Executive committee will adopt a hierarchical model if passed
The Central Student Association (CSA) board of directors will be voting on a proposal to restructure the executive committee on Jan. 18, which will implement a hierarchical model in place of the existing decentralized committee framework.
The proposal outlines that the executive committee will be composed of a president along with three vice-presidents, who will each have their own respective areas of focus in regards to the student experience at the University of Guelph.
The proposal also states that the duties of the local affairs commissioner will be redistributed, with the bulk of the position’s tasks being the responsibility of the vice-president of external affairs.
Accompanying the restructuring of the executive committee of the CSA, the way that the executive interacts with the board of directors would undergo changes as well, with the executive giving up their voting status and remaining on the board in an advisory capacity.
The upcoming proposal has generated debate about the role of the executive committee in the framework of the CSA.
Peter Miller, former academic and university affairs commissioner for the CSA, has concerns about the proposed changes to the Executive Committee and how they interact with the board of directors.
“The reduction of commissioners from five to four reduces the capacity of the CSA to organize democratic campaigns in the interests of students,” said Miller in a statement to The Ontarion. “I enjoyed working in a collective and non-hierarchical executive structure during my two years as a commissioner at the CSA. A non-hierarchical structure allows the exec to function as a strong collective at a student union, instead of like what would be found at a private corporation.”
Miller also has concerns that the new structure of the CSA will transform the organization “To focus entirely on service provision and to reduce the capacity of the executive to work with students to represent and advocate for their interests,” thereby rendering the CSA apolitical.
Meghan Wing, the CSA’s current academic and university affairs commissioner, discussed intention of the proposal with The Ontarion.
“We first identified a couple of different areas in which we thought the organization had a fault right now that currently led to it not functioning as efficiently as it could. Within those areas, one of the problems that was identified was the non-hierarchal nature of our current executive structure and how it has led to a lack of accountability and a number of problems that have led to an improper, or not ideal, functioning [of the CSA].”
In regards to the amalgamation of the local affairs and external affairs positions, Wing said that, after discussing the proposal with the current executive, they agreed that the responsibilities could be consolidated to one position.
Wing emphasized the importance and difficulty in maintaining constant communication with the undergraduate student body due to the constant rotation of students.
“We have made the priority of one of the positions to constantly be interacting with students, which I think is something we have lost through the past couple of years and we have tried to really bring it back this year.”
It will, primarily, be the responsibility of the vice-president of student experience to engage with the student body and ensure that all voices are being heard in decisions made by the CSA, and keeping undergraduates engaged with their student government.
According to Wing, the proposed loss of voting rights for the executive members, is because the executives are often the individuals bringing proposals to the board. As a past board member and current executive, Wing has seen firsthand the sway that the executive can have on the board vote.
“It’s the responsibility of our elected and appointed directors. We are hoping to keep the executive on the board as a resource only, but as a nonvoting member.”
Following the Jan. 18 vote, if the proposal passes, the CSA will bring the plan forward at the annual general meeting on Feb. 1 to allow the general membership to voice their opinions on the structural changes to their student government.
Photo by Mariah Bridgeman/The Ontarion.
If the current Local Affairs and External Affairs Commissioners truly believe that their cumulative responsibilities could be successfully and meaningfully maintained by one person they are definitely not doing their jobs. Each of those positions has an extreme amount of work/responsibility/ and each are expected to represent students in incredibly valuable ways. When I was the Local Affairs Commissioner, I was expected to prioritize student representation on over 37 committees (not to mention sub committees) to add that responsibility (and being the go-to transit advocate and working on sexual assault awareness and prevention) to the EXTENSIVE portfolio of the External Affairs Commissioner and you will have created a position that cannot possibly be filled by one person. Throw a municipal/provincial/federal election in the mix and you are asking for chaos.
The Executive SHOULD have sway of the board. They weren’t hired or elected by some committee, the STUDENT BODY elected to lead the organization. You can be sure that they didn’t elect them to look pretty and provide reports. They were elected to have opinions, bring them forth, and implement them.