When I was President of the Bioengineering Honor Society, I remember wishing for the power to “reshuffle cabinet.” This is a common practice amongst heads of government, such as prime ministers in parliamentary democracies and the President of the United States.
The idea is simple – the President or PM has the power to assign people in his cabinet to new official positions. This could be used to promote political allies or demote political rivals (which is probably the most common reason for reshuffles), or simply to optimize the governmental utility, putting the people with the most expertise or interest in each area in the positions that have influence on them. In a student group, this can work similarly – the President, or some constitutionally determined “executive,” can “move” officers around between positions. This can be appealing for two reasons.
The main reason is that new club members don’t always run for and get truly fitting positions; as these new officers get to know the club more, they may discover other roles which are more “appropriate” for their interests and talents, and a cabinet reshuffle allows them to enter that more appropriate portfolio instead of being “stuck” in their current one, without having to wait months for another election.
The second reason has to do with time – many officers discover halfway through their term that they are too busy with their schoolwork to perform their expected tasks. A cabinet reshuffle, in this case, can allow busy officers and less-busy officers to swap positions, allowing both to remain a part of the club while allowing work to get done.
There are, of course, counterarguments to implementing reshuffling. While promotions from favoritism may be a concern, I argue that it will likely be less prevalent than in government. Being offered some club title and, in conjunction, all the responsibilities associated with it, is not nearly as attractive as being offered the position of being third-in-line to the Presidency, and the social backlash will be high.
Another potential drawback of reshuffling is that members may not be as willing to become an officer if they don’t have the guarantee of being able to stay. Admittedly, some people are more driven by a position profile than the club when they run to be an officer (e.g. running to be an industrial relations position to get recruiter contacts, without much regard for the actual club). However, if an officer were so interested in their work, they should do well in it, and thus not need to be “reshuffled” to another position. So, this concern should be minimal as well.
Student clubs need flexibility among their personnel. More clubs should consider allowing their officers to move around – through cabinet reshuffles.