This document is written using Steering Committee as an example. However, the subject matter should be relevant to anyone having to enforce sometimes unpopular rules, and also for people having rules enforced (or not) at them.
Definitions
There are two things commonly referred to as "fluffy steering". The first is simply being helpful to people, encouraging their involvement, helping them to draft motions, pass their questions on to the right people, suggest positions to stand for that suit them, etc. There is no doubt that this is a good thing, and it will not be discussed further.
The second is the practice of interpreting the spirit of the rules to be more important than the letter of the rules, or for a less complimentary description, ignoring rules that are inconvenient to achieve some 'better' outcome. This is the controversial one, and the one that this document covers.
The question
Is "fluffy steering" in the second definition right or wrong? Should it be done, and if so, how?
Answer 1
Answer by Chris Morris (former Steerer).
The letter and the spirit
The letter of any individual rule should already be consistent with the spirit of the rules. What the spirit of the rules is can be debated, of course, but usually the spirit of any set of rules (in a reasonably liberal democracy or benevolent dictatorship, at least) is to attempt to ensure the best long-term result for the greatest number of people.
The spirit of the rules may often be broken down into several principles. It seems reasonable to assume that if "fluffy steering" is being considered that these are principles considered agreeable. The following set seem to match DSU's rules reasonably well.
- That all people are able to play a part in democratic decisions, and cannot be prevented from doing so by a 'tyranny of the majority'.
- That the rights of individuals are protected.
- That the accountability of elected officers is kept.
- That decisions cannot be rushed through before there is a chance to object.
- That the actions taken by officers should be in the interests of the Union.
There may be cases where a combination of multiple rules (or occasionally just a single rule) combines with circumstances to make a situation apparently against the spirit of the rules. There may also be times when some of these principles conflict with each other in a specific situation.
In this case, the debate is whether one should follow the letter of the rules, accepting the inconvenience as necessary, or whether one should stick to the spirit of the rules, taking an action that is against the rules, but in some way a better action.
It is this question that has been faced by every Steering Committee at some point.
Neutrality
Steering's personality is impartiality. The powers held by Steering Committee are necessarily very large, as is necessary to carry out their responsibilities. However, because of the scope of this power, it can easily be abused. Therefore all agree that the impartiality is necessary, Steering cannot take sides.
Therefore, to go against the letter of the rules to favour one side against another is clear bias, and a breach of neutrality. One cannot use the rules to gain an unfair advantage over an opponent, at least not an opponent who also knows the rules. Also, there is no lack of neutrality in Steering advising someone who is being blocked by others use of the rules in how to carry out their plans within the rules - indeed it is Steering's responsibility to do so under Standing Order [D 5.5.1.1 e].
To break the rules to favour one side over another is highly dangerous, and if noticed could lead to severe consequences for Steering, as the side disadvantaged has a very strong case for taking action. Censure and No Confidence are possible, but more dangerous are restrictions placed on Steering's powers, as ultimately Steerers can and will be replaced if necessary, but powers are very hard to regain, and being without necessary powers because of past abuses is inconvenient for everyone.
Decisions that cause no disadvantage
When a decision is made to ignore the letter of the rules because it is causing a disadvantage to everyone, there are two things to consider.
- Is there an 'invisible disadvantage'? That is, is the action taken disadvantaging no-one obvious, but could cause problems for a hypothetical individual. Is it possible to be certain that this hypothetical individual does not exist? If not, then the decision is effectively to take sides, and while taking sides with the majority against an invisible minority is unlikely to have direct consequences, it is not truly within the spirit of the rules either, and may cause trouble if the consequences cause the invisible minority to manifest itself.
- More importantly, is there a hypothetical situation in which to do the same again would be disadvantageous? Is it worth the risk?
Consistency
The second consideration is important for a number of reasons. To take an example, imagine that the rule that Standing Order changes cannot be emergency business is ignored, to allow an important change to take place at General Meeting without the hassle of holding an additional Council at the required 5 working days notice.
The change in question is a good one, with no disadvantages to anyone, and would meet the criteria for emergency business were it not a Standing Order change. No one is likely to be disadvantaged by it.
Now, at the next General Meeting, a Standing Order change is submitted, again as emergency business. It is competently drafted, but would remove crucial levels of accountability from a committee of the Union (perhaps intentionally, more likely as an unintended consequence, it doesn't matter). It does not meet the normal criteria for emergency business, but the meeting can overrule this. It seems superficially a good idea was it not for the consequences, but it is now too late to prepare an amendment to address these.
Had the first decision not been taken one could point out that Standing Order changes cannot be emergency business, and accept it as business for the next Council.
However, having accepted one Standing Order change as emergency business already, one's only rules-based way of blocking the motion is very risky. To use it anyway would appear biased, and would probably be so as well; to avoid using it would cause clear disadvantage. The situation faced now is a difficult one, with no easy answers.
Ignoring a rule means that you may be seen as wiling to ignore the same rule in all circumstances. This is a large risk to take.
The Price
Everytime the perceived spirit of the rules is followed above the letter of the rules, there is a risk being taken that a price will have to be paid later on, by someone. To ignore the letter without being willing to pay the price is foolish; to accept this risk still risks future Steerers being the ones to pay the price instead, although short memories can mitigate this, there may still be a shock on handover as a rule suddenly starts being enforced.