GBMs: Nowhere To Be Seen

Written on September 8th, 2019 by {"login"=>"jcbitshyd", "email"=>"journal@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in", "display_name"=>"Journal Club, BPHC", "first_name"=>"", "last_name"=>""}

As we slowly venture into the new academic year, we have already begun noticing significant changes in the campus. From the introduction of the Freshers Guidance Program to the outrage over removal of previous years' Impartus videos, this semester has already started on a very happening note. While the newly elected SUC comes with fresh promises of transforming the campus, we at Journal Club take a moment to reflect on one of the neglected yet concerning issues on the campus - the absence of General Body Meetings.

What are GBMs?

General Body Meetings, or GBMs, are essentially a medium for our elected representatives to communicate to the student body about the recent developments and undertakings of the Council. This allows discussion about fest budgets, amendments to the Constitution or matters concerning departments, clubs or hostel issues. Basically, GBMs are effectively one of the only platforms where you get to have an active say in what happens on campus and how your money is dealt with in the hands of the SU.[1] The quorum required for a GBM is generally 10% of the student body. Over the last academic semester, effectively not even a single GBM happened. 

The Case of 2018-19

While two GBMs were officially convened over the last academic year, both of them failed to meet the 10% strength of the student body to meet quorum. The SUC tried - and they tried twice and failed twice. Before we get into trouble though, we should probably say that they did technically hold two GBMs - there’s nothing in the constitution about a GBM not being a GBM if quorum isn’t met. However, not even a single GBM was organised in second semester last year.

Leaving that aside for now, people just didn’t seem like they were very interested in knowing what would happen with their “baap ka paisa” or even try to have a say in what would happen on campus matters. The SUC called the first GBM, following the constitution to the T, perhaps even expecting a full show but we weren’t even close. While the president could have given up then and used his veto (explained in the next section), perhaps he was feeling a little magnanimous and decided that he’d call for another GBM or have a second attempt or whatever. The second GBM was called and again, quorum wasn’t met. The President then gave a short presentation on what his planned budgets were and what the planned deductions for each would be. The people there simply watched it like one would watch a lecture, powerless to really say anything or choose one of the three budgets on offer (The President is supposed to present at least 3 provisional budgets before the GBM, considering 3 different scenarios, which have to be ratified by the CRC at least 2 days before the GBM), knowing there wouldn't be a vote on them.

The President’s Veto

Now we should probably talk about that tiny little thing the President can do if quorum for a budget GBM isn’t met even once. The Constitution gives the President the right to deduct an amount he deems fit, from the Union.[2] This power of the President is informally termed the President’s veto. What happened last year was the President used his “veto” to deduct money from the Union, and in effect, pass the budgets for all 3 major fests in one go. Just to make it clear, this isn’t wrong since it’s the Constitution that vests this power in the President, our elected representative. Not to mention, he could’ve always argued that not even 10% of the campus cared about the budget or a GBM, which is frightening to say the least. The maximum amount possible was deducted from everyone’s accounts, before anyone would even begin to care.

Does this mean that we don’t care about our “baap ka paisa”? What was perhaps even worse was that when we went around campus and casually asked people why they didn’t bother showing up for the GBM, they’d say “mai yaha padhne aaya hu.”, which is a fair point. GBMs can go on for hours at times and a lot of people would call it a waste of time. But is it really? The things that are being discussed in a GBM do have an effect on what we do in our daily campus lives and they affect our bank accounts (which have already taken a hit from fee deposits). Most people on campus are whining about their finances being whittled down by the college, and yet, they don’t turn up for GBMs where finances and the other things they do on campus could be affected. Perhaps this is why nobody bothered with convening even a single GBM last semester, a Constitutional mandate. 

The Law of the Land

The Student Union Constitution makes it very clear that the General Secretary is responsible for convening at least two GBMs per semester.[3] Despite this being codified as a part of the Student Union Constitution, no GBMs were organised at all last semester. This might have something to do with the fact that the budget that they needed to discuss had already been passed the previous semester. Nonetheless, this does not change the fact that this is a constitutional violation. If only there was a commission or a mechanism to deal with violations of this sort, perhaps something could have been done about it. Other responsibilities of said hypothetical organisation could possibly include free and fair elections on campus[4] and interpreting the Constitution in cases of ambiguity.[5] They might even have done something about this issue.

