Columns

Writing from the past, I can’t determine the full fall-out and final result, but for now I am celebrating the recent OUSA referendum result.

Firstly it is about time the Executive was reduced in size, as 17 members is now beyond ridiculous, and a move to online SGMs can only increase the student voice.
   Part of the original problem with the Executive was the balance that student associations try to work between representation of the so-called student body opinion and management of their assets and delivery of services for the benefit of their members. That these two roles must be within the same organisation and under the same control is more out of coincidence than necessity. 
   Increasing efficiency is a good thing; there is nothing wrong with fewer people being involved in the decisions made at the top level, and now that all Executive members are more accountable to the entire student body there should be increased confidence in the decisions. Contrary to the cries of opponents, there is nothing inherently wrong with OUSA being run as a company, especially with regard to service delivery.
   The removal of a large number of special interest group elected positions is a great move. The power that comes with the ability to elect someone directly to the Executive to look after your own little group, however worthy in principle, inevitably resulted in representative-envy from other interest groups on campus. After all, why should one group get special representation, and effectively an extra vote on Exec decisions, and other groups be denied this? Portfolio allocation to at-large elected officers allows every student’s vote to remain equal.
   Retaining specific portfolios for special interest groups seems a little counteractive to the general thrust of the reforms, though. International students, despite having their own recognised representative body on campus, still retain the benefit of a specific portfolio on the Executive. Surely these specific responsibilities fall under the Welfare head already, and this is just asking for new portfolios to be added in coming years.
   Online SGMs will hopefully work to prevent meetings being hijacked by an interest group, and allow a clearer picture of where students stand on issues – at least, the students who care. Allowing online voting means those who have classes around midday are no longer disenfranchised, and means easier voting for more students. They will by no means ensure that the turn-out to elections increases, but making it easier to vote can only encourage it. Student politics will still be run by the few and for the few, but hopefully those few who are involved will increase.