SU Plans for Referendum Reform Given the All Clear

The Students’ Union Council has agreed to plans lowering quoracy levels in referenda, with the aim of making it easier for students to decide directly on certain areas of policy. This came despite a vote on the same issue failing to pass just a few weeks before at the previous Council.

The SU Council heard that the last referendum held was in 2003, when there was a petition to boycott Nestlé products. Democracy and Communications Officer George Wright claimed that this was due to the current level of quoracy being “unattainably high” at 20%. He added that “Quoracy should not be a target but a number with which we are comfortable to base decisions on. By lowering quoracy we would be able to run more referenda.” The initial motion in November suggested that the referenda quorum should be reduced from 20% down to 6% of students, and the percentage of students required to sign a petition for referenda should be reduced from the current 5% down to 2%. However, many of those present at the Council meeting and those watching the proceedings on the NUTS live stream met the proposals with some concern.

Opposing the motion was Dave Jackson, who asserted that referenda had no protection for minorities and “risked being populist”. He believed that current quoracy levels ensured that referenda were “only used when an issue really mobilises the student body”. Wright responded that all petitions would have a £200 fee and would not be allowed to break the SU Equal Opportunities policy. However, after the first motion failed to reach the four-fifths support required for it to pass, he did compromise on the level of quoracy, with the revised proposal stating that quorum should stand at 10% of students. Wright explained that their motivation behind the plan was based on a student desire for referendum found in the Big Review 2010 survey. In this survey, 3,146 students were asked to choose their first, second and third preferred method of decision-making, and these choices were given 3 points, 2 points or 1 point respectively.

Under this method, 27% of the total scores voted for ‘referendum’, making it the most popular choice. Some believed that this didn’t form enough of a basis for the changes proposed, and it was pointed out that 73% of scores preferred alternative options. However, the SU maintained that the survey showed that students had “made a shout for referenda”. Wright argued: “Students have expressed clearly that they want more referenda. As student leaders we should react to this and make it happen.” Jackson disputed that there was clear enough support for a referendum and said that until there was, the SU should focus on fixing existing problems in Council. He asked: “What are referenda for – to allow greater student involvement or to bypass Council?”

An online viewer also added, “If an SU officer is usually elected by 20% of the University, why should it be less to change the Union completely?” After the first motion was defeated, the SU Executive researched the percentage of students that certain top UK universities require for petition and quorum in referenda. Amongst these universities, Nottingham had the highest percentage needed for quorum at 20%, compared to an average of 7.5%. It was argued that Nottingham needed to be brought in line with other universities. SU President Will Vickers again drew Council’s attention to the fact that referendum was the most popular method of decision making, and insisted that this was the reason why change was needed, saying, “If we don’t pass it, we will fail our students”. The motion passed with only one abstention, none against, and 43 in favour.

Due to council being inquorate, however, the motion will have to be ratified at the next session.

Fiona Crosby

7 Comments on this post.
  • Luke Place
    18 January 2011 at 22:53
    Leave a Reply

    Quorum was initially 15%, rather than 20%, due to it being reduced unanimously by 5% last year. For some reason, this appears to have been strcuk from the records of our SU.

  • Dave Jackson
    20 January 2011 at 02:44
    Leave a Reply

    I assume that was due to inquoracy of council last year Luke? Finding that kind of information sounds like a Sisyphean task.

  • Daniel Cooper
    20 January 2011 at 07:39
    Leave a Reply

    Luke’s motion passed at an inquorate Council. It should have been ratified at the start of what I think has been the only Council that has since been quorate albeit for only half the meeting.

    The obvious answer here surely is reduce quoracy in order to get Council back on track though ironically that would require us to be quorate to pass such a measure!

  • Joe
    26 January 2011 at 15:17
    Leave a Reply

    The obvious answer is only run for a voting position on the Council if you are going to bother to turn up to the meetings.

  • vanessabrown
    27 January 2011 at 01:22
    Leave a Reply

    @ Joe: Having watched the last SU Council online yesterday, I really do agree with you! There was this massive song and dance and then FINALLY the vote came and it was passed only for the Chairman (I think) to quickly note that it would have to be ratified NEXT time! At that point, the whole thing seemed like such a laughable waste of time.

  • Joe
    6 February 2011 at 18:36
    Leave a Reply

    @Vanessa, I am glad you agree.

    I have been a society president, If I didnt bother to turn up to president meetings, (or at least offer an apology), my society would have been punished £5, then £10, then £15.

    I think there should be measures have a register of those who do and do not attend, and to punish those who do not turn up to meetings. For example, they could be named and shamed on the su website, and if people miss 2 consecutive meetings, they should automatically be removed from the position and a by-election held to find someone who can be bothered to show up.

  • Michael de V
    6 February 2011 at 22:19
    Leave a Reply

    Joe: I actually proposed a motion at the start of the year for the review and potential re-election of School Reps that do not attend Council (or give their apologies). It has seemed to help. Perhaps this should be extended to all officers.

    On that note, anyone can propose a motion to Council if they feel something should be changed. In fact, I would highly recommend it.

  • Leave a Reply