IITB Student Senate: A first glance

Recently, we have been presented with the proposal of a 'Student Senate'. I took some time to look at it and review it personally. Let me start with a few key points from the proposal:

1. 32 Senators (including all 5 GSs) with representation from UG/PG batches, MI, TF, Ecell, ISMP etc.

2. A President nominated from among the previous year's senators by the outgoing executive committee (President and 5 GSs)

3. Removal of general elections for Institute Secretaries. They shall be selected by an electorate (group of people) recommended by the ex-GS.

4. Senate reviews, evaluates and challenges the work of Institute councils, Independent bodies or IBs(MI, TF, Ecell), Media bodies, ISMP, SARC, Placement Cell.

5. The Senate works through committees (both permanent and temporary) whose members, in almost all cases, are senators appointed by the President.

6. All bodies submit periodic reports to the Senate for review.

7. Formalised impeachment procedure for all Institute post holders.

8. DoSA can veto any Senate decision.

9. Videos and minutes shall be made publicly available.


Some of the finer points can be looked at in the proposal sent by DoSA. However, a few of the finer points are missing. This leads me to concerns section of this post:

1. PoRs for PoRs: The purpose of this body is to keep a check on and increase accountability of PoRs. However, in turn, it creates more PoRs which might fall into the same pit.

2. President's Rule: The Senate President is too powerful.

• He appoints the Vice-President (consulting the GSs).
  
• He also appoints members to all the Senate committees.
  
• The President chairs the meetings which allows him to bar any senator from a meeting owing to misconduct. The repetition of misconduct leads to impeachment which means he can impeach any senator all by himself.
• The impeachment procedure for the President is not mentioned in the proposal. Although it says all senators can be impeached by the process mentioned, it makes no mention of how a President is to be re-elected if impeached and subsequent appointment of committee members and the Vice-President.
• He has a casting vote in split decisions.
  
• The President's permission is required for a lot of cases.

3. Emergency Committee: Perhaps the most intriguing section of the proposal. The committee is supposed to represent the Senate in emergency. The proposal mentions that the an emergency meeting can be called by any senator. It is not specified whether the emergency meeting is attended only by the emergency committee (and perhaps the senator calling the meeting) or by all available senators. Being attended only by the emergency committee gives an undue advantage to the members of this committee between two meetings. The committee has as members, 5 GSs, the President, the Vice President (appointed by the President), 4 other senators(appointed by the President). This, quite literally, is President's Rule between two meetings of the Senate. The proposal makes no mention of whether decisions taken in emergency will be reviewed by the Senate in its next meeting. Further more, the videos for these meetings might not be available as that is the task of the steering committee. However, if the meeting is to be attended by all available senators, then the emergency committee does not need to be there at all. The only thing the committee can achieve in such a case is the postponement of an emergency meeting by 30 minutes. The postponement occurs when the 75% quorum of the committee is not met in an emergency meeting. After the postponement, the meeting continues irrespective of the quorum (for lack of a better word, I guess). Also, an emergency meeting can be called only by approval from the President.

4. Vague Vested Powers: The powers vested in the Senate are not specified in the proposal. Since the Senate also acts as a judicial body apart from a legislative one, the lack of a penal code might create confusion. The Senate would make arbitrary decisions in case of offences by institute bodies. These decisions were made by the DoSA until now and I fear they will be of the same kind. This also raises doubts on fairness of decisions towards two similar offences in absence of a fixed directive on fines and penalties.

5. There are some other concerns like removal of general elections for Institute Secretaries. But, I am hopeful about the positive aspects they have to offer.

Turncoat:
On a positive note, the proposal does give the opportunity to students to handle things within themselves. The accountability of GSs and the Institute Council is indeed a problem that needs to be fixed. The institute could have taken the task in its own hands by disrupting the institute-independence of IBs and other bodies. However, it has decided to throw the ball in our court (apart from the veto power to the DoSA which is reasonable). I think this is a more favourable choice as far as students are concerned. As for the proposal, I am sure a lot of thought has gone into it. Some changes need to be made, which I guess will surface in the open houses. The first few Senates will be crucial as they will have to set stereotypes on the types of decisions to be made. It should stabilise from there on.
Overall, I appreciate the intent of the proposal from the part of the institute. However, for it to work, these PoRs need to be more than just resume points. Anyhow, I would not be able to witness the working Senate as I graduate next year, or so I hope.

Note: The pronoun 'he' shall be read as 'he/she' by all feminists.