OUSU held to account
The Student Union Council will become more accountable to Common Rooms across the University if a controversial motion altering voting procedures passes a second reading next week. The motion was brought to Friday’s OUSU Council by Emma Norris and Hannah Stoddart in response to growing criticisms over its voting system. It aims to combat the potential for the Executive Officers to dominate Council by ensuring common rooms are sufficiently well-represented when crucial decisions are being made.
Currently the minimum number of OUSU members that must be present for proceedings to be valid (the quorum), is set at 35. As there are 12 OUSU delegates, 6 Equal Opportunities Co-Chairs and 21 members of OUSU Executive aside from the College Common Room representatives, this quorum can be filled without any college representatives present. The motion stated, “Council policy should reflect the will of students, which it is the role of the executive to represent.
The quorum should also be based on the number of Commons Rooms and delegates present”. If the motion is passed, members of Council will be able to propose a procedural motion to limit the voting rights of the OUSU Executive on any issue, excluding those on constitution amendments or capital expenditure. A two-thirds majority will be necessary to suppress the Executive votes.
In addition, the quorum of Council will remain at 35, but at least 20 of those representatives must be from different Common Rooms. The first reading of the motion was passed in Friday’s Council by just ten votes, however it must pass a second time with a two-thirds majority to be instigated. The motion is highly controversial with other members of the OUSU executive.
VP (Welfare and Equal Opps) Aidan Randle-Conde, VP (Access and Academic Affairs) Charlynne Pullen and VP (Women) Ellie Cumbo all spoke against it. Cumbo said, “The motion lays all blame for the weaknesses of OUSU Council squarely at the feet of the Executive, who are being characterised as a scheming, irresponsible cabal. This is unjust and poor thanks for a year of valuable, hard work from the outgoing Sabbaticals.
The OUSU VP (Graduates) Oliver Russell told The Oxford Student, “The executive are elected for their ability to perform certain tasks, not on their personal views. In addition, while the executive are elected by thousands of students, once in office they are not held accountable to the electorate.” Norris said allowing the Executive the power to vote to suppress their own voting rights was not a contradiction in terms.
She said, “In a small number of circumstances, the executive’s collective vote can swing an outcome against common room opinion. This motion is an attempt to ensure that in close votes, OUSU’s policy definitely reflects the values and will of common rooms. However, this change needs to be accompanied by a commitment from common room reps to attend Council. Policy is formed by those who are there - so to truly represent common rooms, their reps must turn up.
In addition, some JCR Presidents have expressed their unwillingness to approve the motion. JCR president of St Hugh’s, Martin McCluskey, said, “The reforms proposed were scribbled on the back of an envelope: they are an ill thought-out knee jerk reaction.” While the proposed measures are new, similar mechanisms to protect the vote of Common Rooms are already incorporated into the OUSU constitution.
A ‘Special Council’ can be called to overweigh a vote that has been dominated by the executive and Common Rooms lacking a mandate. If this succeeds the Common Rooms with a mandate from the JCR or MCR vote on the issue alone.
1st Jun 2006