Let's start with what the various documents binding the Council say.
1. Councillors are not mentioned, even once, in the Constitution. Neither are Office Bearers, to be fair. The Constitution, being incredibly difficult to change, doesn't have most of the nitty gritty of how Arc works.
2. The Regulations give where councillors are elected from (A, B, Cofa, UG, PG), their terms of service (same as OBs, 1 December-30 November), the method of election and filling vacancies... and that's it. Nothing about responsibilities, nothing to link Councillors with their electorates.
3. The SRC Charter (passed by Council, but still not passed by Board for some strange reason) goes into a lot more detail. Included in this list are:
- Representing the electorates, by 'raising and discussing issues'
- Recommending proposals, on issues concerning students
- Ensuring OBs are held responsible for their actions
- Promoting activites of the Council to their electorates
- Actively participating in SRC campaigns and/or events
- Then the usual stuff about acting honestly, not acting improperly etc.
Now, this Charter was only (finally!) passed by SRC at the final meeting for 2009, held on November 30 last year. Apparently it hasn't gone to Board yet (I'm really not sure why). So it certainly wasn't binding upon Councillors from last year or the previous year, and it's a bit unclear as to whether this year's Councillors are (yet) bound by it.
These roles and responsibilities are important. I'm going to go through them, and give some explanation of the motivation, and how people may or may not have upheld this part of the Charter. Also, looking at just what the role/responsibility means (if anything).
'Representing the electorates' - Um. Hmm. Does this mean, well, anything? Does a Councillor's mere presence on SRC mean that the electorate is represented? Should a Councillor only limit themselves to issues relating to that electorate? Should a Councillor organise meetings with members of that electorate to try and gauge popular opinions?
This is incredibly vague. It pretty much leaves it up to the individual Councillor as to how they go about their job. The question is, is this a bad thing? Shouldn't we give leeway to individuals as to how they perform in their role?
Well yes. But the problem is, you give someone no guide, they may well end up not doing anything. Often, Councillors just end up turning up to meetings (or not even that), don't say anything, and vote when required.
Also, there's no way of enforcing that all faculties are represented. FBE and Medicine in particular are rare to have Councillors representing them, due to the heavy workload those faculties require.
'Recommending proposals on issues affecting students' - is pretty much up to the individual as well. Depending on how well you argue, anything can be an issue affecting students. Or nothing can be. Again, vague and ultimately just says 'if you want to put a proposal, you can'.
'Holding OBs to account'. Hoo boy, this is a much bigger one. This is where, in my opinion, the guts of the Councillor role is. It is a significant mark of difference between what a Councillor does, and what an OB does.
Contrary to what a lot of people have thought, including myself, there is a method to remove a member of SRC. It's incredibly difficult (and rightly so) - it requires Special Resolutions of both SRC and the Arc Board to pull off. (A Special Resolution means that, instead of just 50%+1 of the voting members, you instead need 75%+1, a much more daunting task).
OBs have their own particular areas, that they are supposed to focus on. If they're not, then that might well be a reason to at least raise the threat of removing them from office. If they continue to fart around doing nothing, or doing things clearly outside their portfolio instead of working in their area, then why should they stay there, getting paid? Arc isn't really rich enough to justify paying someone to not do their job.
'Promote/participate in SRC events/campaigns' seems a bit like filler to the untrained eye. There's a hidden catch though. If Council resolves a particular way, then the Councillor shouldn't go around telling people otherwise. SRC Members aren't meant to go around protesting each other's events. SRC Members shouldn't pass around petitions protesting a decision by Council.
This Charter wasn't in power around this time last year, when several Councillors from a particular faction postered around campus calling for the sacking of the President and most OBs, for failing to accept a proposal. If it was, then those Councillors could easily be said to have broken the Charter.
Decisions are made at Council. That's when you have the debates, the arguments, the name-slinging etc. If you want to change a decision, you bring it up at the next meeting. But in between meetings, there is a certain level of decorum expected regarding passed resolutions.
~
So what next? What should a Councillor do? What should the Charter say?
I don't really have answers for this, but one thing in particular I think ought to change. The name.
'Councillor'. It's confusing. Isn't everyone who sits on a Council a Councillor? Why reserve this name only for a subset? Maybe if they were the only ones to vote, but that's hardly the case.
Instead, I can't see any real reason not to adopt a name like 'General Representative'. It's clearer as to why they're there. They represent the student body in a fairly general way, not focussing on particular issues to the exclusion of all others.
No comments:
Post a Comment