Democracy review 2010

Have your say on the Democratic Review at the open meeting on Friday 29th January at 12.30pm in the Conference Hall

Why is change being considered?

The strategic review of 2009 asked students a range of questions about how they wanted decisions to be made within their union.

The responses received suggested a number of problems with the current democratic model, ranging from a lack of engagement with the issues students had most concern about, to a perception of the system benefitting personal ambitions, not members.

Further to the strategic review, nearly 400 students were surveyed by the Union's Student Brand Managers, three open days of democracy workshops were held in the Union, and a survey of over 2,500 students was carried out by the Institute of Communications Studies to identify the best approaches to promoting engagement within LUU.

Based upon evaluation of this feedback, a list of recommendations were drawn up detailing how the democratic system of LUU could be improved.

See these recommendations here.

Students were asked how big policy decisions should be made within LUU

What would change?

Based upon the recommendations made, the following draft democratic structure has been proposed:

Students submit proposals to one of three councils.

Students submit ideas for things they want to change online.

These ideas are called Proposals and have two clear sections:

What I want
Why I want it.

These proposals are submitted to one of three different councils: Better Union, Better University or Better Leeds .

See which elected individuals will make up each council here

For each council a randomly selected, demographically representative sample of the student body are financially incentivised to participate.

This student panel is invited to discuss the proposals submitted to the council.

The reps on each panel are there to stimulate, inform and support this discussion. Following such deliberation, the student participants will be asked to express their views and, when necessary, take a vote.

How would decisions be made?

In order to pass a proposal, a three-quarters majority is necessary. If either the panel or the reps fail to attain a three-quarters majority (yes or no), then the proposal would be referred to referendum .

Referendum motions would only be amended or withdrawn by the proposer based on factual accuracy or the returning officer on legal grounds.

Once policy is passed the Student Executive will work on implementing the policy and reporting their progress at future councils as with the current UC system.

These meetings are facilitated by student staff who are trained and performance reviewed by their council.

Seats would be made available at all councils for other students to attend.

What would happen at the AGM?

The AGM would provide an opportunity to explore the benefits of economic democracy by providing a nominal sum of money for the members in attendance to decide on how it should be spent. This would be done on a one member one vote basis. The amount of money decided upon could increase year on year as both the students and staff at the union become more familiar and confident in the process. The AGM would also provide a great opportunity to allow members to discuss big fiscal issues such as the affiliation to the NUS.

When will this happen?

In order for these changes to made they must be subject to consulation followed by acceptance at Referendum. As such, the plans are subject to change and must be voted in favour of if they are to form part of LUU policy.

25.01.10 An executive summary of the proposal is placed on the LUU website for student comment
29.01.10 An open meeting is held in LUU to discuss the proposal with interested parties (12.30pm, Conference Hall)
01.02.10 The proposal is redrafted in line with feedback
02.02.10 The proposal is checked legally and with the University
09.02.10 The proposal is submitted to referendum
28.04.10 The proposal is voted on
01.05.10 CDS plan to action the proposal if successful at Referendum
09.09.10 The proposal is implemented if successful at Referendum

Would this be a change for the better or is it missing the mark? Give your feedback below.

Comments

Please login to comment.

Saskia Middleton: 5:45pm on 24 Feb 10
What has happened to representatives for student parents, mature/part time students & international students?! I'm very concerned that this new structure will actually make it even harder for these already alienated groups to get their needs catered for. They tend not to get directly involved with union democracy and so having an elected representative to work on their behalf and ensure their perspective is heard is really important (I know it has sometimes been hard to find chairs for these assemblies, but that in itself should not be a reason to abolish them, plus the mere existance of an assembly at least serves as a reminder to others that these groups exist). I realise any student can put things forward to the new councils, but since many mature & part time students don't even know the current UC exists or how it functions I wonder how likely they are to bring motions to the new councils?

As far as I can see, the only represenation of these groups under the new structure would be via the Exec, which is far from ideal as it depends entirely on whether the incumbents deem these groups to be worthy of their help & attention, and how effective they are in doing their jobs, things that we have sadly not always been able to rely on. We fought for the right to have direct representation of student parents and it seems such a shame to lose it completely, especially since the Student Parents Assembly has really got going again this year.

The chances of a randomly selected panel of students containing members of these groups seems fairly slim, or perhaps the attempt to make them "representative" would involve ensuring that at least one or two of them were mature, part time, international &/or a parent? However, even if they were selected, they may not feel able or inclined to take up the position due to time constraints, a lack of engagement with the union, etc. Those of use who have taken on the role of representing student parents have done so at huge personal sacrifice because we felt so passionately about the need for our voice to be heard, but you can't expect such a big sacrifice from a randomly selected person, even if there is a financial incentive (although I suppose if the incentive was very generous they might be more willing!).

I agree with Emma's comment about some issues being relevant to all three categories; in fact it seems oddly artificial to create these dividing lines when in reality they are all about our experience as students at Leeds, and have a huge amount of overlap. I presume part of the logic in splitting it up is to do with reducing the workload on any one group of people (I remember well just how long the UC meetings can go on for!!), which does make sense, but it almost looks like you've got rid of reps for things like student parents & ethics/environment partly because they don't fit neatly into the new categories!

I don't want to sound overly negative, I think the new proposals could have the potential to work if they are well thought through and if a huge effort is made to engage with the student body in its entirety (extra attention should be focused on the groups that traditionally tend to be underrepresented). I fully support the idea of reforming the democratic structures as the whole thing seems to have degenerated into one big hideous mess, and has always suffered from being cliquey & factional, with a tendency to disappear up its own rear end. However, whatever is put in its place needs to ensure that marginalised groups are not made to feel even more excluded and disenfranchised than they already are.
Hannah Greenslade: 4:37pm on 16 Feb 10
Hi Emma hope you're good,

Far from neglecting environmental issues, I believe this model will better enable students to input their proposals. The model requires that proposals are submitted to the most appropriate forum but issues are not confined to one.

E.g. If a student wanted LUU to lobby the council about carbon reduction, that proposal would go to 'better leeds'. If it was about a product we sold in the shop, 'better union' might be more appropriate.

Whilst it is true, we would no longer have an ethical and environmental assembly, there are no shortage of societies and other groups at LUU who work and campaign on environmental isues, who have a more natural affiliation than assemblies. Societies are well attended and are, I would argue, a better forum for discussing issues to put forward. Also, under this model, any individual should feel comfortable proposing ideas, rather than needing to be a member of union council.

Does this make anything clearer? Am happy to go through your concerns in more detail if you'd like.

Hannah
Emma Hargrave: 4:28pm on 10 Feb 10
I am in favour of the overall structure. However, there is a distinct lack of consideration of the environment! What happens to the environmental assembly - it appears to be wiped off the map - there is no representation in any of the three categories, when in fact it should be included in all - it affects the union, university and Leeds.

As a union and university that prides itself on its environmental achievements, we would be going back a step in not representing the environment.

Thanks

Emma