OK, a couple of critical points now it doesn't matter anymore:
- The veto power vested in the Board is absolute. Totally absolute. As far as I can see the Board can rule out constitutional amendments at will. It may be able to annul election results. It has to report back to Congress, but doesn't have to have anything ratified. Congress can no-confidence a trustee but - and here's the kicker - it looks like the Trustees can overrule this too if it poses a 'financial risk' to the union (say, if the fired trustee threatens to sue).
- The Democratic Procedures Committee (kind of a hybrid Steering, Rules-Revision and elections committee in one) is massively too powerful - especially because of the next point.
- The No-Platform text is a bit too strong. I approve of no-platform policies in general, but this one allows the DPC to essentially bar by prior restraint people "known to hold racist or fascist views", with no capacity for appeal and no obvious need for anyone to make a real case. A politicised DPC could essentially permanently ban its enemies from NUS. Under the proposed rules, how hard would it be do get Conservative Future banned from NUS for good for being right-wing?
- Nominations Committee is made up of at least two trustees and a DPC member. Its job? To suggest new lay-trustees and DPC members. These nominated people go to Congress for ratification, not for an election. In other words, Nominations Committee exists for people to get their mates onto the same committees as them.
I'd be interested to heat from those who are generally supportive of the proposals about these issues.
