301 Report

An Investigation into New Student Clubs at UBC The University of British Columbia English 301 By Brandon Taylor November 30th, 2007

Abstract This report investigates the process of constituting and creating a new club, association or society at the University of British Columbia and some of the salient issues that arise during this process. It examines this process through the quantitative numbers of clubs at the university, the regulations that govern their activity as well as interviews with club executives and their counterparts in the Student Administrative Commission, the university’s governing body for clubs. Taking the impact clubs at UBC have on the student body into consideration, issues arise pertaining to the possibility that the SAC may be able to exert their influence on a level that restricts the admission of prospective clubs on the basis of their purpose and mandate. In response to this problem, this report recommends that new changes to AMS and SAC regulations involve provisions for increased communication between clubs and their governing bodies, and recognizes that plans are already in motion to alleviate the problem. Also recommended is a clarification of the criteria used by the SAC in evaluating new clubs and societies. ii

Table of Contents Abstract …ii Introduction …1 A Quantitative Look at Clubs at UBC …2 Creating and Operating Club – A Club Executive’s Standpoint …4 The Initial Process of Constituting a Club …4 Constituting and Operating the UBC Croquet Society …5 The Official Stance …9 The SAC’s View on the Issue of New Clubs …9 AMS and SAC Regulations …11 Conclusions and Recommendations …13 References Cited …14 iii

Introduction Clubs, Societies and Associations at the University of British Columbia (UBC) play an important role in the academic and non-academic lives of students. Academically they provide a network of peers to assist in educational pursuits, as well as a social network for students sharing a common faculty or department. Non-academically, they provide a medium for an enormous range of social, recreational, spiritual and leisure activities, and accompanying peer groups. The Alma Mater Society (AMS) of UBC and its subsidiaries provide organizational structure, financial resources, free room bookings, and a great deal of other services for clubs at UBC. However, it also dictates what clubs are allowed under their organizational umbrella and whether a club can remain a part of the AMS organization after their constitution as an official club. A preliminary look into the initial processes of constituting a club put forth by the AMS and the Student Administration Commission (SAC) shows no obvious or explicit bias against overtly political or cultural clubs. Despite this, the authority to restrict clubs and associations of a certain type remains in the hands of the SAC. This report will look into the experience of creating a new club from the perspective of both club executives and SAC members, as well as investigate the AMS regulations and bylaws pertaining to clubs and associations at UBC. 1

A Quantitative Look at Clubs at UBC According to the AMS website club pages (<http://salink.ams.ubc.ca>), the http://salink.ams.ubc.ca>), University of British Columbia boasts 312 organizations within the organizational umbrella of the AMS. These clubs are put into categories: Academics/Management, Cultural/Identity, Spiritual, Political/Social Action, Recreational/Athletic, Social, Recreational/Athletic, Community Service, Media/Arts/Performance, Leisure/Hobby/Special Interest, and Sciences. The range of clubs within each category is quite broad – for example, the Recreational/Athletic category includes the Kung Fu Association, the Ski and Board the Club, and the Croquet Association (formerly known as the Croquet Society). Clubs are not restricted to a single category, but are given a primary category for reference. According to the list of clubs given at Clubs Days (a three day event where students can event browse clubs in and around the Student Union Building), the categorical breakdown of clubs is shown in Figure 1: Figure 1 - Breakdown in percentage of clubs at UBC by type. 7% 3% 5% 18% 17% 12% 11% 13% 5% 9% Academic Community Service Cultural Leisure Media Political Recreational Science Social Spiritual Figure 1 does not necessarily represent the proportions of membership within clubs, but the numbers of clubs themselves, which gives insight into what categories are either in which demand by the student body, or have an easier time entering into and remaining in the 2

AMS organization. Accurate figures for the breakdown of actual membership are difficult to find due to inaccurate collection of data by the clubs themselves. However, the three largest clubs have been cited by the SAC as being the Chinese Varsity Club, the Chinese Student’s Association and the Ski and Board club, each posting a few thousand members apiece – altogether representing over 10% of the total student population of UBC. 3

