Home » Opinion » The case for a smaller USC

The case for a smaller USC

It’s funny, some of the things you miss after a while. I never thought I’d be in a position where I’d miss covering University Students’ Council meetings, but yet I still found myself there around 10:30 p.m. last week.

It’s nice to know that some things don’t change.

Soon after my arrival, a rollcall vote was called, enabling observers to figure out exactly how many members of the USC deemed themselves too important to make it to the meeting. Last Wednesday, that number was 20.

Never has a better argument been made for shrinking the size of our University Students’ Council.

On the surface, such an argument goes against popular thought, especially in a world where “more representation” is seen as the best possible expression of a democracy — something our current student governance structure ostensibly is. But I think “more representation” only makes sense when there’s actual representation happening.

Right now, the number of voting members of council almost equals the Ontario legislature. If you take into account non–voting members like commissioners and co–ordinators, the USC’s governing body is almost the size of Canadian Parliament.

This creates two main problems: first–time councillors are generally too intimidated to get up in front of the collected assembly, and in many cases, councillors feel their presence is not important.

And in a campus environment where ineffectual councillors aren’t called out for their lack of duty — except, that is, for motions from the speaker which don’t spread much further than council chambers — this presents quite the problem.

The current system doesn’t differentiate between those who get involved with the USC for the resume bullet point and those who genuinely care about student issues and governance.

Which is why it’s so important to shrink the size of council. If the USC only consisted of a couple dozen voting members of council, then each position carries prestige — to attract higher quality candidates — and actual tangible responsibilities that will have to be taken on.

The current approach isn’t working. Yes, there are councillors who rise above the crowd and generally go on to accomplish great things, like run for the vice–president university affairs position.

But if we’re hoping to have quality candidates for the highest office students can be elected into on campus, making sure there’s an outlet where they can be guaranteed to attain quality experience is a great first step.

Unfortunately, such a monumental change to the USC is unlikely to happen. While Stephen Lecce’s velvet sledgehammer or Dan Moulton’s deft guiding hand may have been able to force such a change through, there was no political will at the time. Nor will there likely ever be.

Because right now, the USC sees itself not just as a governing body, but as an opportunity to get involved. An idealistic perspective but, as many things the USC does, somewhat flawed in its execution. If you want students to get involved in the USC, have them obtain such experience by applying to be commissioners or co–ordinators.

This election will see 12 candidates coming from the social science faculty. Add two more and you have all the councillors in London. Only in the zany world of student politics do we see this insanity persist.

Follow the Gazette on Facebook and Twitter.