The following discussion paper was prepared for the UNA Board by Menzies and distributed February 24th, 2014. This 'draft' discussion paper is designed as an invitation to our community to begin the realistic and proactive conversation on enhancing democratic practices. Over the next few weeks and months I hope that our community will pick up this discussion. Please add comments on this blog, email me directly, or join in one of the planned open discussions that I trust will be put on by the UNA over the next little while.
Charles
--------------------------
At its most simplistic democracy is the rule of the people by the people. Nothing however is simple. There are many gradients of democratic practice. There is a range of governance systems that claim to be democratic. Most people consider the principle of democracy an essential part of effective decision-making and good governance. While there may be a diversity of perspectives as to what is most democratic the following three key ideas are commonly considered central to democratic practice: open, participatory, and representative.
Charles
--------------------------
At its most simplistic democracy is the rule of the people by the people. Nothing however is simple. There are many gradients of democratic practice. There is a range of governance systems that claim to be democratic. Most people consider the principle of democracy an essential part of effective decision-making and good governance. While there may be a diversity of perspectives as to what is most democratic the following three key ideas are commonly considered central to democratic practice: open, participatory, and representative.
Open: governance
structures need to be open and obvious in how they work to be democratic. There should be no ‘blackbox’ portion
where the ways and means of decision-making are obscured to the public of
account.
Participatory: governance structures require mechanisms that allow
the public to participate in the function of governance. The more democratic a governance system
is the more broad based public participation is encouraged and facilitated.
Representative: governance structures needs to be set up so that
the diversity of the public is effectively represented. The more democratic a system is the
more it encourages a diversity of perspective and the peaceful co-existence of
a diverse public. Representation
is considered the most robust when it occurs through direct participation or
through direct suffrage.
The UNA should strive toward achieving the most open,
participatory, and representative democratic governance system that is
possible. This discussion paper
outlines some of the legal constraints we face, identifies several operational
protocols that constrains democratic practice, and offers some solutions for
the short, medium, and long term.
The purpose of this document is to layout a framework for
enhanced community discussions on enhancing the democratic practices and
capacities of the UNA. Enhanced
Democracy Discussions could form the keystone subject for an upcoming Listen In
session.
Legal Constraints on the UNA’s Democratic Practice
The UNA is the municipal-like body for residents in the
University Neighbourhoods Area of UBC.
While we have a fairly robust service delivery side to our organization
our democratic structures can benefit by improvement.
The UNA is formally established as a registered society
under the BC Societies Act. This act established the legal framework within
which are actions as a society are governed. Our ability to act is further defined through a legal
contract between UBC, referred to as the University Neighbour’s Agreement, 2008
(UNA2008), and ourselves.
The Societies Act of BC allows for a society to determine
the powers of its directors. These
powers can entitle a director “to do one or both of
participate in and vote at a meeting of directors” (Society Act[RSBC 1996] Chapter 433.
Clause:25.1(1)). That is a society
can, under the Societies Act of BC, have directors who are entitled to
participate without a vote and
directors who are entitled to participate with a vote at a meeting of
directors.
The UNA2008 further defines the composition of the UNA Board
through a direct stipulation that “UBC
may nominate up to ten persons who will be entitled to become Members of the
UNA, and at all times, at least 2 such nominees (in addition to the rights and
obligations normally held by Members) will be Directors of the UNA” (Section
3.3(c)). There is no explicit statement in the UNA2008 that these Directors
must be entitled to vote. However,
the UNA2008 does provide a mechanism for UBC to terminate the agreement “In the
event UBC concludes that the UNA: … (d) has prevented or taken steps to ensure that
UBC’s nominees are unable to be Members of the UNA.” Thus, the UNA is obligated under the provisions of our
contract with UBC to have two UBC appointed directors but there is no explicit
requirement that these directors be entitled to vote, only that the UNA not
prevent them from being members of the UNA.
One further important point regarding governance is
referenced in the UNA2008. That
is, that “The UNA will: … (b) promote informed decision-making and good
governance” (Section 3.6). Good
governance could reasonably be understood as effective democratic practices.
The UNA Bylaws themselves, do not mention informed
decision-making or good-governance.
Rather, the purpose of the UNA is defined in our bylaws in terms of
promoting a distinctive university town, to promote, develop and deliver
services, to operate and maintain properties, to receive funds from UBC, and to
promote, in the conduct of business and work of the Association, qualities of good
neighbours, including civility, fairness, good faith, respect and understanding
(paraphrased from section 2 of the UNA Bylaws). One might reasonable extend the ideas of civility, fairness,
good faith, and respect as a rationale foundation for effective democratic
practices. However, our bylaws are
silent on the question of full and effective democratic purpose leaving that to
our members to refine and develop.
Operational Protocols that Constrain Democratic Openness
Over the past two years the UNA has moved forward in opening
open internal decision-making processes.
Two key democratic improvements have been the setting up of the Listen
In series of public town hall meetings and the advance posting of standing
committee agendas online for public review. More could be done.
Currently all standing committees meet in private. The rationale for holding the standing
committees in private is that it allows for a frank and thorough
discussion. A further set of
pragmatic arguments for holding standing committees in private is that (1) it
would necessitate shifting the meeting of the committees out of the UNA Board
room to accommodate a potential audience, (2) it is unlikely many people would
attend, and (3) of those who would attend it may well be restricted to members
of the press.
I am not convinced that these concerns are reasonable ones
for restricting the openness of UNA governance practices.
Short Term Solutions
1.
Greater procedural openness can be achieved by shifting
the Operations & Sustainability and Governance Standing Committees into a
public forum. This would
simply require a motion of the board.
2.
Provide short summaries of key items under
discussion at the standing committees and the board, with an invitation to
comment, in the weekly email blasts, on the UNA facebook page, and on the UNA
twitter feed. This provides the double service of notifying residents of
matters under discussion and providing an opportunity for input. Currently the
notifications of the meetings are put out via email, facebook, and twitter, but
a resident would need to pour over a detailed meeting package to find the
various items.
3.
Negotiate a working agreement with appointed
Directors in which they would voluntarily restrict their voting to financial
matters items. This would not
remove a capacity to participate but would be a step toward more democratic
representation on matters that directly affect residents. According to at least one former UNA
Chair, UBC and AMS appointed Directors have in the past agreed to such an
arrangement that would voluntarily restrict their voting capacities. This would
help ensure a more representative democratic practice. Decisions would thus be
made by those directly elected by residents.
Medium Term Solutions
1.
Prepare a bylaw change resolution for the fall
2014 AGM that would define appointed directors as having the capacity to
participate without the capacity to vote.
2.
Prepare a bylaw change that would remove the
formula for determining when a new elected director position is created. This would allow the UNA to determine
the most appropriate size of a governing council free from the imposed housing
development formula. The formula
was reasonable when the community was small. However, the situation has changed and given the complexity
of our community and the need to establish reasonable and effective democratic
representation the number of elected UNA Directors should be established by the
UNA, not a one size fits all formula.
3.
As part of a renegotiated University Neighbours’
Agreement move to the elimination of appointed directors.
Long Term Solutions
1.
Establish a residents’ assembly to consider and
recommend democratic governance options for our community.
2.
Establish real, effective, local democratic
governance.
