SRA takes a stand

It is the governance issue that keeps on giving.

Vice-presidential election reform is back in the student politics spotlight after a petition was submitted to vice-president (Administration) earlier this year calling for VPs to be elected by the student body.

At the Oct. 16 meeting, the Student Representative Assembly debated what stance to take and why.

The discussion lasted two hours, and ultimately, the SRA recommends students vote no to vice-presidential reform. We explore the issue and arguments made.

Negative stance on vice-president at-large referendum

After two hours of discussion, the SRA took a negative stance on the topic. This means the SRA is recommending that students maintain the current system, where vice-presidents are elected by the SRA.

According to McMaster Students Union policy, the SRA must take a positive, neutral or negative stance on constitutional amendments.

At-large vice-presidential elections have been part of the MSU conversation for years.

In 2016, there was a vice-president referendum question put on the MSU Presidential ballot after an SRA member went to the 2015 MSU General Assembly – where most attendees were there for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement – and submitted a motion to make vice-presidents elected by the student body.

This move was met with social media backlash from some members of that SRA, but students voted overwhelmingly in favour of the motion. However, the vote did not have quorum, so the motion went to the SRA.

The Student Mobilization Syndicate, a student group started in 2015 that aims to educate and empower students to advocate for themselves, ensured the referendum question would be on the ballot by circulating a petition and getting over 800 signatures.

Under the MSU governance structure, petitions that get three per cent of the student population’s signatures are brought to referendum.

The 2015-16 SRA chose to take a neutral stance on this issue, though the decision was contentious, with the MSU President saying he wanted the group to take a stance.

Despite 66.4 per cent of voters choosing “yes”, the referendum failed.

Constitutional amendments require a 66.7 per cent vote to pass. Of the 9,478 votes, 2,567 students abstained.

The call for nominations for SRA positions runs from Oct. 19-27, and official campaign sides will be announced.

There is a strong belief within MSU circles that there will be an official campaign that urges students to “vote yes” for the referendum, but there is less optimism about an official “vote no” side.

Why take a negative stance?

The motion was introduced by vice-president (Education) Blake Oliver and seconded by vice-president (Finance) Ryan MacDonald.

Oliver opened the conversation with her arguments about why the SRA should take a negative stance.

“Changing the process of electing VPs has not been a new conversation. Since 2012, there has been three different committees struck at the SRA level to investigate our democratic reform: one in 2012-13, one in 2013-14 and most recently in 2015-16,” said Oliver.

“[These three committees] recommended continuing to elect VPs in the internal process, with some modifications that were made this year.”

Oliver also noted other reasons for taking a negative stance: voter fatigue, at-large systems turning into popularity contests, the lack of student understanding of what the vice-president roles are and “communications from the student body”.

But Oliver discussed the role of sexism in an at-large system at length, noting that three women have been elected MSU President in the history of the union.

As the seconder, MacDonald made the argument that SRA members spend 15-25 hours talking to vice-president candidates ahead of the internal election, therefore creating a rigorous hiring process.

He also noted that at-large elections could negatively impact the effectiveness of the MSU.

“What happens when a vice-president (Education) is elected at-large with a completely different approach to advocacy than the president? I can tell you what’s going to happen. They are going to disagree all the time and nothing is going to get done,” said MacDonald.

Making the argument for a neutral stance

Not all SRA members believed that the group should take a negative stance.

Esra Bengizi, SRA Humanities and a former manager of the “vote yes” to vice-president reform side during the 2016 presidential campaign, introduced a motion for the SRA to stay neutral on the subject.

“I thought that it would be best to stay neutral that way we’re not influencing students how to vote, and they can make their own educated decision. Although I did speak in favour of VP at large several times, I thought it wasn’t in our position to tell students how to vote on this issue especially after seeing the results from last year,” said Bengizi, referring to 66.4 per cent of the voters voting “yes” to reform.

Bengizi was also critical of the decision because of the way it reflects the SRA.

Not all SRA members agreed on this issue, so making the SRA take a stance creates an unfair characterization of what some members think.

The SRA Humanities rep also believes the decision to take a negative stance “confirms the nepotism that we’ve been talking about”.

There is a belief amongst some who follow MSU politics that the current system reinforces the MSU bubble, meaning that people who are elected to vice-president positions have been working or involved with the union for years.

Bengizi was not alone in her desire to take a neutral stance. MSU president Justin Monaco-Barnes and vice-president (Administration) Shaarujaa Nadarajah both took a neutral stance, as well as some other SRA members.

This SRA meeting was not intended to be a debate between the “vote yes” and “vote no” sides, but there were compelling arguments made about the issue.

Video of the discussion can be found on the McMaster Students Union Livestream account, and the conversation starts around the 2:57:00 mark.