SVS to affiliate to the Students' Association

[David Bean]

As I announced last night to the SSC, the St Andrews Voluntary Service (SVS), until now an independent registered charity, has, following extensive negotiations, formally requested affiliation to the Students’ Association. As this is quite an important development and one that is likely to be talked about, I thought it appropriate to post this briefing here, and I’ll also be prepared to answer questions.

As to the significance of the news, firstly, it’s quite simply good for everyone. For the Association, and by extension the student body as a whole, it will massively increase our credentials in the field of volunteering (creating us as the legitimate centre for the student volunteering movement) and, because of its good works, in town/gown relations (which impacts upon a number of things including the reputation of the student body in the town, and the likelihood of the late license being renewed). It should also make the job of the DoSDA (my position) much easier in the sense of providing a focus for the volunteering agenda, which I've tried to ensure is a major part of the remit.

It's also very good for the SVS itself. For certain technical reasons it reluctantly has had to give up its independent status, but in doing so had to choose between affiliating to the University and to the Association. Our position was that to go with the university would require too fundamental a change in the way that the group works, including a loss of any semblance of operational control; it also transpires that the process would have taken far too long, and necessitated major upheavals. The Association, meanwhile, being student-focused and responsive, had the capacity to allow the SVS to work pretty much however it likes, subject to certain unobjectionable constraints. The SVS also stands to become significantly better off in financial terms from the deal, because we've found a way to slash or possibly even eliminate their insurance bill, and I and my successors shall be providing the kind of administrative support already offered to groups like the Charities Campaign, Music Fund, Mermaids, etc. as a regular part of our duties.

If anyone is concerned that this might result in the scarce resources of the Association, be assured that, being fiercely independent (though not at all uncooperative), it wants to remain responsible for raising every penny of their own funds, and specifically requested not to be given an Association grant.

Work on the affiliation process has already begun and is making excellent progress, and our target, which we have every intention of meeting, is for it to be completed by the end of the academic year, so that we can elect our first SSC Volunteering Officer and committee under the new arrangements. It's all very exciting indeed.

[hr]

I'm your Guardian Angel.

[harmless loony]

As former convenor of SVS who fought hard against affiliation with the Union I think this is a terrible step for SVS.

Ultimately the union has so much more to gain from this then SVS does. Yes town and gown relations will become a plus but SVS was already doing this - being part of the Union will not enhance this nor will it begin this process - SVS has always worked hard to maintain town and gown relations.

Back in the day when Will McFarlane was DoR he also fought hard against assimilating SVS into the Union - he sat on the board of Student Volunteering Scotland at the time and saw the negative impact such an assimilation would have.

For starters, because SVS will lose its charity status it means that the assets will have to be redistributed - right down to the computer in the office - as this is the requirement of the constitution. This effectively means SVS will be left with nothing and will be forced to rely on the Union to support it instead of being independent.

In addition to this - being a charity meant that it quialified for support from the Charities campaign and therefore would regularly receive something in the region of £3000 per annum in order to support the activities of SVS. Being part of the Union means it will be treated like any other student society (which it is not) and therefore will not qualify for any money near that figure. Can the Union vouch that it will support SVS to the same tune financially?

Also, SVS requires all volunteers to go through police checks (£30 a go) however as a charity this is all done for free, however, under the Union, it would be classed as a student society and would therefore be forced to pay for all police checks. In turn this means that SVS would have to limit the number of volunteers it recruits because of the cost involved in doing the police checks. Note when I was convenor I researched into whether the police checks would be free if we assimilated with the Union and the answer was no!

Both Vonef and Student support strongly opposed such assimilation when I was in charge and work was done with Dave Corner to re write the constitution so to assimilate SVS with student support so it would keep its independent status, relieve pressure on the trustees through becoming a public company limited by guarantee and would still be able to function with enhanced support and enhanced credibility. The constitution was practicially finalised and waiting for the new committee to vote it in - it would be interesting to find out why it was abandoned when our research showed that long term, it would be a financial and management disaster to assimilate with the Union and not the University.

Certainly I would be interested to see why Chris Lusk and student support have been left out of the equation and how on earth Mr Bean intends to ensure that the union can support SVS in the event of financial difficulties or even ensure the police checks are paid for.

I know that myself and the previous 3 committees before me will strongly oppose any such move. Additionally, according to the constitution no such dissolution can take place without it having been discussed and voted through by the honourary members so I'm intrigued as to why at no point I have not been contacted or had any issue discussed with me, when this is in actual fact a requirement of the constitution.

So Mr Bean how do you propose such action taking place so soon without the official channels being used? Certainly because all members were not contacted, any such vote that has taken place thus far is null and void, as it was taken without any honourary members present or even so much as notified.

[Ben Reilly]

I can't really say anything on the other issues, as I don't know the answers, but I can give two clear assurances:

1) The SVS is not being affiliated as a society, but as a sub-committee of the SSC. These are very, very different roles.

2) The SVS will not have to pay for police checks due to it being affiliated to the Association.

I can also say on another matter; I believe it would be highly inappropriate for SVS to "affiliate" to the Student Support Services. SSS' job is to help students who have having problems, something they are very good at; it most certainly is not - and should not be - to help with student activities.

