Council is defined by its often onerous parliamentary procedures: speaking limits, motions, amendments and decorum. So what happens when it abandons all of that? We found out during the August 18 AMS Council meeting.
Robert’s Rules of Order (council’s rules for debate) drew criticism when councillors prevented AMS executives from voting on a motion that would decide the future of executive accountability and the Ethics and Oversight Committee. (The argument was that since executives would be held accountable by the committee, it was a conflict of interest for them to vote on it.)
This essay is part of Point of Inquiry, our AMS column. It is written by staff columnist Quyen Schroeder, a trained opinion journalist who also serves as The Ubyssey’s opinion editor.
Quyen isn’t impartial when they report on the AMS. With years of council attendance as context, she imagines a better future for our student union — one with meaningful advocacy and productive student engagement. When they go to council meetings, attend AMS protests and interview student politicians, they make it clear they are reporting as an opinion journalist.
Opinion essays are intentionally subjective and make no claims to impartiality. Otherwise, they are required to uphold the same ethical standards and undergo the same fact-checking process as everything else in The Ubyssey’s report. The views expressed in Point of Inquiry are Quyen’s and do not represent the views of The Ubyssey as a whole.
The executives lamented that this was unfair. AMS President Dylan Evans said deciding that executives were in a conflict of interest was part of a "continuous dysfunction" in AMS governance.
In response to this perceived unfairness, Evans invoked an obscure section of Robert's Rules, requesting that council enter a "committee of the whole." Effectively, he wanted council to ignore Robert's Rules and casually discuss what to do about executive accountability. VP Finance Nathan Shack said this would avoid the “undemocratic” process of proposing an amendment and then prematurely cutting off discussion.
When many recent council decisions have been negotiated during 10-minute council recesses, formally entering that kind of discussion as an entire council isn’t a bad idea.
After a brief debate, council entered “a lawless land,” to quote GSS Councillor Katelynn Hubenig. Council suspended Robert’s Rules — possibly an AMS council first. As councillors started to move around the room, I grabbed a camera. I needed photos of the most dynamic council I’d ever seen.
Councillors crowded around a table and requisitioned a large sheet of paper and a variety of markers.
Together, they built an outline for the future of executive accountability.
Hubenig took notes on the nearby whiteboard, keeping track of council’s ideas.
GSS Councillor Bryan Buraga was excluded from discussions, having been chosen as the committee of the whole’s chair — a position no one else wanted.
(“Please no,” Clerk of Council Sheldon Goldfarb said when he was asked.)
Managing Director Justin Lieu advised councillors on the cost and timeline of an external review.
VP Student Life Matthew Renzitti was content to stay far away from the action.
VP External Alex Zheng and VP Academic and University Affairs Jaiya Panchi were disengaged through most of the process.
Councillors joining by videoconference were included too — by placing a laptop on the drafting table.
Perhaps this is a strange observation, but councillors seemed to be … having fun? Almost everyone gathered around the table.
It was a great atmosphere. It felt like a joyous collaboration: a shared imagining of how to make our union better.
I don't know if this is what Evans had envisioned when he proposed the committee of the whole. I suspect it wasn't.
But the motion the process produced was unanimously approved by council. The committee of the whole innovated council discourse. Their discussion took roughly 90 minutes. Compared to council’s usual slightly-faster-than-molasses pace, this new form brought Eliud Kipchoge-level speed.
This speed, however, comes at the cost of the codified and balanced deliberation of Robert’s Rules.
Robert’s Rules restricts the number of times each person can speak, specifies when someone can be interrupted and limits speakers to a specific topic. This, ideally, allows everyone a chance to be heard and prevents one person from monopolizing the conversation. Robert’s Rules also has councillors vote on specific, articulable motions, which can be modified by amendments. This keeps debate to a single, narrow topic and everyone understands what is being discussed.
Does Robert’s Rules succeed at this? It’s a game of trade-offs, but broadly, I’d say it does. I’ve been at meetings that didn’t use any rules of order that completely lost the plot as they descended into chaos, overlapping speech and personal attacks. The procedure that makes Robert’s Rules slow is exactly what is valuable about it.
