The Insiders
-
Jan
15
Issue of the day: Student Senate Caucus, efficacy of.
Posted by: Neal Yonson | January 15, 2008 | 8 Comments
I admit that I cannot comment on the senate proceedings this past year, as I am now living on another continent. However, if history is an indicator of the present and future, I will allow myself to write a short excerpt on student senator’s and their caucus’ effectiveness.
The Continuity Harp
The majority of the Senate’s members are faculty members and deans, so by virtue of tenure they can be elected to three year terms successively with no limit (life permitting). This contrasts with student senators rather starkly, whose university career often gallantly flickers away after four or five years, and for this reason serve a term which lasts only one year. By no means is it shocking to see a faculty member serve the senate for over a decade, whereas the rare student will stick around for three terms (three years).
Continuity in the student caucus of senate is painful at best, due to the sheer nature of the electoral process: you get elected onto the senate based on experience of university/academic matters (in theory at least), which by definition requires you to have completed a minimum of one year of university, often more.
It has been the case that most student senators happen to be senior students, graduating the next year to go on to other things in other places. Since the Senate meets once a month at best, and its committees meet anywhere between twice a month to not at all, often the most focussed, well prepared items brought forth by student senators require more than one year’s worth of effort. Even with the least amount of cynicism do I dare say that in order to achieve any change, one needs to sit on the senate for more than one term. Often, this does not happen.
We have been lucky in the past to have incredibly thorough senators, who have created, revised, and passed down a monstrous volume of a senate transition package (now probably exceeding 70 pages). The upside of it is that each student senator for the past four years has left their advice and insight. The downside of it is that the incoming senators have to read it, and very few of them actually do for whatever reason.
Quite often, the same cycle is repeated: the first few meetings, no matter how integral the timing of them, receive very little student-driven items on their agenda.
Internal Dynamics
The efficacy of a caucus is determined by the leadership and drive of the group itself. There may be concrete goals a caucus wishes to achieve, and there may be key developments in which students need to take a solid stance. In both cases it is up to the individual senators, under the guidance of the chair, to put in many hours to be well prepared by digging up institutional memory and history to present a clear argument effectively and eloquently.
There are thousands of students in some faculties, and only one designated representative to the senate. Not all senators are elected based on key platform points which they want to see through. Some senators are simply elected on a promise to show up to every meeting and contribute to discussion as well as they can. If this senator happens to find a birthday party more appealing than a senate meeting, she or he may have failed to present a valuable, unique perspective (and vote) on behalf of these students. It is a pet peeve of mine to see some student senators lose interest in a seemingly tame agenda, and subsequently fail to attend a valuable discussion where their presence could have turned the outcome of the vote.
Coherence with the AMS
The relationship with the AMS is murky at best. Why two senators have voting power at AMS council is mysterious to me, their presence at council less so. According to the AMS, it is recommended that their VP External attend the student senate caucus meetings. However, it would make more sense if the (already overworked) VP Academic and University Affairs took on this role. Unfortunately, AMS Council meeting and caucus meeting often overlap, and Senate meetings are scheduled seven years in advance.
There is room for greater coherence between the student council and the senators. Oftentimes it simply requires greater communication, as tiny nuances from one body is lost in a quick report to the other, and vice versa. I see this issue to be prescribed for those rare senators and councillors who go above and beyond their duties, but it can be done over a beer or three.
Overall, I believe a caucus is effective if each member wants to be there, instead of feeling they are obliged to be there. Being a student senator can be intimidating, boring, thankless (no we do not get paid), stressful and exhilarating. If any of those emotions have not been felt, then chances are the individual elected ran for the title and fancy-looking business cards.
Comments
8 Comments so far
A proposal i have been working on that is almost ready to go to the Senate Nominating Committee is to add the AMS VP Academic as a voting member of Senate. The challenge is, to follow the University Act, we have also add two more faculty members to an already oversized Senate. I’d like to see what debate comes out of this topic in the elections, as you have two VP Academic candidates also running for Senate (Nate and Rob). This is common at a lot of other schools (to have a VP sit on Senate… and even to have and exec sit on their equivalent of BoG… a policy that the AMS supports (find it in the AMS “Our Town” document)).
