Live! - News

Annual Constitutional Review?

Mar 09 2003 17:46

Ed Brown

The latest batch of Sabbs look to make their mark on the Union (this usually lasts until the next lot change it)

Its a weighty document, but it's not as much to read as in this picture...

As has been mentioned at the odd meeting here and there (including passing glances of mentions at Council) a new Constitution and Regulations has been tabled for this Monday’s Union Council.

The first line of the paper, which presents the amendments, states “The Union Constitution and Regulations have a number of inconsistencies” however this is nothing compared to the large scale changes being considered which certainly showed in the various inconsistencies in the draft released to the Exec committee during last Mondays meeting. Some voices have been heard to wonder if this was not being rushed through.

Live! has heard of concerns that this constitution has not been discussed by many people outside of the sabbatical team, indeed the open meeting on Thursday which was advertised to members of council, was very poorly attended. Some officers of the union are concerned that many members of council will not even have read the up to date version of the document by the time it comes to council (6 pm Monday, Union Dining Hall), the version on the council web pages already being out of date

The new Constitution and Regulations (the most current released version as of Saturday 8th March) make some significant changes to the structure of the Union, with creation of new committees, removal of the various “Presidents Committees” (the grouping of many of the committees, such as Trading, Retail, Services, House, RAG, CAG, Health and Safety, and more….) and implementation of a hierarchal structure. Concerns that there are a lot of missing details were countered by Andrew Smith, Deputy President (Education and Welfare) by comments about how the document was meant to be a general framework. Indeed the new Constitution and Regulations does only put in place a frame work for how much of the structure will work. Standing Orders will need to be devised for the various standing committees as to how they will actually operate, and what the subcommittee structure will be.

Email this Article | Share on Facebook

Discussion about “Annual Constitutional Review?”

The comments below are unmoderated submissions by Live! readers. The Editor accepts no liability for their content, nor for any offence caused by them. Any complaints should be directed to the Editor.

1. Hamish Common

Mar 09 2003 19:48

Oh. My. God.

2. God

Mar 09 2003 20:16

Don't look at me! You wrote the darn thing Hamish. I didn't have anything to do with it!

3. Mustafa Arif

Mar 09 2003 23:05

To be fair, Hamish's document was very good. It was written when the old document was universally accepted to be too long and inflexible. There was a wide-ranging consultation at all levels of the Union and it took several months.

The 'inconsitencies' are not in Hamish's work but the amendments put through last year (to create faculties). They are quite minor and could be fixed relatively easily.

However, this "review" creates many more inconsistencies, is poorly thought through and has been based absolutely no consultation (other than incorporation of the policy regarding Deputy President job descriptions that I proposed at a previous Council). It proposes consolidation of committees that has been tried before and failed. What's more, the wording used is extremely verbose which not only introduces inflexibility but also invites further tinkering.

Frankly, the only part of the Constitution that needs changing is the line that says that it needs to be reviewed every year. It's about time someone deleted that so that sabb teams didn't feel the need to constantly tinker.

It's about time we tried to use "the system" to do something useful for our students rather than constantly meddling with paperwork.

4. Andy Heeps

Mar 10 2003 10:10

This should be rejected, and all the sabbs censured for this astonishing waste of time and money.

A poor workman blames his tools. Bad sabbs blame their constitution.

5. Random Student

Mar 10 2003 11:25

Mr Common, Mr Heeps and Mr Arif...You guys are not completely right.

Constitution is important because it gives an indication of the overall strength of the body.

Not the argument that you guys put forward in a reverse logical order.

I am sure Mr Arif has no intention to work under a weak constitution in the future.

6. Seb

Mar 10 2003 11:55

It was the before and after diagrams of the structure that had me in stitches.

But seriosuly, given that Hamish Common actually said that one of the voting procedures used in the censure (over secret ballot) was wrong, did that actually get fixed?

7. Eddie

Mar 10 2003 11:56

Seb,

I dont believe it has been. I couldnt find it. Its on my "To Do" list

:-)

must read the whole thing at some point....

8. Andy Heeps

Mar 10 2003 12:05

Dear Random Student

The Constitution is never going to suit any particular sabb at any particular moment - there will always be sabbs who think there is a better way of structuring the Union.

For example, I think the way the Union was structured when I was President was overly bureaucratic (for example, I thought UFC was largely redundant), but given that my Union Council had set a programme of policy regarding merger, academic representation and club and society expansion, we decided to use the tools given to us by the constitution to implement these, not sit around dreaming up fabulous new rules and committees which might or might not make it easier in the future (when we wouldn't even be around).

For a sabb to make his or her mark on the Union, they should not just tinker with the constitution - but should strive to make IC and the Union a better, more pleasant place to be.

Do any of our current sabbs pass that test?

Closedd This discussion is closed.