Moving forward
John Hoben The Aquinian
On the potential $1000 increase in tuition (Brandon Hicks/AQ)
The most important amendments to the SRC
Alex Carleton The Aquinian
The SRC meeting on the 15th was the longest one this year, nearing five hours. Most of it was spent on amendments to the upcoming constitutional reform package. There was so much to cover that one column barely does justice, but I will give my take on what I think were the two most important amendments. The first amendment was to remove all references to hired vice presidents from the constitutional proposal. This was the most unfriendly of all amendments, in that hired VPs were the heart of the proposed
changes. The main reason for this suggested reform was last year’s “unproductive SRC”. In particular, the president and the VP administration did not get along well, and this hindered the body’s ability to accomplish anything. The unamended document would have made the president the only elected position on the executive, and allow the president express preference in hiring the remaining VPs, though the final say would belong to the SRC. The amendment passed, so core of the proposed structural changes will not be in the document being voted on next week. The loudest supporters of the amendment voiced concerns that hired VPs were less democratic, and the proposal concentrated too much power in the hand of the president. On the other hand, there is a strong argument in favour of the suggested changes: a united executive mandate
is more effective, and it would still be accountable to the SRC. I voted in favour of the amendment, and therefore against the proposed changes. Generally, I am not predisposed to large or fast change, and I thought that there was not strong enough reason to reform the executive in one swoop. As well, I would prefer to see more student involvement with the SRC before we give it the huge task of holding a united executive accountable. I felt a lot of the opposition to the changes lacked substance. A common reprise was that the changes were “undemocratic”. The problem with this is that democracy is not necessarily a good in itself, and more elected positions does not necessarily mean a better government. Surely judges and secretaries of state function well despite not facing elections. Keeping in mind I voted for it, I have the feeling that in part this
Thursday’s SRC meeting, clocking in at just over four hours, is certainly the longest meeting since I’ve been on council. It also demonstrates the importance of what’s being discussed. I don’t think anyone would say our governing documents are perfect, and I’m certain we’re all in agreement that there are definitely things that should be changed. Right now, the discussion we’re having is essentially what we’re going to talk about. I put forward a list of things I thought merited discussion, we discussed it at our meeting, we discussed it with students, and then everyone had the opportunity to put forward things they wanted to be added to the list of topics or removed. Then we discussed it all again. Next week, once we’ve finished discussing what to discuss, we’ll put it forward for a vote. Alex Carleton probably put it best when he described the entire process as very “meta.” Overall, this two-month process is probably the most open, public and democratic amendment passed for the wrong reasons. The second most important change at the table was to amend the “board of directors” back to being the SRC. In the proposed changes, the SRC would become the board of directors for legal reasons. Currently, legally speaking the executive is in charge of the STUSU. SRC decisions are not legally binding. This was demonstrated last year when a few members of the executive unionized STUSU employees without a vote in the SRC. By changing the SRC to the board of directors, the executive could no longer make legally binding contracts without consulting the entire board. The downside is that to sit on a board in New Brunswick, one must be 19 years old. No one wanted to exclude those under 19, but until SRC lobbying is successful in changing the law, this would be the effect having the board of directors.
discussion that’s been had at the STUSU in a long time. With our discussions on CASA last year, the vote was pretty much settled in a secret meeting in the president’s office on a weekend morning. I agree that there were valid points made there, but they should have been made at an open meeting. This year everything we’ve discussed has been public, civil and productive. We have a team of people who genuinely care about their constituents, and the future of the students’ union. A more open union is something I’ve strived for this year, compromising only to protect individual privacy or legal requirements. Certainly there is still more that can be done to engage students and bring more discussion to these issues, and that’s something for the STUSU to work on moving forward. The place we end up next week is going to be different than where we started these discussions at, but that’s the point. It’s been long. It’s been exhausting. But it has been free and fair. Everything I put forward were ways to make sure our council was strong and had the information they need in making decisions, and that’s the way the process has been operated. We’ve engaged students and made it a topic of major discussion on campus. Nobody has won or lost, we’ve worked together for the betterment of the students’ union and the STU community. Now, all that’s left is a handful of ideas that were tabled, and then to put the completed version to a vote.
The debate was about whether it was worth having the board of directors have legal control at the cost of not allowing those under 19 to hold a position. The amendment failed, and so the board of directors will survive into the final document. I voted against the amendment, and to keep the board of directors in the document. As much as I appreciate the concerns of those who feel everyone ought to be able to hold a position, the fact that the SRC’s decisions are not legally binding was the more pressing matter for me. Around $160,000, 60 per cent of our budget, is contracts with employees. Only the executive are legally privy to this information. Though it is true that if the constitutional package passes those under 19 will not be able to hold a position, the positions held will be more meaningful in their powers.