May Referendum

Should the union streamline its requirements of society committees?

Name of proposer:

Jacob Mirzaian

Idea Title:

Should the union streamline its requirements of society committees?

Better Category:

Union

What the idea is about:

1.         I’d like the union to continue to define how societies maintain adequate communication with development co-ordinators, communicate members views to their appropriate assemblies but without requiring that a secretary, treasurer and president exist

a.         Model constitutions which define these roles may remain the same, but in the byelaws, ie the union’s policy foundation; it would simply define the legal responsibilities and routes of representation, societies could democratically adapt the ways they  structure while meeting these responsibilities in the own constitutions.

b.         The  byelaw changes which are necessary are attached

Why have you proposed it?:

1.         These changes would allow the byelaws to become more effective a framework within which the union’s activities and different improvements and adaptations could be made.

2.         Currently a number of societies (green action, people and planet, feminist society etc) challenge the politics of the president/treasurer/secretary structure by having developed over time with other ways of working, which have their own challenges and their own rewards which have contributed to how their members work in other groups, in their studies and what they give to the union as individuals helping in the past to create things like the union forums.

3.         Misunderstandings exist between societies and management in the union of who requires what from who. This idea would allow societies to understand what the priority is: that they are sustainable, that they are democratic and that they have a clear way to manage their resources.

4.         Excessive focus on the sec/pres/tres structure can create the illusion of what is going on in a society so that the support staff and reps are in a more difficult position to understand how the societies are doing , and how they can help.

5.         There is currently an impression that societies must run a certain way, whereas this is not actually the case. Student exec, development co-ordinators and reps are always actively encouraging and supportive of groups that use consensus decision making or spoke representation... but the impression can sew mistrust and attempts to use the proposed structure half-heartedly can be more risky than making use of the flexibility that already exists to work with the society support staff to do what a socieity needs to do.

6.         The greater amount of two-way transparency all of this would bring would make all societies and groups benefit from being in a much more efficient and more open union.