By Jillian French – News Editor

On Nov. 20th and 21st, the Student Representative Council (SRC) held a referendum to ratify a new set of bylaws proposed by the Board of Student Representatives (BSR) restructuring leadership within student government. The referendum passed with a 17.8% voter turnout. Of 497 voters, 345 voted to pass the referendum, 95 voted against, and 60 abstained. These bylaws are set to take effect on May 1st, 2025, and the new leadership structure will be reflected in the winter elections.

Students will notice a few major changes in the structure of the SRC. Currently, the BSR is made up of 20 students in Senator or Representative roles. The President, Vice-Presidents of Academics and Student Life, and Directors of Events and Finance work serve as the head of the board. In an external review, a consulting firm noted student leadership burnout and non-competitive elections as weaknesses in the current structure. In the 2024 spring SRC General Election of Representatives & Senators, for example, seven of nine positions were filled by students who ran unopposed.

 To rectify these flaws, new bylaws will consolidate the board into nine Student Directors, to be elected in the general election held in the spring. The voting system for the directors will move to a single transferable vote method. The method uses a ranked voting system. Students’ vote may be transferred to their second-choice candidate if their first choice is elected with a surplus of necessary votes, or if the candidate is eliminated.

Once elected, these nine Directors will select a President and Vice-President amongst themselves. The Executive Council will no longer exist. The smaller board is meant to increase efficiency and ensure that positions are filled in a timely manner, decreasing the interruptions in onboarding student leaders to the BSR at different times. One student, who wishes to remain anonymous, told The Campus that “[t]he idea of reducing the workload for the Student Directors seems really sensible” and called the other changes “very reasonable”, but added that “it is a shame that we don’t get to vote directly for the President and Vice Presidents”. Drew Henkel, SRC President, responded to this concern: “students are choosing the nine best candidates to represent them and make choices on their behalf for the upcoming term… [a]s all directors are elected by the membership, there is no threat to democracy”. One student voiced the concern that ambitious students would be less likely to run for student director if they weren’t running directly for president. Henkel replied that although it does represent a change, “candidates are free to let the student population know that they will let their name stand for President or VP” and can campaign for President during the general election, despite the decision being made later by a newly-elected board.

The firm also noted confusion about elections. This confusion was evident in student comments about the referendum. Christina Lepine, Staff Writer for The Campus and former SRC Vice-President of Academic Life, noted that “ I find it unfortunate that many students find it harder to understand or did not use their right to vote because they did not understand what it involved or just thought it did not affect them”. The anonymous student echoed this sentiment, noting that outside of the town hall meeting, which many students were unable to attend, the changes “were not well-explained”. Henkel noted that although the SRC followed procedure for informing the student body, the new bylaws may actually rectify this issue: “The new bylaws require a higher threshold of 60 days notice (vs current 14 days)…” to notify students of a referendum, “…which is part of the strengthening of governance… [it] also requires 20% voter participation vs current 10%”.

Lepine, “[as] a former executive member” is “transparent in affirming that my personal recommendations were different than what was suggested to the student body”. However, she adds, the SRC’s well-established history will allow them to “ adapt to the new structure as other student unions did around the country”. Though the leadership structure proposes major changes to the university, students’ willingness to work through concerns and questions, as well as high voter turnout, is an optimistic sign of a properly engaged student body at Bishop’s.