Heads will clash at the forthcoming Feb. 5 Student’s Administrative Council Annual General Meeting (AGM) as student leaders seek to reject a set of proposed constitutional changes that they say “threatens democracy.”
The changes, spearheaded by University College SAC rep Mark Graham and SAC president Ashley Morton, include dividing SAC’s Board of Directors into two operating bodies, removing all references to class and race in the mission statement, and running future elections on a slate system.
Although most SAC members agree a major overhaul is needed, some are upset the reforms entered the agenda without consultation. “Why did this get snuck in by the back door?” said Alex Artful-Dodger, VP Operations.
“If you want to restructure SAC, have an open process,” said VP of University Affairs Howard Tam. “There needs to be a thorough consultative process.”
Morton, who was able to push the reforms straight to the AGM by collecting 500 signatures agreeing to the new constitution, has admitted as much. “We didn’t do consultation as much as we should have,” he said.
Since the new constitution’s unveiling, opponents have pounced on those points they feel threaten student input. Artful-Dodger, who wrote the summarized proxy document to be presented at next week’s meeting, says the proposed change to “appoint” SAC reps by college council members rather than through elections reeks of cronyism.
“You’re removing the opportunity for students to get involved with SAC,” she said. “It turns it into an old-boys club.”
Morton is incensed at such claims, saying SAC reps will be elected as usual, and that the word “appoint” was meant only as a general term included to cover the various election procedures carried out by each college. He added that Artful-Dodger’s semantic misquoting was deliberately done to be used as political ammo against him (Morton and Artful-Dodger hold strong political disagreements).
“It’s been phrased in a negative way,” he said of the proxy document. “It’s put in a negative way to make [the changes] look stupid.”
Still, members of SAC are already mobilizing against the new constitution. The Equity Commission-whose elimination, along with all other commissions, is being proposed-passed a unanimous decision Monday denouncing the amendment to replace the mission statement with “SAC shall represent students.” Currently, the mission statement includes explicit wording in support of anti-racism and sexual diversity.
Morton hinted at the current mission statement’s presumably political overtones as a reason for change. “It limits the range of choices [candidates] make when they run for SAC,” he said, but added it was more an attempt to reduce redundancy and increase clarity.
A chance to bring harmony back to SAC was the reason behind the suggested replacement of commissions with working groups. “At the commission you just get a lot of people voting on things, and arguing, and not working on projects,” said Graham. “If we take care of that competitive aspect and replace that with a working group, then you’re adding to the volunteer base of SAC and eliminating some of the contention.”
Such an arrangement will simply formalize the de facto relationship already in place between the executive and the commissions, says Morton, who will, according to the proxy document, have the power to appoint and reject potential members (another inaccuracy, he says). “We’re not removing power,” he said. “We’re making the structure much more flexible…I believe that’s appropriate.”
“My fear is that these working groups are only open to just the Board of Directors or just the executive,” said Tam, who overseas the University Affairs Commission, a group made up of dozens of student volunteers.
More contentious still is the proposed amendment to run future elections on a slate system. In this system, campaigners run and are voted in as a team, meaning the future executives would be voted in as a group, campaigning together. Currently, members of the executive are voted in individually, often with divergent viewpoints.
VP Equity Julia Munk expressed worry over the system’s fallout. “Equity will suffer because one of the harder parts to fill on a slate is an equity position,” she said.
When asked if not having opposition members at the executive level threatens the democratic process at SAC, Graham answered: “I’m not convinced we have it perfect, but I suspect it’s better than it is now.”
For Morton, who admits uncertainty over the system’s merits since talking with opponents, the arrangement does have benefits. “Political divisions wouldn’t happen if [everyone] was on a slate,” he said. Morton may be speaking from experience. The political rancour and venom tossed between Morton and Artful-Dodger during the last election has lingered well into this school year. Morton says political differences are a “noticeable hindrance” to consensus building this year at SAC.
Artful-Dodger spoke similarly to that. “SAC is not a friendship club,” she said. “The adult thing to do is to work with people you have.”