The commission matching the description for such an organisation, had no comment about the issue when we reached out to them. There was no action against the General Secretary, Suraj Thotakura for failing to fulfill the duties of office.

The No Show Campus

So what is the real reason behind this perpetual no-show that we’ve been facing? Is there any way to ascertain why people don’t turn up for the GBMs? It can’t be that more than 3600 people are busy whenever the GBM is set. Heck, they called for two in the first semester of last year and still, nobody turned up. Is it that they have to study? Even if they do, we’d argue that given what’s at stake here, shouldn’t they be obligated to turn up for the GBM given that it’s held but twice in one semester? Is it really too much to ask for? Let’s also not let the SUC off so easily either. They chose the last possible date to hold a GBM and it so happened that the date was really close to midsems. One GBM clashed with a very popular Computer Science talk that was announced BEFORE the GBM.[6] Then there are those who are just too lazy to show up. This isn’t even an excuse. It’s a disease that’s come about because of the freedom we’ve been given and it is this very freedom that it is affecting. Everything on campus is done by the students and if students can’t be bothered to turn up to even make decisions about our lives here, then perhaps it is better if we let the administration take over. On the one hand, we have the General Body which can’t be bothered to show up for GBMs and on the other, we have Commissions, Committees and Councils (That probably covers the bunch who have the most say on Campus activities) making mistakes willy-nilly. If people don’t turn up for GBMs, these mistakes will go unnoticed and unaccounted for and we will continue to be the bakras (or victims), as the popular phrase goes.

It is critical for us as the student body of this campus to be more conscious, assertive and aware about the events on campus and to be willing to question the elected representatives about their decisions and take an active stance in the politics and the finances that the campus deals with. With the first GBM of the semester, that will introduce the budget, right around the corner, we can only hope that the students show their responsibility towards the campus and themselves, and attend the GBM to voice their opinion and cast their votes in the decision making process.

References

  1. The Constitution, under Section VII (a) - Budgets, mandates that “Fest budgets must be presented to the Union at least thirty days before the fest. At least three different provisional budgets must be presented considering three different scenarios”.
  2. The Constitution, under Section IV, point 5 under sub-section (a) President, quotes, “He/she may fix an amount to be charged from the members of the Union for any activity organized by the Council with the approval of the Associate Dean, Student Welfare Division (SWD) and the same shall have to be ratified by at least two-thirds of the Council. The Union must be informed about this decision within 24 hours. The Union reserves the right to propose a motion against this deduction within a week of the decision’s notice being made public. The motion must be initiated by one-third of the Union and passed by two-thirds of the Union.”
  3. The Constitution, under Section IV, point 6 under sub-section (b) General Secretary, quotes, “He/she shall convene at least two General Body Meetings, hereafter addressed simply as GBMs, every semester which shall amount to a review of the working of the Council over the semester.”
  4. The Constitution, under Section IX, point 5, section titled “Election Commission”, states that, “It shall be responsible for conducting free and fair elections and all other activities delegated to it constitutionally. Any complaint or grievance during the election process for any post in the Council or any of the Union’s organs must be made to the EC.”
  5. The Constitution, under Section IX, point 10, section titled “Election Commission”, states that, “In case of any dispute over the interpretation of the Constitution or any of its adjuncts, the EC shall judge the case. Any decision taken by the EC in this regard shall be final and binding on the Council and the Union’s organs.”
  6. A CS panel talk, with ten fourth yearites was organised on the same time as the GBM. The panel consisted of seniors with achievements in various fields including open source, competitive coding, research and software development in industry. While the CS panel talk was attended by hundreds, the GBM happening in the opposite room failed to meet quorum. While the talk was scheduled as early as 24th September, the notice for the GBM came out one day in advance on 26th September, clashing with the talk. Despite the talk being scheduled beforehand, the GBM was convened on the same day and time. This talk was one reason many students cited for being unable to attend the meet, and there were questions raised on whether that clash was made on purpose.

Article by Ananya Mohapatra, Abhijeet Viswa and Athul Vijay.

Feel free to share!

You may also enjoy...