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[harmless loony]

But how is being a sub committee of the SSC going to benefit SVS? We know how it will benefit the Union but what will SVS gain? It will no longer be independent, will be forced to work by the rules of the Union and given the endless petty bureacracy we are already witnessing emanating from the Student Association building, how would this ease the pressure on the trustees?

Also, again, how would SVS be able to remain financially viable? It is all very well stating that SVS will still be able to independently raise money, but losing independent status means that the usual avenues to raise revenue will now be closed to them - thus forcing it to raise money the same way any other student society would have to.

Also the redistribution of assets means that SVS will lose everything it has at this moment in time - thus forcing SVS to rely on the Union instead of being financially independent of it.

Affiliation to Student Support Services was not to enable volunteers to support just students but rather it was to expand the role of student support in town and gown relations. Given that Chris Lusk had heavy involvement with SVS, Jamie Walker is the honourary president and that the SVS office actually belonged to student support (It was half of Dave Roberts' original office) - SVS already have intricate involvement with student support - more then the Union had.

[Ben Reilly]

Why would the usual sources no longer be available?

[hr]

http://www.yourunion.net/main/representation/

[munchingfoo]

Yeah, from what I picked up on it appears your arguement is that since it would no longer be a charity it couldn't raise money in the same ways? Isn't the union also a charity? If that was your point I don't see how it works. Care to elaborate for a silly science student?

[hr]

I'd like to change the world but they won't give me the source code.

[Ben Reilly]

Couple of other questions:

1) What petty bureaucracy? Other than on financial things, which are a legal requirement and would have to be done no matter what, all the SA asks is that you don't discriminate on the grounds of age, sex, race, etc. Is that so much to ask?

2) Can you explain more about the redistribution of assets? What is the exact legal status of SVS at the moment?

[hr]

http://www.yourunion.net/main/representation/

[David Bean]

I don't know how you proposed to handle the affiliation in your time, but I can assure you that these issues are all being dealt with.

1. The existing resources of the SVS would remain its property. The current constitution states that the resources would be redistributed in the event of the group dissolving, but this is not what we're proposing. Obviously we're investigating the legal issues to ensure that the process is carried out in the proper fashion, but this is an affiliation, not a dissolution and subsequent rebirth of something new. The way that the SVS works will remain virtually identical.

2. The status of the funding provided by the Charities Campaign will not be negatively affected by this move in the slightest, nor will the occasional revenues from Chapel donations. Believe it or not, I have checked these issues out. In fact, there is potential for the Charities Campaign's funding to become yet more stable in future.

3. I fail to understand why the SVS as an independent charity is elligible for free police checks, but as part of a wider charity (yet retaining the same aims, which become an extension of those of the Association) would not. This makes no sense, as Ben pointed out.

4. Your assertion that the SVS would not be independent under the Association but would be were it to affiliate to the University, with respect, beggars belief in its naivety. We are the ones who can guarantee the group's operational independence where the university certainly would not whatever they might have told you - its previous behaviour bears this out - but technical independence is fundamentally incompatible with affiliation to either body.

5. Your assertion that the SVS is going to be 'forced to work by the rules of the Union' is frankly ridiculous: I am working together with the SVS committee to ensure that its new constitution meets its requirements exactly, and that it precisely describes the way that the SVS wishes to operate. The University, meanwhile, actually rejected the draft constitution put forward by the SVS to them - not just on a couple of technicalities, they said it wasn't good enough for them, and they wanted things done their way! Everything we're doing to manage this affiliation, everything, is being done entirely in consultation. When I brought the draft plans I'd been working on as to how it would work to the SVS Committe yesterday, they were met with unanimous approval. And just to reinforce the point, on my own suggestion we're going to try to get a clause into the constitution making it very much easier for the SVS to disaffiliate from the Association things not go according to plan in future - that's how confident I am that this move is in the best interests of everybody.

I can only conclude that your objections are based upon false premises. I even find it difficult to belive that Student Support are so opposed to the idea. I like working with them, I reallly do, I have a good working relationship with them, and I've already spoken to both Jamie Walker and Steve Yorkstone about it. Both welcomed the move extensively, as did two representatives of the Volunteer Centre Fife independently of each other.

I understand from speaking to numerous committee members that the issue became a political one last year between the two rival camps in the SVS, one of which wished to affiliate to the University, and the other to the Association. I can understand camps and squabbles; God knows we have enough of them around here. But the evidence is all in, and the result is clear: only the Association provides a way forward for the SVS in the future. I think even the University is starting to recognise that, at least from the discussions I've had. However, the fact remains that it is the settled will of the current SVS Committee, and I'm only too happy to work with them to help them carry it out.

[hr]

I'm your Guardian Angel.

[Al]

"all the SA asks is that you don't discriminate on the grounds of age, sex, race"

Really? Then why does the Students' Association feel it should be able to discriminate on the grounds of age? Not a very good example to set.

As for Mr Bean's comments... I didn't realise that such levels of sophistry and cant were possible.