Creating and Operating a New Club – A Club Executive’s Standpoint Clubs at UBC are constituted and deconstituted on a regular basis – the SAC holds weekly meetings where new clubs are constituted and existing clubs that have failed to maintain certain administrative standards are removed from the AMS’ organization. This section will investigate how clubs are constituted into the AMS, and look into the specific experience of the UBC Croquet Society. The Initial Process of Constituting a Club The process of creating a new club does not require extensive bureaucratic documentation or participation – all that is required of prospective clubs is an executive, ten members, a constitution and a one-year plan. The AMS’ website (www.ams.ubc.ca) provides a step by step process of how to go about creating this constitution and executive, and also clarifies the requirements for membership and outlines the one year plan for the prospective club. If all these satisfy the SAC’s standards, executives then give a five-minute presentation to the SAC. It is this step where the SAC’s discretion, as opposed to administrative regulation, determines a club’s fate. The AMS provides some of the criteria used to judge these presentations, but leaves the issue of criteria somewhat open to interpretation by the SAC. There are two salient points of criteria provided online. One states that “other criteria determined by the SAC” may be used, and is stated last in the list of criteria. This reinforces the notion that the SAC, rather than regulations or set criteria, has the final say in constituting a club. This point, however, is counterbalanced by the other salient point of criteria, listed first, that states a club will be judged on whether “the club’s mandate furthers the Mission Statement of the AMS.” The 4

Mission Statement of the AMS that is referred to is easily found online, and provides good insight into attitude of the AMS. Accessible at <http://www.amsubc.ca/index.php/ams/subpage/category/about_the_ams>, the mission statement outlines the basic tenets of what the AMS stands for. It also solves to a degree the issue of interpretation of criteria, stating “The AMS’s priorities will be determined by its members,” and that it will “be democratic, fair, accountable to, and accessible to its members.” This adds a good deal of accountability to the process and lessens the level of which criteria is open to interpretation. Constituting and Operating the UBC Croquet Society The UBC Croquet Society was originally constituted in 2003, was deconstituted at some point in 2005 (executives were never actually informed of this decision, so an exact date is unknown), and now is reconstituted for the current semester. The executive of this club quite actively sought the reconstitution of the club, having failed on one occasion before succeeding in September of this year. Former President Steve Smith experienced similar difficulties with the AMS and SAC. This section will investigate both the experiences of the current executive and Mr. Fischer through the lens of the issues of constituting and operating new clubs. In terms of constituting and operating the club, the mandate of club seemed to have little impact to the AMS and the SAC. Steve and the current executive agree on the fact that the mandate and purpose of the club were relatively benign (the club simply focuses on playing croquet), and also on the fact that the SAC never had issues with the 5

purpose or mandate. The only problems or issues raised were purely administrative. The more interesting issue that arose out of this was the intersection of the club’s mandate and the administrative problems that were encountered. Since the Croquet Society, in Steve’s words, “does not depend on AMS as much as other clubs,” this lead to administrative inactivity in the eyes of the AMS. While the club was operating normally according to the executive, the non-use of AMS resources was a sign of administrative inactivity – something that was cited as the primary cause for deconstitution. Constituting the club in both cases was an administrative affair as well, in that the mandate did not have a greater influence. While the Croquet Society is a rather unique club in terms of its activity (the only other instance of croquet in an official role was the now-defunct Afternoon Tea Society), its mandate and purpose were not an issue to the AMS and SAC – any changes that were required to be made before constitution were all administrative. For example, the first constitution written by the current executive failed to gain the SAC’s approval – discussing it later, the SAC did not cite any problems with the purpose and mandate of the club, but did not like the wording of some executive titles (Chief Executive Officer was replaced by Treasurer), or the budget provided. An issue with the relationship between the Croquet Society, under both Steve Smith and the current executive, and the AMS was often characterized by a lack of communication. This has little to do with the constitution of new clubs, but it a prime example of the difficulties experienced by clubs that often lead to deconstitution, and thus subsequent re-constitution. It is also in the Croquet Society’s experience the single most difficult factor of starting and running a club, regardless of purpose or mandate. When 6

