Process for faculty associations to deviate from SU political policy in the works

A tentative process is being outlined for student faculty associations to advocate for needs, such as higher tuition, that contradict Students’ Union political policy.

Faculty associations are currently forbidden from deviating from SU political policy under Bylaw 8100. A proposed amendment to the bylaw outlines a process for faculty associations to legitimize any deviating advocacy points.

The tentative process, currently in first readings, requires faculty associations to approve a motion to deviate from SU political policy, consult with SU executives, and ask a plebiscite question to its electorate. The faculty association would also have to give two presentations to Students’ Council — one before the plebiscite and one after, to discuss results. The faculty association would also have to consult with the SU after the plebiscite question.

Open Studies, which does not have a faculty association, would not be able to use this process.

In the July 12 sitting of Students’ Council, Science councillor Umer Farooq said the process will prevent the SU from being blindsided in case a faculty association wants to defy SU political policy. Farooq added that the Alberta Pharmacy Students’ Association and the Law Students’ Association have both opposed the SU’s tuition policy in the past 10 years, and cautioned that the occurrence could happen again.

“We need a way to deal with this, and (amending Bylaw 8100) is the best way we have,” he said.

SU Vice-President (Academic) Marina Banister also said seven members of the Council of Faculty Associations were happy with the process, while one thought there was too many steps. The faculty association for Faculté Saint-Jean didn’t like the process based on the principle of allowing students to deviate from SU political policy. Four faculty associations did not give feedback.

Councillors were also divided on whether the bylaw would strengthen or weaken student representation on campus. The outline of the deviation process was passed with 17 councillors in favour, nine opposed, and one abstention.

The main point of amending the bylaw was to outline a process where faculty associations and the SU would solve policy deviations in a way that’s “amicable,” Medicine and Dentistry Councillor Brandon Christensen said.

“Today there’s no need for it, but you never know what future policies eight years from now will look like,” Christensen, who motioned the bylaw, said.

Christensen said the process is too rigorous to be used in many cases, but if a faculty association does find the need to use it, a good conversation would be generated in Students’ Council.

Arts councillor Ben Angus and Arts councillor proxy Cody Bondarchuk voiced opposition to the principle of allowing faculty associations to deviate from SU political policy. Bondarchuk argued the bylaw, though outlining a detailed process for consultation, weakens the collective advocacy strength of the SU. Problems between the SU and faculty associations should be solved through discussion in committee meetings and Students’ Council, rather than by “working around Council.”

“I’d prefer a system where not everyone is happy with every motion, but we can all still be part of the SU family,” Bondarchuk said. “We’re stronger as a unit, even if the policies don’t always benefit everyone on the surface.”