Also, the idea of having two voting Senate members on AMS Council was an attempt to do just that – improve the relationship between Senate and AMS. Student Senate Caucus doesn’t exist outside of the AMS Code – we created it, provide free space and food, so that we can stay better connected to the goings-on of Senate.
To correct the VP Academic, it is both myself, Alex Lougheed, and Rob McLean, who are running for both senate and VP-A/U positions.
While I am unsure if having the VP Academic directly sit on the senate itself is the best way to ensure the senators themselves are realizing their full potential, there still are many other things that need be done.
In my platform, I’ve addressed this as my second highest priority. I believe all we need is to nudge the senators a little bit in the right direction–by giving them institutional support (through staff, better physical space, prepared reports, organizing policy discussions and planning sessions), as well as giving the general student body a megaphone to have themselves heard through an open, online academic grievances database, where it is expected of them to be involved.
Also, as an FYI, Student Senate Caucus exists in the bylaws, and so does their seats on council. It is difficult to change that, as we all know, but there are ways to circumvent it.
I don’t really have anything to add to Gina’s comments since they’re pretty much spot-on, but felt obliged, due to my position, to chime-in with a few thoughts, mainly updates since Gina’s graceful departure.
Continuity:
These problems exist throughout student politics and I think are exacerbated by the nature of Senate for the reasons Gina mentioned. That being said, I think our transition package is very useful, when read. Some additional progress has been made as well: we held a transition meeting for the first time this year. Though I think there’s quite a bit for us to improve on there, I think that at least it’s been a step in the right direction.
Internal dynamics:
Gina’s point about the importance of student senators doing their duties diligently cannot be overstated. A great example of this was a recent vote on provincial exam requirements for admission. This was a vote that tied; a massive change to university policy could have occurred had a student voted differently. Student senators who can’t be bothered to show up for meetings can end up being bad apples who ruin the bushel. It’s very difficult to complain about meetings not being scheduled or students not being consulted when those with seats can’t be bothered to show up to the table or when they do are unprepared.
This year, as in past years, I’ve seen a broad spectrum of attendance and quality from the engaged and eloquent to the absent and incomprehensible (though to be fair, the same goes for members of the senate who are not students). I think a key question, related to all of this, that needs to be examined is how do we ensure that we get quality senators who take their jobs seriously?
I think one idea that should be examined is getting rid of the majority of senators being chosen through the faculties and instead having all run in the campus-wide race (though still ensuring that faculty membership requirements are met). I’d be interested to know if others think that this would lead to better candidates.
Coherence with the AMS:
This is an area where I think we’ve improved in leaps and bounds this year. Brendon deserves a great deal of credit for his time and work in this regard and I hope that there’s continued progress in the years to come.
To be frank though, I think part of the problem is AMS Council’s focus. In the meetings I’ve had the “pleasure” of attending I’ve seen little interest and focus on academic issues, which to me is quite surprising for a student society. Far too much time is spent on tangential issues and amateur politicking in the worst way. I get the sense that what goes on inside classrooms really isn’t on most councillors’ radar. Alex mentioned nudging the caucus, maybe it’s more appropriate for us to meet halfway.
With the fear of writing a response to that’s longer than an actual article, I must say that I think I’m looking forward to watching the senate race than having to run in it. I hope the media give it more attention than they have in the past and take the time to examine the candidates, in particular:
• Check out the “experience” that they’re running on – are they just leapfrogging resume bullets, or did they actually do something substantive in the past?
