| Subject: Re: Standing committee - reform! |
Author:
Shell
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:18:39 10/16/03 Thu
In reply to:
Tim C
's message, "Standing committee - reform!" on 14:48:54 10/16/03 Thu
>> After any standing committee decision is made, the
>result of this
>> decision must be made public, along with a brief
>explanation (rather
>> than at the end of the year).
That seems fair. I assume the decision is still made in the same way: The team captain puts forward the case and the standing committee interprets the constituion.
Does the standing committee still consist of 3 unis (not on IVDA exec committee) and IVDA President steps in if there is a conflict of interest. What if both IVDA President and one of the standing committee have a conflict of interest?
>> If the appealing party feels hard done by, they may
>then choose to
>> launch an appeal. This will cost them £10, which
>will only be returned
>> if they are successful.
Is the idea behind this cost to act as a deterrent to stop people appealing for the sake of it?? If so is that enough? What does the money get spent on - IVDA admin costs or IVDC itself?
>> Appeals will be put before the general committee on
>the bds list, and
>> voted on, in an EGM (electronic general meeting)
>way, as has been done
>> in the past.
>> If an appeal is successful, then the offending
>members of the standing
>> committee (who will have been viewed guilty of
>mis-interpreting the
>> constitution) shall be removed from the standing
>committee.
I think this may be a little harsh. It is possible for 2 peoples opinion to differ from 20 others and not because they are biased or acting on behalf of their university, but because they do actually interpret wording differently. For example: if the standing committee voted against a case, it went to appeal and the general committee unaminously voted for it, then fair enough I can see grounds to get concerned about the motives of the standing committee. However it could be a 51%49% split for vs against by the general committee and 2 individuals will get expelled from standing committeee when their motives probably aren't questionable but just involve a difference of interpretation, which is human nature.
>> Why is this good? Because it adds transparency,
>accountability and a
>> safeguard against a biased an unscrupulous SC.
I agree, having things out in the open by announcing decisions to bds as they are made, will make it appear less unscrupulous. As IVDA standing committee chairperson 2002-3, I was accused of being biased and making decisions that suited Cambridge. This certainly was not the case; I merely interpreted the constitution as I saw fit and tried to remain consistent with precedents that had previously been set. I am not sure what procedure can actually fully stop people having thoughts of this nature, without every university voting on every matter, which will be time-consuming.
I agree with having a public announcement of the results of all cases immediately and an appeals procedure but not with the expulsion of "offending members of the standing committee".
My concern is also it is generally difficult to find 3 people to act on standing committee, - possibly because of the criticism they have to face in the role. I think it may be even more unlikely that people volunteer for the job if they face the penalty of being publicly named and shamed if they have a different interpretation of the constitution than the majority.
Maybe we should have a rotation system on which unis should be in the standing committee - to stop fears that ImpOxbridge will dominate it and cast all votes in their favour to stop opposition and ensure that smaller unis get involved.
See you on saturday
Shell xxxx
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 