Chris Luck

Chris Luck is the SU's Democracy Officer.

The General Meeting that wasn't

Posted on Tue 31 Jan 2012 at 14:59 by Christopher Luck

So most of you have probably heard the news by now that Monday's General Meeting failed to achieve quorum (the minimum number of people who have to attend in order for the meeting to take place). That figure is set as 1% of the membership, which is currently 208 people. Now depending on who you talk to that is either an impossibly high or pathetically small number - regardless of your opinion on that though the fact is that with 172 attendees we were not able to proceed with the meeting.

What happens next?

As per the Union's Memorandum & Articles of Association we will be holding another General Meeting this coming Monday (6/2/12) at 7pm in MS.02. As outlined in the governing documents, whatever number attends this meeting automatically becomes quorum. This system is something we are obliged to have by Company/Charity law.

The agenda for this meeting is fixed as the same as the attempted meeting of 30/1/12 and cannot change. We will be accepting further proxy votes through this form up until 3.30pm on Friday 3rd February.

What next for democracy?

Monday night leaves us with lots of questions.

How many people do you need in a room before you can claim to be representative? Should democracy be based upon how many people you can get in a room or is online decision-making the future? Do we run the risk of doing democracy for democracy's sake if the issues discussed don't matter enough for 1% to turn up?

The hardest question to answer though - how to make the system better? Now many of you reading this will have answers to that question. I spend a lot of my time listening to people declaring how easy it is to reform democracy - half of you appear in my office declaring that online votes are the future and that meetings are dead, the problem? The other half say the exact reverse. Plenty of you want to see an end to Union Council and want to have a say on every issue, plenty others don't want to vote on what they consider 'small issues' but object strongly when something 'big' is decided on their behalf. Feedback on Union Democracy and suggested improvements could not be more diverse and that puts me in a very difficult position.

I made a promise to you when you voted for me - to deliver a thorough review of our structures and decision-making processes. The impossible task? Pleasing everybody.

If you want to see change for the better then send me every idea you have (democracy@warwicksu.com) and help make this Union as democratic and as representative as it can be.

Decisions are made by those who show up. But should they be?

Change is in the air.

Comments

Please login to comment.

George Whitworth: 5:03pm on 2 Feb 12 Scott - I agree with the sentiment, but given that the 'Support Fairtrade' policy makes specific reference to reversing the boycott on Nestlé for certain products, I would personally anticipate that it will fail! Don't always judge a book by its cover!
Scott Whiteside: 9:39pm on 1 Feb 12 The thing that bugs me about the SU meetings is that a lot of the results seem pre-determined. I'm voting in this meeting (although I only heard about its existence AFTER the failure of the original), but I do wonder why I should bother on some points. "Should Your Union: ...Support Fairtrade Products?" - I think the chances of that failing are slim to none. "Fight to allow postering on campus?" - perhaps a little more aesthetic and environmental backlash here, but still very likely to pass. "...Campaign for an affordable Warwick experience?" - no, please make our food and drink more expensive! Ok, I know it's a sensible policy to make sure the student body agrees with SU decisions, and I can honestly say that I am very glad we have such a hard-working and helpful set of Sabbs and council members, all carrying out the work behind these bills. But half of these proposals are on matters that seem so popular already, it's perhaps understandable that the student body is a little apathetic to even register their agreement.
Fergus Cooper: 10:44am on 1 Feb 12 The Union mission statement purports to be "creating a better experience for students at Warwick". I don't understand why the Union is therefore debating motions which have little or nothing to do with the Warwick Experience for Students. This Eden water issue is a case in point: I doubt any student is ever in a position where they are faced with a choice of drinking Eden or going thirsty; indeed almost all water dispensers around campus are WaterLogic branded which filter and chill water directly from the mains and have nothing to do with Eden whatsoever. So even if your are in the minority of people who think that Eden have suitably questionable moral conduct to warrant a boycott, it seems very much to me as though this would be an issue for something like a student pressure group, and not something for the Union! The mission statement is clearly about students, and not about forming a foreign policy. Motions which have little or nothing to do with students just make the Union look out of touch, and almost certainly contribute to a poor turnout at General Meetings.
James Evans: 8:13pm on 31 Jan 12 I think we should have a vote about online voting. Whether this vote should be online or not is another matter. But seriously, think an online system is the way to go.
Christopher Luck: 5:26pm on 31 Jan 12 Thanks Nicholas - do I take it from your comment that you think the wrong issues are discussed?
Nicholas Clarke: 4:51pm on 31 Jan 12 "Do we run the risk of doing democracy for democracy's sake if the issues discussed don't matter enough for 1% to turn up?" Well, I for one care deeply about the brand of water that is in the university's water coolers. Nothing makes me angrier on an evening than the thought that someone might be drinking water that I haven't given them permission to drink. Enough is enough! The next person who drinks water that I disapprove of... by God, I'll wag my finger at them.