Hear, Hear!!!
I shall be forced to discuss Council matters in this blog post. I know, I know...look away if you are not interested by the intricacies of internal reform or the committee system and its faults. (and you hacks will find this colloquial rant frustrating, I'm sure....)
I have some thoughts and can't comment on
POI, so I chose to come here, although
Webboard would most likely be a better place, but nobody has started a thread there on this topic. Whatever, it's my blog, and this is on my mind.
First off there is a CRAP meeting on Monday at 4 p.m. and I would encourage all councilors to
show the fuck up. If nobody goes to committee meetings it sort of defeats the purpose of committees altogether now doesn't it? (although this will only serve as a reminder because those who read this blog are most likely all probably going to CRAP, you diligent councilors you...)
Committees, I found out, are where all the 'action' is in our governance system. I did not understand that when I first became a councilor and it was James Knull who encouraged me to get on as many committees as I could. I sat on six committees last year and enjoyed it immensely. So thanks James for that heads up.
Mustafa has done an excellent job of reviewing the committee system as it stands and has given his educated opinion on how to best "fix" the system itself so that it can be more effective. I am grateful for this review and would like to thank Mustafa for taking the time to write up his recommendations. Thank you, Mustafa.
I shall digress here for a second....This type of council issue highlights one of the reasons I did not pursue a council seat in March. I feel that council spends far too much of it's time focused on internal review and not enough time doing what *I* thought was more important work. I came to realize that what *I* deemed important is actually outside the purview of council, so I just shut my cake hole and focused on internal review. This can be
very frustrating for Councilors though, and I hear ya! Who the hell cares if our committee system has a few glitches!? Isn't this a waste of time!? Does it really need to change?
Yes. For the love of Moses, YES!
So back to Mustafa and his recommendations.
I like how the paper addresses the role of Student's at large. I enjoyed reading the circular argument that S.A.L.'s are not "ordinary." It seems that if you care about student politics, which would lead you to get, even remotely, involved you go from "ordinary" to somehow become extraordinary and no longer a voice of the masses. It is like a catch 22...the only way to be remain an ordinary student is to stay out of student government, but to be an SAL you have to engage thereby ending your desirability as an ordinary student. Wha? Huh? Yeah...it is very confusing. By that argument all those who get involved in student government are extraordinary...just myopic and out of touch with regular students. That's good stuff.
I agree that Councilors are best suited for the job and on most committees I think that S.A.L.'s can be replaced by a councilor; an elected person, who is most likely better prepared to speak on behalf of their representatives. I never used to think that, in fact when I first heard that they wanted to get rid of SAL's I was against it, shouting "but what about accountability and accessibility?" After some experience I understand the difficulty of the question and the reasons why, on *certain* committees, they should be eliminated. Can't 'ordinary' students attend any meeting if they'd like?
I personally would say "Buh-by" to S.A.L.'s on policy committees because of the nature of the committee itself. But what is wrong with having S.A.L.'s on The Eugene Brody Committee? Some student's want to engage in the process but do not like the political nature of some committees so they apply for others. We can have a balance there. I think that is reasonable.
I agree that the Committees should be less Exec centric. We should have standing committees for Budget issues, Legislative drafting, Auditing, and Political Policy creation. But the major Policy Boards tend to become "Kitchen-sink" committees and their mandates are to broad to actually fulfill. I see the importance of removing Exec as chairs too. Mustafa argues that point very well and all of the irrationalities behind it. I agree with everything he so eloquently said.
There is one place that Mustafa and I disagree.
"Just as every bylaw is passed through the Internal Review Board for drafting and making coherent with the rest of the Students' Union's body of legislation, so too should all but the most trivial motions and emergency motions pass through some committee for thorough vetting, analysis, and improvement. Only then will Council be exploiting the benefits of committees to their fullest.
By integrating committees into the handling of Council's business, a true committee system will arise, a system against which Council can lean for improved handling of Council business."
I don't think that motions should come up through the committee system first, and I think this would reflect the same flawed system GFC has, no? I think they should come as motions to council and then be referred.
I would be worried that nothing meaningful would ever hit the floor of council. I would be concerned if no motion began *in council* because sometimes you need the impetus of council behind the motion. To use an example from my experience moving the Advocacy motion last year, I think the motion would have
never made it through to council if I had submitted it directly to EAB or AAB or FAB. With that approach only one councilor is moving the motion and a small committee can too easily dismiss a motion. Council liked the motion and passed it because it could be referred to committee and then assigned a specific date for the committees to report back to council.
I think that process worked well and I think it would be terrible to limit councilors trying to move motions to the floor. Would Councilor Debenhams motion on sunset clauses even made it to council if had to go through committee first? I wonder? Would that approach limit new ideas?
So there are some of my thoughts...I put them here as a person who felt like sometimes the whole process could be taken over by "hacks". Sometimes I felt that the issues were so esoteric (**cough, *separation of Powers,* cough**) I wondered if I could ever add anything to the discussion. I felt like I couldn't get my head around it and it took a lot of work to figure that shit out.
Anyway...I look forward to seeing what council comes up with. And in the same breath, I am glad that I can just leisurely browse though this stuff, and add commentary from my experience, and not be in the middle of the fray. Being a good councilor really involves a
shitload of work. It means you have to give a rat's ass even when you don't. I hope all my councilors will apply the same level of research that I did when I was in their position even if they don't want to.
Edit:
There is a discussion on Webboard