Frankly, if you don't like it- you're free to complain to the Senate, write into the Guardian or contest elections. Most people whine about it, but very few people actually do anything about it. I've been involved with the SRC- albeit from arm's length- for longer than most of Glasgow University have been at the university, and from the time of Shona and co who have, along with their successors, long since left the place. It's not perfect, I think I'd be lying if I said it was- but I've seen other student-run enterprises, and compared to most it ain't half bad. The complaints usually come in when people don't get the response they think they should over a job or a dispute or whatever. At the end of the day however, the people here are elected by us, and it's no one's problem but yourself if you don't bother to vote or contest the elections, and say nothing for 51 weeks of the year then cry foul when something doesn't go your way. Tuula and Tommy polled a around a thousand votes each, which as a proportion of the student body isn't massive- but is comparable to most student elected bodies at other universities- go check OUSU's turnout if you must. The one thing it is not is 'jobs for the boys'- they're accountable to the Senate ultimately, and I can unequivocally say if they were found to be unfairly discriminating against someone, action would be taken swiftly.
I don't know of anyone that hasn't applied that's been let in- I might be wrong. There probably will be those who won't be the best- but if someone is a 'shocker' or their application is awful but they still got in- that's life, and that's very much a matter of opinion, and Tuula's may be different, but she's only got a bit of paper to go on and she's elected and paid to make these decisions, not any of the rest of us. There is no hard and fast rule on what a 'good' application is- it's down to the personal choice of the VP L&D, in much the same way that you getting a job with a company over another candidate is down to the choice of one person or a small committee who have the right to choose as they see fit, friends or otherwise, as long as they follow the regulations as set out. There are some exceptions for FW in terms of rules: People on council and in some cases previous council members have the right to be allowed on if they apply- it's something that I disagree with but the exec's hands are tied on that one as far as I know. To be quite honest, if I didn't know certain people from Adam, and given their absence records, genuine or otherwise, it'd make me think twice about whether to take them on again if the decision was up to me. Sometimes, they fancy a change and decide that people they've had in previous years, from what they've seen of them, didn't pull their weight in the way others did, and decide to reject their application- they're entitled to do this on the opinion they've formed. This is a transparent process, and if you feel like complaining, Bob Hay is your first contact, then probably David Newall on the Senate is the second.
The one thing I will not have is, following a rejection, the sudeen attitude that it's all a fix, it's a pick your pals policy, and they're all corrupt. If you'd received a different response, and someone you didn't know had been on the end of a rejection, I very much doubt you'd currently be championing their case for how unfair the SRC are.