Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 28, No. 1. 1965.

Too Much Democracy

Too Much Democracy

Quite frequently students complain that the Students' Association Executive has too much power and too much authority. They point out that the Students' Association collects about £21,000 annually from students and that the disposal of this is left to a very few, the (elected it is true) members of Executive.

It might seem perverse there fore to suggest that rather than having too much power and authority, Executive has, or at any rate exercises, far too little.

Evidence in support of this contention was to be found at the meeting of Executive on February 1 of this year. An application was received from the Drama Club, stating that for orientation week this year the Club was producing two plays, and would like a grant of £20 to cover expenses. Executive was plainly impressed, as well it might be, that the Club was enterprising enough to produce two plays in the one week, and was sympathetic to the application.

However, it was decided that firstly, the request would have to be fully documented to show how it was proposed that the money should be spent, and secondly, that the documented application should be made to Finance Committee (a sub-committee of Executive) in a few weeks' time. Finance Committee could then make a recommendation to Executive which could then, on the basis of recommendation, decide whether or not to grant the £20.

Now the members of Executive were collectively and individually sincere about all this. The impression gained was that they genuinely wished to grant this money, but could not do so because it would set a precedent for other clubs to request money for orientation week activities. Therefore the request had to go through normal channels.

Here then, is a typical example of the behaviour of Executive, behaviour which suggests that Executive has not, or does not exercise, enough power and authority. The Drama Club needed that money, and it needed it right away.

There can be little doubt that, by the time the request has been considered at length by Finance Committee and then by Executive, the matter will have had a full hearing. But this request should not have been treated in this manner.

Someone on the Executive and most sensibly this would be President Tom Robins, should have received the application and decided "yes" or "no." And if he had decided "yes" then he should have written the cheque then and there and sent it off to the Drama Club.

Regrettably, however, Robins could not do this, and so this request began its wearisome travel. This, of course, is only one example, and one must beware generalising from the particular. It is reasonable to assert, however, that this was not an isolated case. At every Executive meeting a vast amount of time is taken up by needless discussion of a question which needs to be answered simply "yes" or "no."

Executive and its President are hidebound by procedural rules which, in an effort to secure fairness in all its dealings, restrict Executive almost out of existence. It is a characteristic of many small committees (and in the overall scheme of committees Executive is a small one) to avoid giving any one person express authority. It seems a great pity that Executive has gone the same way, even if it has done so in an endeavour to secure an equitable distribution of the Association's moneys.

It would be an admirable move if the Association were to grant its President, be he a full-time salaried President, or a part-time unpaid President, a not inconsiderable amount of executive authority.

His decisions would be reached quickly, and m all probability he would make the right decision just as often as the full Executive does now for there is nothing to suggest that Just because a committee rather than an individual reaches a decision, it is necessarly the right one. Executive would then be left compartively free to discuss matters of difficulty, and matters of importance.—G.E.J.C.