The Democracy Review Referendum: Results from the University of St Andrews’ Students’ Association

Following the launch of the Change Programme in January 2024 that involved reviewing all elements of the University of St Andrews’ Students’ Association, the results of the Democracy Review referendum — the first major step of the initiative — were announced on 4 December.

Advertised as “the biggest shake-up to student democracy since 1989” , the Review marks a major step forward in restructuring how the Union functions, as well as the way in which it projects the voice of the student population. As a whole, the Review plans to adjust the roles of the sabbatical officers and the functioning of the Student Representative Council (SRC), amongst other changes. 

Since January, the Change Team led by Antony Blackshaw, have been reviewing the democratic practices of the Union. Working with SRC members, as well as with staff at the University and the Union, the Change Team has been rethinking the involvement of students in integral decision-making processes. 

As described by President Cam Brown: “There is clearly a disparity between students who are engaging with the Union and those who are not, and that’s an issue for us because we’re the legally recognised voice and representatives of the University […] and something needs to change.”

“The Union’s structure has not changed much since its founding in 1989 […] nobody has sat down and thought about the long-term. [This is] an opportunity for the Change Programme to think about what we are actually going to do and plan out what comes next.”

After months of developing a proposal, which saw putting the students’ interests at the forefront, the Union held a referendum on Tuesday 3 December and Wednesday 4 December. The referendum asked students whether they agreed or not with the proposed changes. 

Within the St Andrews Students’ Association, there are currently five full-time paid sabbatical officers: President, Director of Education, Director of Wellbeing & Equality, Director of Student Development & Activities, and Director of Events & Services. There is also the Athletic Union President who sits as part of the wider sabbatical officer group. In a survey conducted in May 2024, only 27 per cent of respondents felt confident in naming the sabbatical officers. 

The alteration of the sabbatical officer structure has been an underpinning element of the Democracy Review. Firstly, the proposal suggests removing the role of Director of Events and Services as it is a highly operational role with limited representational aspects, and replacing it with a graduate job role within the Events team to engage with student societies and run the social calendar. 

Moreover, there currently lies some confusion with regards to the responsibilities set out for the role of President. Despite Brown’s description of the variety of his role where “no two days are the same”, as the report outlines, the role is ‘overwhelming and unfocused’ given that to a certain degree, it creates some form of a hierarchy. 

Other roles will remain but differentiate between staff within the Union and the University; the use of “President of” will be adopted instead of the current “Director”: President of Union Affairs, President of Education, President of Wellbeing and Community, and President of Student Opportunities. 

Other proposals are that the Postgraduate Research (PGR) President and Postgraduate Taught (PGT) President be paid part-time sabbatical officer positions. Likewise, to widen student engagement across the University, restructuring the SRC as well as the introduction of forums and an online ideas portal, would prove effective. Moreover, the consideration to develop an improved reward and recognition scheme for all volunteer positions, and finally, the recruitment of more permanent staff positions within the organisation to work alongside the sabbatical team. 

As Brown summarised: “Our reps do an amazing amount of work and our officers do an incredible job and I really want to emphasise the work that they are doing. It’s just that the structures that we have within the Union have not done their job to support them as best as they can do. It’s not about consolidating power, but rather spreading it out across the student community.” 

With a turnout of only 10.6 per cent (1088 students), the referendum did not meet the 20 per cent quorum set out in the Association Laws, making the result non-binding. Despite this, the Student Association Board unanimously agreed in their meeting on Tuesday 17 December that the results demonstrate strong support for the proposals.