Current constitutional language allows for roll-call votes on “substantive” matters, but fails to define what a “substantive” matter is. Moreover, roll call votes have not been taken in practice in recent years on many votes many faculty would consider substantive. Roll call votes can always be demanded where a majority of the Council agrees. The proposed amendment allows for a de-facto assessment of substantivity, based upon a 20% threshold of those voting whether members want a roll call or not; and allows for a roll-call vote to be triggered more easily. Members of the BFC would necessarily be directly accountable for their votes on such matters of substance.
