The Key Changes the new constitution would bring:
Essentially, the proposed constitution is clearer, easier to operate under, more accessible and regularly involves more students in its activities. The main change from the current structure is that it would reinstate the Student Meetings at the top of the decision making structure such that any student, regardless of their prior involvement in Union activities or support from elected officers, can propose policy and have their ideas discussed in an open student forum.
1) It would re-introduce Student Meetings: an open forum where all members of the Students’ Union can vote and make collective decisions that would sit at the top of the Union power structure. These would take place at least twice a term and would be required to be promoted for 3 weeks in advance.
How it is now? Only Elected Officers have the right to vote on Union matters in Assembly meetings. This means that a meeting with 12 people can decide the direction of a Union that represents over 8,000 people
Why are we changing it? The idea that a handful of Elected Officers can decide on behalf of over 8000 students what their Union looks like is Top-Down, unrepresentative, disempowering to ordinary students, leads to a centralisation of power and elitism.
2) Remove the Veto Power of the Trustee Board: So for example, if the Student Meeting (which has a 1% quoracy, so over 83 students needed) voted democratically to do something, the Trustee Board can overturn it.
How is it now? Currently the Trustee Board (consisting of 8 students) has veto power can overturn the democratic decisions made by other Officers on the Assembly.
Why are we changing it? The democratic and collective decisions or mandates of students should not be allowed to be over-ruled by a smaller body. Students should be the sovereign voice of the Union.
3) Referendums WILL STILL EXIST: A Referendum may be called by a two-thirds majority of a quorate Student Meeting or a majority vote in the Executive Committee combined with a petition of 1% of the full membership. The process of calling a referendum under this proposed constitution is easier than under the current one
How is it now? You can call a referendum with the signatures of over 300 students or a two thirds majority of the Student Assembly. Meaning there's a disparity between how easy to is for students (300 signatures are very difficult to collect) whilst it's incredibly simply for the elected Assembly.
Why are we changing it? Because currently it is too difficult to call a referendum, so we are making it easier.
4) SMITHS and WIRED have explicit information: in this constitution, maintaining their autonomy and purpose.
How is it now?
There is no information in the current constitution about our Union media.
Why is it changing?
Because we value our Union media and need to reaffirm its importance.
What do you do? Usually…*insert here*
-
Hi
I’ve begun my work as Welfare and Education Officer at Goldsmiths Student
Union now, and was hoping to get some ideas from you…
I want all the new stud...
15 years ago
2 comments:
Hi Jennifer,
Just one or two points to make about your latest blog entry. Sorry if this ends up being quite long. I would have posted it to a discussion board on the yes campaigns page, but of course I have been banned from doing so. I do realise you will probably just delete this, just like you deleted other people’s comments on the official Facebook event for this referendum. Just to let you know though, I have take screen shots of this.
Firstly, “How it is now? Only Elected Officers have the right to vote on Union matters in Assembly meetings. This means that a meeting with 12 people can decide the direction of a Union that represents over 8,000 people.” In practice this is how it has functioned this year, but the current constitution allows for a system of open meetings and for referenda (like the one being called now). Now of course an open meeting can’t pass a motion, but they can put it to referendum. Or the assembly can put a motion to referendum. There are some problems with this system, such as the number of students required to turn up to open meetings (currently about 240). I have discussed this in detail here: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=47381448866&topic=7695. My comments been marked irrelevant, but if you click show post you can see it. But why not try to improve the current system rather than going back to the old one? If the assembly called more referendums and more open meetings were held, then everyone could have their say, not just those who can attend meetings. Student meetings discriminated against all those who can’t turn up, student parents, mature students, part time students, post grad students, students who have to work to keep themselves in university.
Secondly, you say this system is disempowering, but isn’t ironic that by calling one referendum you’ve managed to get me and several others I know involved in student union politics in a way I never would have under a system of student meetings (mostly due to time constraints).
Thirdly, “How is it now? Currently the Trustee Board (consisting of 8 students) has veto power can overturn the democratic decisions made by other Officers on the Assembly.” Technically yes, but they can’t just overturn decisions as they please. According to the articles of governance (available at www.goldsmithsstudents.com/pages/democracy/governance)
57. Decisions not made by the Board are subject to the authority of the Board on
the following grounds only:
57.1 financial considerations;
57.2 charity law or other legal requirements (including ultra vires); and
57.3 reputational requirements;
Correct me if I’m wrong here but does this not mean that the board of trustees can only overturn a democratically made decision if it will result in legal or financial turmoil, or will tarnish the reputation of the union. So effectively it means they are accountable for making sure the union runs financially and doesn’t do anything illegal, or that would result in its reputation being tarnished (this is important for receiving charitable funding, no?). If under the new constitution, the board of trustees doesn’t have the power to overturn decisions based on these grounds, WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE? It means that a meeting could make a decision that would have a detrimental effect on the finances of the union, resulting in funding cuts to clubs and societies, and NO ONE WOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE.
Fourthly, “Referendums WILL STILL EXIST … The process of calling a referendum under this proposed constitution is easier than under the current one”. You also forgot to mention that a referendum can be called by a simple majority at a student meeting with 240 students in attendance. Of course if you just made it easier to call a referendum under the current constitution rather than reverting back to and old, broken and UNNACCOUNTABLE system of governance, then everyone could have their say. Reduce the number of students needed to call a referendum through an open meeting, and provide support for those who want gather signatures on a petition and provide a secure place for them to do gather their signatures via the Student’s Union website.
Student meetings are not accountable, and not representative. Why should 1% of students make decisions for the other 99%. Is 80 non-elected, unaccountable students more democratic than 25 elected officers, who will be held accountable for their decisions?
Thanks,
Seamus
P.S. When are you going to allow the NO campaign to post links and pictures on the official Goldsmiths Students Union event page on Facebook. Currently its biased in the extreme. Surely as an official page it should remain entirely neutral?
Post a Comment