However, Robert’s Rules presents legitimate drawbacks that the committee of the whole avoids. A meeting run using Robert’s Rules expects that everyone understands Robert’s Rules and is capable of using them. This places a burden on participants: not only does one need to figure out what to say, they also need to figure out the Robert-ese required to say it. While this can be dismissed as an occupational hazard to councillors, it is downright stifling to many students who speak at council.
When a student takes time out of their evening to speak to council, they’re told to direct all comments through the chair. This confusing directive is based in Robert’s Rules and seems ridiculous at first glance. It lends itself to a narrative of council being wrapped in bureaucratic red tape and meaningless procedure. On contentious motions, debate descends so deep into the Robert dimension of nest motions that even councillors are confused. Non-councillors have little hope of keeping up.
With practice, however, the Robert dimension turns from a hindrance into a cudgel a councillor can use against the inexperienced. Earlier this year, I recommended that councillors familiarize themselves with Robert’s Rules so they are equipped to oppose motions in a parliamentary manner, not just a discursive one.
And boy oh boy, the executives might as well be an MLB-regulation baseball because they’re getting bludgeoned. Councillors regularly have taken control of debate or determined the executives to be in a conflict of interest. The executives’ recourse before this meeting amounted to complaining about how mean council is. Just this summer, executives called councillors’ motions “disrespectful,” “worrisome” and something that might “imply a divide within the organization.” These were all rather alarmist reactions to benign council discussion — indicative of an executive who would rather guilt council into a decision rather than forming an argument.
The committee of the whole seemed to solve many of these problems. There was a collaborative atmosphere. I didn’t notice any of the direct conflict I’d seen in previous meetings.
Yet, this type of discussion is not flawless. Councillors joining virtually have a distinctly worse experience; anyone who took a hybrid course during COVID will know. Understanding the discussion and collaborating on the draft from online is more difficult than picking up a pen and opening your mouth. Even in person, there is no guarantee of being heard other than interrupting. A loud minority can dominate a conversation — exactly what Robert’s Rules seeks to avoid.
Regardless, there’s a shiny new tool in council’s tool belt. But it shouldn’t be deployed in every situation.
If council were to enter a committee of the whole when discussing advocacy to end genocide in Gaza, the meeting would be poor, nasty, brutish and short. Because councillors and executives disagree about whether the AMS should get involved in “geopolitics,” reaching a consensus about what to do would be nigh impossible. The committee of the whole would be caught spinning in circles with the most passionate driving debate to be more and more heated. Nothing productive would get done because consensus would never be reached. Under Robert’s Rules, a circular discussion can be cut short by a vote; heated discussions are still possible, but they’re mitigated by speaking limits and a restriction on personal remarks.
Have thoughts on this essay?
We'd like to hear them — even if you are criticizing The Ubyssey or disagreeing with a columnist. You can send us a short letter in response to this or any of our stories. Letters submitted in response to Point of Inquiry will be edited by Managing Editor Spencer Izen or Deputy Opinion Editor Maneli Moghbeli.
Likewise, if council wanted to collaboratively draft a letter to be sent on behalf of the AMS — like the forthcoming letter to UBC about the AI note taker, Genio Notes — a committee of the whole would be an inappropriate venue. It would be like asking 30 cooks to make a meal using a single stove. Whatever they’re cooking, it’s sure to get spilled, burnt or otherwise ruined by the jostling of everyone fighting for control.
So, when should the committee of the whole be deployed? When there is a shared, important goal, but there is reasonable disagreement on a strategic decision. Too operational and council will get lost in the weeds. Too much disagreement about what to do (or whether to do anything) and council will descend into a state of nature. Not important enough or only important to a few and the committee will just be a waste of everyone’s time. If Robert’s Rules is a cudgel that could be useful in any situation (even if it is less effective or harmful), entering a committee of the whole is an Allen key. The problem it solves has a distinct shape, but it’s helpful for little else.
I don't dare prognosticate whether this executive accountability motion will be effective — at least not yet. How executives are held accountable is an annual question, and the answer changes so frequently that a goldfish could remember when it was last answered this April.
Regardless of whether it succeeds, this process produced one of the most democratically legitimate motions of recent years. That doesn’t mean council has outgrown its need for Robert’s Rules.
Robert’s Rules has its place. But the committee of the whole created a much more collaborative and positive council.
We could use a little more of that.
