For each statement, an explanation of the background is provided. Once you know what each statement is saying, take the test. If your background knowledge is very low, then you may need to read the explanatios twice to understand completely, as most concepts and terms are only explained once.
You may also find it useful to read Steering Committee's Guides.
Failing to report on time is not severe enough to warrant censure
The important officers and committees are required to report to Council at regular intervals. If an officer or committee fails to submit a report on time twice in a row, then an automatic motion of censure is proposed. A censure is a formal expression of unhappiness with the actions (or inactions, in this case) of an officer or committee.
The sabbs would do a better job if they didn't have to constantly report to various committees and Council
The sabbatical officers report on their actions more than most, with reports to Council required at each meeting (8 a year) and smaller reports usually given to the various committees they are on (usually meeting weekly).
The majority of decisions can be made by individual officers.
Some decisions are made by officers, some by committees, some by Council or General Meeting.
If it's clear how a vote would go, then a committee should be able to act even if inquorate.
Committee quoracy is two-thirds (round up) of voting members. An inquorate committee with fewer than this present is unable to use any of its powers.
Political factions do more harm than good.
Political factions group people of similar ideology together, and have factional candidates for election and policies, which the members of the faction are expected to support (how strongly they are expected to depends on the faction). There is considerable debate about whether they are a good thing or not.
Pre-requisites for candidates are a good thing.
Candidates for certain positions must have attended a certain number of meetings (sometimes Council or General Meeting, sometimes committee meetings) before being allowed to stand.
If an action is against Standing Orders, it should not happen, even if the officer believes it to be in the interests of the Union.
The Standing Orders are the operational rules of the Union. They can be made and changed only by Council, General Meeting or referendum.
If a majority at a meeting wants to act against the rules, they should be able to.
The Standing Orders govern the conduct of the meetings. This question asks if a meeting should be able to conduct itself in a manner not allowed by the Standing Orders if a majority of those there want this.
The best solution is one that follows Standing Orders, even if it is much more complicated.
There are a number of problems with multiple possible solutions, where some of the solutions would be against the Standing Orders.
Council does not spend enough time discussing reports of officers.
Officers report regularly to Council. Council then has the opportunity to ask questions about the report and the officer's actions in general, before passing or rejecting the report. There is usually 5 to 10 minutes allocated for the discussion of each report.
General Meeting makes better decisions than Council
At General Meeting, all ordinary members of the Union may attend, speak and vote. At Council, all ordinary members of the Union may attend and speak, but only JCR (or equivalent) representatives may vote. These representatives should follow their JCR's policy where it exists. In other situations they usually have a free vote, but are often expected by their JCR to vote for the interests of the JCR. The representatives are usually elected by the JCR, but a couple of JCRs instead appoint them.
Minor positions should be appointed by interview rather than elected.
There are a range of Union positions, varying in importance and responsibility, from the full-time sabbatical officers to University Committee representatives who only need attend one meeting a term. At the moment, all of these positions are elected by General Meeting or Council (or for a few, cross-campus ballot).
Important issues should routinely be put to referendum.
A referendum is a cross-campus ballot at which all ordinary members are entitled to vote. A 20% turnout is required for the result to be valid. Any issue discussed by Council or General Meeting may be referred to a referendum.
Non-sabbs should report to the sabbs instead of Council.
Non-sabbatical officers currently formally report once a term to Council.
The election regulations are too restrictive on the candidates.
The election regulations cover the running of the election. Part of this covers how candidates may and may not campaign, what publicity is acceptable, how much publicity can be produced, etc.
Policy should be viewed as a guideline
Policy is passed by Council or General Meeting as the opinion of that meeting on an issue. It usually includes instructions for future action on the matter.
The turnout in an election is more important than the result
This refers to cross-campus ballots. The turnout is usually expressed as a percentage of those voting out of all those eligible to vote.
Official questions are not used often enough.
An official question is submitted in writing to an officer or committee, who must then reply before or at the next Council. Supplemental questions may then be asked. In urgent cases where the next Council is too far away, the submitter may require a reply within 15 days. They are currently asked fairly rarely, usually no more than two or three each year - they're not used very often, but often enough?
It is more important to spend time gathering opinions than to react quickly.
This should be fairly self-explanatory.
Officers should be trusted to get on with their jobs without interference.
Each officer has an official job description in the Standing Orders, and may also have policy assigned to them as their responsibility.
All delegates to external conferences should report to Council afterwards.
The Union sends delegates to conferences of external organisations. They are generally not required to report on their return, though the senior members of the delegation at least are expected to, and some other delegates often choose to report.
The sabbs should be able to ignore policy that was based on poor arguments.
Policy passed by a meeting may have been passed based on incorrect information or illogical conclusions.
Candidates should be ruled out of order for even minor breaches of election rules.
There are a number of rules covering how candidates may act in elections. Obviously, some ways of breaking these rules are more serious than others.
For the worst actions of officers, a few minor procedural errors in proposing the motion should be ignored when discussing no confidence.
No Confidence motions remove an officer from their position. If the Standing Orders are broken during the passing of the motion, the officer may currently have the motion annulled.
Emergency business should always fulfil both criteria or not be discussed.
Emergency business must currently fit two criteria - firstly that the matter under discussion has genuinely arisen since the deadline for submission of normal business, and secondly that it would be detrimental to the interests of the Union or some of its members not to discuss it now.