Democracy and the Creative industries and completely unrelated areas, so why have they been grouped together as one sabb?
Giving the officer two roles like this seems to detract from both their ability to represent the 70+ creative industries groups and encouraging the democracy within the union, due to having to focus on both at once. Additionally people may not be interested in both of these areas, which leads them to run with one of the parts of the role in mind. This could easily lead to the officer focusing more on one area at the detriment of the other.
Grouping democracy with CI makes just as much sense as grouping it with sports development, so why was creative industries chosen over sport? VP DSD?
It makes the most sense (to me anyway) for it to be under VP Engagement's role, as they already deal with elections outside of the union (local/national elections). Grouping external and internal elections together would come across as more cohesive to students, and will give the sabbatical involved with CI the ability to focus on representing those student groups.
This is not at all a personal criticism at the current VP DCI and I am not saying they have done these things personally! It is a critique of the structure itself and how it could potentially lead to the problems described above.
In summary, why was the this structure chosen and would it be possible for it to be reviewed in the future?
I can’t speak for why these roles were combined to begin with – it’s a mystery to me too! Next year, there is due to be a Sabb review, and I think one of the big focuses in that will be the role of DCI, as it does combine two very separate roles into one.
I don’t know how the role came to be, but it should be reviewed in next years Sabb review along with the titles and remits of the officers.
Tuesday 24th May 2016 2:17pm