asked to comment on the purely social and recreational nature of the Croquet Society, Smith replied, “I don’t think that the AMS cared what the nature of the club was, as long as the club met AMS guidelines.” However, the nature of the club did come into play by exacerbating the lack of communication between the club and the AMS, something that eventually led to the club’s deconstitution. Current executives found this to be especially true during the process of attempting to reconstitute the club – after having a constitution and presentation fail to pass the SAC’s standards, they were not told that the constitution had been defeated or the reasons for this action. A slight discrepancy found in the experience of the Croquet Society was the SAC’s criteria in evaluating the club. During the two presentations made by the current executive, the SAC focused almost equally on the budget, mandate and constitution put forth. Conversely, Smith’s experience was that the light-hearted nature of the club made accepting the club into the AMS a “no brainer.” When informed of this, current executives found this surprising, as one of the first questions they were asked was along the lines of “why does your club even need the AMS.” However, this can also be attributed to the aforementioned light-hearted nature of the club and its mandate that did not require much AMS involvement. This would explain the SAC’s apparent apprehension - as perceived by the executives - towards permitting the Croquet Society back into the AMS. Steve Smith commented on this issue as such: “One thing to remember is that nobody is going to stop you if you want to start your own club, outside of the AMS. Using the AMS is just a better way to get exposure.” It is likely that the 7

AMS realized this as well and were reluctant to simply add their name to a club that did not necessarily need it. 8

The Official Stance The body of regulations and bylaws concerning clubs at UBC readily available to students is concise yet functional. Found again on the AMS website, these regulations outline precisely what regulations prospective clubs will need to follow and also give a basic structure to these clubs. The following sections will look deeper into these regulations and their impact on the purpose and mandate of new clubs, and the SAC’s view on them and the purpose/mandate issue. The SAC’s View on the Issue of New Clubs The issues of criteria and the constitution of new clubs into the AMS are regular business to the SAC, and their involvement in not only defining these issues but also resolving them is ongoing. Very recently they have been involved with AMS Student Council at UBC in discussing their actions and policies in constituting new clubs – this is indicative of the somewhat ongoing process of defining policy towards clubs. According the Amy Wang, SAC Vice Chair, the SAC’s regulations and by-laws regarding clubs are updated somewhat regularly, at least in terms of minor changes. Major changes are less frequent. Making even minor changes, however, is not easy, and the SAC cannot make policy decisions at its own volition. All proposed changes must be presented to the AMS Student Council for approval before being implemented, and usually involve some amount of deliberation. This process is quite open and is accountable to students through the involvement of AMS Council. The entire body of regulations and bylaws can be found in the SAC Policy Handbook. 9

On the subject of constituting new clubs, the issue of a prospective club’s mandate and purpose having a significant effect in determining whether a club will gain acceptance into the AMS appears to be a minor issue. Much of the changes made recently are entirely administrative, and are meant to ensure that new and existing clubs have as little difficulty as possible in maintaining their administration. There are essentially no changes that affect any club’s purpose or mandate. The reason for this is the rather low frequency of instances where the purpose or mandate of a club is cited as a reason for not constituting that particular club. According to the SAC, the main factors when looking at a new club are primarily administrative, focusing on a sustainable budget and solid plan for the future. The only instances where the mandate of a club is factored into their decision making process is when the possibility that the prospective club’s mandate or purpose overlaps with that of an existing club, and this situation has proven to be rare. When this does occur the SAC ensures that the club is notified of the problem, and attempt to work with the club to ameliorate the situation. Consultation with prospective clubs is standard practice when any problems regarding constitution of a new club arise – this is related to the accountability of the SAC and AMS to the student body. An example of how the SAC is directly accountable to students is the fact that the SAC Presidency (currently held by Vanessa Stewart) is elected during AMS general elections. One of the salient issues with the SAC and prospective clubs was the criteria given for a club’s presentation, and most notably the rather open final point. When asked about this, Amy Wang and other SAC members were quick to point out that the open criteria is meant purely for flexibility on the part of both the SAC and the club. As well, 10