• Do they even know what they’re getting into? Platforms with comments about things like the “AMS Senate” (which doesn’t exist) and student housing (which isn’t under the jurisdiction of the Senate) are flags that a candidate hasn’t done a lick of research about what’s going on
• Are these realistic goals on their platform, or just candy to suck in voters? This is where I have a tough time – on the one hand I admire high hopes and lofty goals, but on the other hand I want people who are realistic and pragmatic. Year after year I’ve seen candidates run on platforms talking about things like how they will bring about change to exam rules. I’m not entirely sure that some of the carrots that are held out are logistically realistic for the university and more importantly in the best interests of students
• Are they smart, articulate and committed? To me this is the overriding consideration and the hardest to judge. Regardless of what ideas a candidate brings to the table, the majority of the work that they’ll be doing is digesting others’ long, dry proposals and sometimes vociferously supporting or denouncing them. Will this person go through things with a fine-toothed comb? Will they have the guts to stand up and say something? Will they even show up to the meeting?
• (come to think of this, I guess it applies to the candidates for every position)
Wow, I just looked at the first sentence of this post and need to apologize for my misstatement.
-tariq
p.s. Gina you’re certainly missed at SSC!
The big issue, witch Tariq touches on, is the self selection process.
Senate gets left by the wayside. By and large, everyone that runs for (and typically most of those that actually sit on) senate are in some way shape or form glaringly incompetent, not to mention almost totally out of touch with students needs.
Its relegated to the backburner by all the hacks out there, who want to run for executive positions. You occasionally get candidates running for both (like in this instance, where about 25% of the two people running can be considered competent), but thats the exception not the rule.
People run for it because it sounds fun, because its a resume padder, or because they just dont know any better.
Talk to former senators, theres a reason most student senators are one termers. Its because they realise either A) the job isnt what they expect or B) they’re woefully incompetent.
I only hope the truly incompetent ones realise this, as hopefully it leads to some degree of soul searching and personal improvement.
The big issue, witch Tariq touches on, is the self selection process.
Senate gets left by the wayside. By and large, everyone that runs for (and typically most of those that actually sit on) senate are in some way shape or form glaringly incompetent, not to mention almost totally out of touch with students needs.
Its relegated to the backburner by all the hacks out there, who want to run for executive positions. You occasionally get candidates running for both (like in this instance, where about 25% of the two people running can be considered competent), but thats the exception not the rule.
People run for it because it sounds fun, because its a resume padder, or because they just dont know any better.
Talk to former senators, theres a reason most student senators are one termers. Its because they realise either A) the job isnt what they expect or B) they’re woefully incompetent.
I only hope the truly incompetent ones realise this, as hopefully it leads to some degree of soul searching and personal improvement.
I certainly appreciated reading all of the comments about the Senate position from experienced Senators and AMSers. I suggest they be incorporated into the Senate hand-over package.
I have been favourable impressed this year with the quality of Senate candidates for the general rep. position. All candidates articulated their points well in debates and all seem to be motivated to make a difference. Thus, no matter which 5 are elected this year, I think the general student reps. will do a good job.
Having no experience in Senate I am less qualified to answer this question… but having reps. from individual faculties is nice in that students in faculties know who to contact if they have an academic issue and in theory the senators report back to their respective faculty student bodies.
I would like to see a “briefing session” every 4 months for students from the general population. It would be a 45 minute workshop with updates on the “contentious” issues in the Senate, AMS and BoG. I saw Tariq rolling his eyes in the first Senate debate when I said this (I guess he would be happy if all the student senators showed up… let alone other UBC students). However, if we put energy into the promotion, ie: posters up across campus, classroom announcements and emphasizeing the important issues I think we could get ~ 30 students out.
If elected, I will certainly ask both the AMS and student Senate caucus to consider this. In fact, I will do so even if I’m not elected, but I fear that without someone to champion the idea it won’t happen.
haha, yah…it’s not that I thought it was a bad idea…just was imagining what the turnout would be!
The pessimist (as you can see in the picture, my glass was far beyond half-empty!) in me was picturing you sitting in a room all by yourself!
I see your point Tariq.