The SRC meeting on the 15th was the longest one this year, nearing five hours. Most of it was spent on amendments to the upcoming constitutional reform package. There was so much to cover that one column barely does justice, but I will give my take on what I think were the two most important amendments.
The first amendment was to remove all references to hired vice presidents from the
constitutional proposal. This was the most unfriendly of all amendments, in that hired VPs were the heart of the proposed changes. The main reason for this suggested reform was last year’s “unproductive SRC”. In particular, the president and the VP administration did not get along well, and this hindered the body’s ability to accomplish anything. The unamended document would have made the president the only elected position on the executive, and allow the president express preference in hiring the remaining VPs, though the final say would belong to the SRC.
The amendment passed, so core of the proposed structural changes will not be in the
document being voted on next week. The loudest supporters of the amendment voiced concerns that hired VPs were less democratic, and the proposal concentrated too much power in the hand of the president. On the other hand, there is a strong argument in favour of the suggested changes: a united executive mandate is more effective, and it would still be accountable to the SRC.
I voted in favour of the amendment, and therefore against the proposed changes.
Generally, I am not predisposed to large or fast change, and I thought that there was not strong enough reason to reform the executive in one swoop. As well, I would prefer to see more student involvement with the SRC before we give it the huge task of holding a united executive accountable. I felt a lot of the opposition to the changes lacked substance. A common reprise was that the changes were “undemocratic”. The problem with this is that democracy is not necessarily a good in itself, and more elected positions does not necessarily mean a better government. Surely judges and secretaries of state function well despite not facing elections. Keeping in mind I voted for it, I have the feeling that in part this amendment passed for the wrong reasons. The second most important change at the table was to amend the “board of directors” back to being the SRC. In the proposed changes, the SRC would become the board of directors for legal reasons. Currently, legally speaking the executive is in charge of the STUSU. SRC decisions are not legally binding. This was demonstrated last year when a few members of the
executive unionized STUSU employees without a vote in the SRC. By changing the SRC to the board of directors, the executive could no longer make legally binding contracts without consulting the entire board.
The downside is that to sit on a board in New Brunswick, one must be 19 years old. No
one wanted to exclude those under 19, but until SRC lobbying is successful in changing the law, this would be the effect having the board of directors. The debate was about whether it was worth having the board of directors have legal control at the cost of not allowing those under 19 to hold a position.
The amendment failed, and so the board of directors will survive into the final document.
I voted against the amendment, and to keep the board of directors in the document. As much as I appreciate the concerns of those who feel everyone ought to be able to hold a position, the fact that the SRC’s decisions are not legally binding was the more pressing matter for me. Around $160,000, 60 per cent of our budget, is contracts with employees. Only the executive are legally privy to this information. Though it is true that if the constitutional package passes those under 19 will not be able to hold a position, the positions held will be more meaningful in their powers.