the SAC members elaborated that the level of flexibility is intended to facilitate the process of constitution, allowing clubs to be more creative with their mandate and purpose, and allowing the SAC to have fewer restrictions against such creativity. This amount of leeway basically allows clubs to have any purpose they choose, as long as they can meet the administrative standards and do not duplicate any existing clubs. AMS and SAC Regulations The body of AMS regulations pertaining to clubs is contained within the SAC Policy Handbook. More specifically, the rules and bylaws that directly apply to clubs on a regular basis are contained within the new constitution package and template. Reformed for the 2007-2008 school year, the new constitution template bears several changes that are entirely focused on making the process of drafting a constitution and creating a club easier. Among these changes are the requirement that two executive members be named “President” and “Treasurer.” This change has definite roots in actual experience – one of the Croquet Society’s failed constitutions had the treasurer’s position listed as “Chief Executive Officer,” an aspect of that particular constitution that was cited as a reason for its failure. Also notable is the almost entirely administrative nature of the change. Despite the fact it somewhat restricts what clubs can call their executives, those still wanting to have creative titles have five more openings with which to do as they please. The role of Sole Signing Officer (responsible for financial transactions) is also restricted to the Treasurer, something that streamlines financial dealings for both clubs and the AMS and also aids the AMS in adhering to applicable sets of federal and provincial tax laws. 11

Not all new changes to club regulations are restrictive. Prospective executives are free to determine the requirements for amending the constitution in question. This has significant implications for the purpose and mandate of any club, as it dictates how easily these aspects of the constitution can be changed, and also allows a prospective club to make its mandate as concrete or as flexible as it sees fit. Clubs that want a very solid mandate can write their constitution in such a manner that it would require a petition involving the entire club’s membership in order to bring a proposed change to the executive. Conversely, clubs that prefer the ability to evolve their mandate on a (theoretically) daily basis can require only a fraction of a percentage of membership to petition for a change. Keeping with the trend of purely administrative changes, the new Constitutional Amendment bylaw has absolutely no restrictions on a clubs mandate or purpose. Also keeping the purpose of the club as open as possible is the nature of executive positions. As mentioned earlier, the SAC restricts the titles of two executives to Treasurer and President, and the roles of these positions also have certain restrictions, in that they have necessary duties. Otherwise executive positions are completely open in their prospective duties. This leaves the rest of the executive to fill any purpose the club’s founders see fit. 12

Conclusions and Recommendations The issue of criteria and the influence of the AMS and SAC in the creation of new clubs at UBC is basically invalid after an examination of the regulations regarding new clubs as well as the experiences of club executives. This however is not to say a problem does not exist. While the purpose of a club and its mandate (when made within AMS standards) may not have any impact on a club’s creation, a benign or administratively inactive club can have a difficult time in operating smoothly. A club with a mandate or purpose that does not involve a great deal of administrative activity or use of AMS resources also risks deconstitution due to the lack of a direct and moderately frequent relationship with the SAC and AMS. Remedies for these problems all involve greater communication between clubs, both potential and existing, and the AMS and SAC. In terms of creating a club, more information on the AMS website, namely more specific criteria for presenting a club to the SAC, would aid in clearing up any issues regarding the SAC’s influence in constituting clubs. A good deal of useful information is already provided, and supplementing this with more detailed criteria could eliminate this problem altogether. As well, provisions in the SAC’s policy for refusing clubs would benefit from stipulations promoting increased communication between clubs and the SAC. The ongoing process on the part of the SAC to improve their operations has addressed this, and will continue to address this in the future. 13

References Cited AMS General Website: www.ams.ubc.ca AMS Mission Statement: http://www.amsubc.ca/index.php/ams/subpage/category/about_the_ams Guidelines for starting a club and links to download club constitution templates: http://www.amsubc.ca/index.php/student_government/subpage/category/sac_and_clubs/ Membership portal to all UBC clubs: http://salink.ams.ubc.ca 14

301 Report

by brandontaylor86

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 5

Statistics

301 Report Document Transcript

http://zenportfolios.com	4
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com	1