Every year it's the same. We review the executive members of the Students' Union (typically twice a year), and more often than not, we anger them. We receive letters, are beleaguered by irate elected officials and already confrontational relations between the Gauntlet and the SU worsen.
This year promises to be no different.
We don't seek out conflict, nor do we criticise for the sake of criticism. We do, however, find ways these five individuals can improve, while trying not to forget the good they do. Being an SU executive isn't an easy task, and we do give credit to those who have taken on these roles for doing what they do.
However, this type of examination is neccessary to keep them accountable. Most people now in office won't return next year. And considering they are each paid upwards of $24,000 of student money, this is the closest thing to a performance review any of them will ever receive. They are employed by students, and this process aims to keep them accountable to their bosses.
The process was simpler than most years. The team of reviewers, all editors at the Gauntlet, were each assigned an executive member to assess. These were determined not only by qualification, but also by working relationships. As with any media-poltician dynamic, certian members of the committee have friendships within the SU--these were seperated as much as possible.
Each committee member then read through all the official reports thus far (and there are many), and solicited information and input from the rest of the editors involved. When neccessary, the executive was asked questions to ensure clarity.
The result is what follows. While it is nearly impossible to sum up seven months of work in 300 words, we feel we have created fair, concise assesments. Hopefully, instead of becomming a point of contention, these reports will help the SU improve, further representing students and their interests in all facets.