that I really dig the thoughts, particularly the weighted Council voting, GVRD-styles…
Spencer,
I’m of the opinion there’s too much structural resistance for the committee reform to ever get passed.
Mike,
Right now, a student who’s taking a double major across faculties is represented twice, while a student in one faculty is represented once.
But beyond that I really dig the thoughts, particularly the weighted Council voting, GVRD-styles…
Spencer,
I’m of the opinion there’s too much structural resistance for the committee reform to ever get passed.
Mike every year the representation is disproportionate in one way or the other because of my seats (senate, 2) and the BoG seats (2). They each belong to a faculty.
That technically induces asymmetry.
Mike every year the representation is disproportionate in one way or the other because of my seats (senate, 2) and the BoG seats (2). They each belong to a faculty.
That technically induces asymmetry.
I also think in parallel to this model the SAC Vice Chair should be a position which is paid more and has more hours per week.
I also think in parallel to this model the SAC Vice Chair should be a position which is paid more and has more hours per week.
Gina Eom said…
I also think in parallel to this model the SAC Vice Chair should be a position which is paid more and has more hours per week.
Amen, Gina!
Gina Eom said…
I also think in parallel to this model the SAC Vice Chair should be a position which is paid more and has more hours per week.
Amen, Gina!
It should be noted that both groups (International & First Nations) were offered non-voting seats on Council and all of the attending privileges. Both rejected, saying it was a full seat or nothing. They could have easily shown their dedication and “reasonable reasons” through these seats or even for showing up to participate at any time before or after that discussion.
It’s an interesting facet of Council that any student can speak with the same privileges as a Councillor. One can honestly wonder why there aren’t more people with axes to grind showing up.
The fact that the proposal was done in such a way to completely blindside Council did not help either. Moving away from the constituency-rep model requires careful and thought out planning, not a “feel-good” general vote or snap Hail Mary motion. (Note that this means it *might* have merit. Gosh!)
It should be noted that both groups (International & First Nations) were offered non-voting seats on Council and all of the attending privileges. Both rejected, saying it was a full seat or nothing. They could have easily shown their dedication and “reasonable reasons” through these seats or even for showing up to participate at any time before or after that discussion.
It’s an interesting facet of Council that any student can speak with the same privileges as a Councillor. One can honestly wonder why there aren’t more people with axes to grind showing up.
The fact that the proposal was done in such a way to completely blindside Council did not help either. Moving away from the constituency-rep model requires careful and thought out planning, not a “feel-good” general vote or snap Hail Mary motion. (Note that this means it *might* have merit. Gosh!)