In general disarray

[adrotate banner="13"]

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

You’re going to hear a lot about BDS in the next few weeks as the Student Union begins to enforce the decision made by students in that steamy gymnasium, but don’t let it overshadow the surprise finale to General Assembly that many did not see coming, and many more are not particularly pleased about either.

In the final few minutes of the proceedings, a lone SRA member stood before the microphone and urged the remaining students to consider an additional motion: that the Vice Presidents be elected at large by the student body.

I am not here to talk about the motion itself, whatever merits it may or may not have, but I feel the need to discuss the very fact that he felt the need to bring this to students in such a sudden and controversial way.

It’s all about the politics.

SRA bylaw 4.6 states: all motions for the GA meeting agenda and supporting documents must be submitted to the Corporate Secretary no later than noon, five school days prior to the meeting. Those five days give people time to prepare. Time to prepare counter-arguments. Time to research the motivations behind the motion and dig into why someone feels the need to put it to a vote. Time that was not given in this case, and for a very simple reason.

Deliberation gives people an opportunity to defer, and nothing feeds deliberation more than time. The SRA by nature is a very deliberative body, and more often than not, tends to leave controversial movements on the cutting room floor. If something isn’t a clear winner, both politically and in practice, it will be pushed meeting to meeting until it is the next assembly’s problem. Just look at how long it took for WGEN to become a reality.

I can’t speak for this particular SRA representative’s intentions, but I imagine he brought this sudden motion to students’ attention because he knew it would spur dialogue. Dialogue that the SRA would find hard to defer, and would force a decision sooner or later. Hell, if the assembly still had quorum by that point, the decision could have been binding then and there, which would have ensured a referendum, but as it stands it will be brought to SRA for further (endless) discussion.

Maybe it is time to examine why the need was felt to bypass procedure and turn a topic from tepid to controversial. The intent may be noble, and the idea may be necessary, but process exists to support dialogue. If dialogue has become the problem, then we have more serious obstacles to overcome than rogue mavericks in the SRA.

[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

[adrotate banner="12"]