Student Executive Council Reform Required
As noted in the USG Briefs section on the February 2, 2007 Observer issue, there was discussion about two USG members writing a letter to the editor in the Jan. 26 issue calling for University intervention in the current Student Executive Council (SEC) structure. Please note that ideas and suggestions to reform the SEC is not new. Student leaders in the past, including myself, have attempted to change the existing structure, but without success.
Under the University's Grant of Power to the major governing groups that comprised the SEC, the Council was envisioned as a place where USG, UPB, Media Board, and IFC/Panhel can meet to share information about their projects and issues, cooperate in major events, govern the Student Activity Fee allocation, and resolve disputes. From the document, each major group had a different form of obligation and responsiblity to the students. At that time, the SEC was never used in any official capacity. If you wanted to complain about campus issues, go to USG. Programming and concerts was UPB. Television, newspapers, magazines, and newsletters fell under Media. Greeks were under IFC/Panhel.
In the late 1990's, student leaders from the major groups convened the Student Executive Council for the first time in years. It was definitely a surprise when the student leaders of that time did not know they had a SEC though the grant of power document stated the existence of one. The groups were just using standard liaison representatives to attend each other's meetings.
It was realised (obviously!) that the SEC could be used as a forum for inter-communication between the major groups. It was also the first time the SEC got officially involved in major projects such as the Heart of the Campus and the Student Center Project via the Student Life Coalition (SLC). Another first was the invitation of the Residence Hall Association (RHA) into the Council as a non-voting member. One major achievement of the SEC was the funding of SpringFest via the student activity fee. UPB introduced such a proposal in 1998, and the rest of the boards agreed to a permanent percentage in 2001. This was the first ever change made to the SAF fee structure.
Cooperation and respect were probably the only ways to get substantial progress done through the SEC. While most members wanted reform, no one wanted to be seen as invading someone's turf, or trying to increase one board's prestige and power over the others. Even discussion on the fee structure was hard. One time, as USG Vice-President of Finance, I introduced a resolution in the SEC to give USG a 0.5 to 1.0 percent increase in next year's fee structure. Much of the increase was supposed to come from the increase of the SAF overall revenue since it was tied to our tuition rate. UPB and Media Board rose in disagreement. They suggested that USG review its books and see if student groups were not accountable in their funding, and should watch their spending. IFC/Panhel were quite protective of their share of the proceeds so they did not want any change. Thus, the resolution died pretty quickly. The reason why SpringFest passed was the overall positive impact it had on the University community and that every Board had to give up something for it.
Of course, with eight members (2 USG, 2 UPB, 2 Media, 1 IFC, 1 Panhel), USG, UPB, and Media could just get together and decide the SAF percentages, locking out the Greeks. Or USG, UPB, Greeks versus Media, and so on. Unfortunately, it would not improve campus relations at all.
Realistically, we cannot ask the University to intervene and force-change the existing SEC governing structure. One, it shows that the student leaders that you have elected are unable to resolve their differences. Two, it is bad sportsmanship. It is similar to asking the linesman if there was a penalty after the referee decided there wasn't any. The students must solve their own problems.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
After many years of reflection, I have a proposal for this:
1. Based on the assumption that USG is our primary governing authority on campus, the Student Executive Council should not be held to a higher level. Thus, the Student Executive Council should be renamed the Student Administrative Council.
2. The new Student Administrative Council shall cover:
3. The membership of the new Student Administrative Council:
4. The Council shall organise the SAF fee structure (year to year):
This is a drastic proposal, but it should be able to start effective discussion on the right solution to address this. We cannot just put on several band-aids and hope it will work. Substantial action must be taken to show the willingness of our student leaders to combat favoritism, turf battles, and personal ego to give the students what they want.
While it is factually true that only members of SEC can decide what changes they can make to it, it does not mean that they can enjoy a free ride within the Board organisations themselves. The officers that represent the Boards to the SEC are also accountable to the members of the group itself, as well as the entire student populace.
I understand it is a big task to take. Over my years as a member and officer of USG, I was chair of the Constitution Committee that pushed through changes in our constitution for the first time in a decade. I threw out the Funding Bylaws, and wrote a new set instituting categorical recognition (of course, that got replaced several years later), and a new set of Operating Bylaws. These things will take time, but they are not impossible.
Kind regards,
James Chang
Former Vice-President of Finance, USG (1999-2000)
Class of 2000
Comments