[Students Association]

In what way do you think the Students' Association discriminates on the grounds of age?

[Al]

Quoting students' association from 11:18, 8th Dec 2005
In what way do you think the Students' Association discriminates on the grounds of age?

On the "Union age limit" thread, you wrote "Guests over 18 may be signed in to the Students' Association, but only if the existing member is 18 or over."

That could quite easily be taken as the denial of equal rights and privileges to some members of the Association based purely on the grounds of age.

[David Bean]

I think that's more discrimination on the grounds of the law, isn't it? The reason is that we have to hold members responsible for the behaviour of their guests, and we can't really do that with people who are under the age of majority.

What's this about sophistry and cant, anyway? I was only giving my honest opinion, and addressing certain points of fact - sue me!

[hr]

I'm your Guardian Angel.

[Students Association]

Yep - it's the law, not the Students' Association rules.

[Tweedle-Dum]

Quoting David Bean from 12:15, 8th Dec 2005
I think that's more discrimination on the grounds of the law, isn't it? The reason is that we have to hold members responsible for the behaviour of their guests, and we can't really do that with people who are under the age of majority.

So not the age of legal responsibility, which is 8?

[hr]

Live by the sword, die by the arrow.

[Tweedle-Dum]

I also just realised waht is wrong with it affiliating: Elections.

Now the election will be won by whatever random tosser hands out leaflets in front of the Union on polling day for 50 other random cunts, instead of the current system of interested people electing the person they know to be best for the job. Soon, knowing nothing about the workings of the SVS, I get to vote for the person I'm most sure I've heard of once in a bar when Pulp were on.

[hr]

Live by the sword, die by the arrow.

[Cain]

Quoting Tweedle-Dum from 03:15, 9th Dec 2005
I also just realised waht is wrong with it affiliating: Elections.

Come on, you know that we're short enough on SRC/SSC officers as it is, this new post will be good for bringing the numbers up.

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[Al]

1. You keep mentioning the SVS committee wish to affiliate. Perhaps they do. This is not proof that it is a good idea. Nor is it proof that the SVS volunteers wish to affiliate. All it is proof of is that the current SVS committee wish to affiliate. Have you even considered asking the rest of the SVS want they want? Or are you afraid of the answer?

2. It may be technically possible for the SVS to disaffiliate in the future, but how genuinely possible would it be? The disaffiliation of a "sub committee/super society" would require a referendum.

3. Why the rush to affiliate? You yourself admit that there are many people actively opposed to the move. Harmless Loony states - and I see no reason to disbelieve her - that the process is being run counter to the SVS constitution. Such haste smacks of there being ulterior motives. I can see that the SVS committee have the goal of affiliation. But why are you in such a rush? "End of the academic year?" That would fit in nicely with the end of your year in office, wouldn't it?

[exnihilo]

Quoting Tweedle-Dum from 03:15, 9th Dec 2005
I also just realised waht is wrong with it affiliating: Elections.

Cross campus elections for everything! Better an uninformed and totally uninterested multitude should vote entirely at random than that the actively involved and interested people should make an informed choice. If that happened the people who would be good would be elected, and that's just silly.

[hr]

He [Julian the Apostate] had found by experience that no wild beasts are so hostile to men as are Christian sects in general to one another.
[s]Ammianus Marcellinus (c. AD 360)

[Cain]

further to points raised by exnihilo, tweedle-dum and myself, why not make the association a facebook group? Then people could apply for the positions once a year, and the person who was in the most groups, or had the most friends would win.



[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[David Bean]

On cross-campus elections: this doesn't make much difference, considering that at the moment the whole of the SVS Committee is elected at an AGM to which any member can attend, which isn't much less likely to produce 'a random' heading it up. That aside, consider the model of Charities, Mermaids and the Music Fund: on no occasion, at least during my time in St Andrews, has anyone stood for election to these positions who wouldn't at least have been able to make a good stab at running the organisation, and so other than a hypothetical possibility there is absolutely no reason to believe, against all prior experience, that someone incapable would be likely to stand, let alone win. Anyone with half a brain knows that you'd need experience to run a group like the SVS, and so anyone stupid enough to stand without such experience would hardly be likely to have the intelligence to win an election. We've already assessed the risk.

Al's first point: the way that committees work is that it is their job to reflect the wishes of their membership, whilst also leading them towards what they consider to be the correct results. Of course it's not my job, as the one managing the Affiliation from the Association's point of view, to consult each member of the SVS - that would be absurd. However, given that the Committee is unanimous in its support for the move, wouldn't you find this rather coincidental if there wasn't already a swell of SVS opinion behind it, and/or an overwhelming argument to be made in its favour? In any case, the full SVS will have to vote to ratify the measure before it can go ahead, which should settle the matter one way or the other.

Al's second point: that's why I'm trying to word their constitution in such a way as to make it genuinely very possible to disaffiliate, and I don't see why you believe it would require a referendum of anybody in particular.

Al's third point: this is starting to get exasperating, because you're making arguments based on information you clearly don't have. I don't mind answering requests for information, but when you use your ignorance to frame a hostile line of questioning based apparently on the assumption that we're all morons, it just becomes silly. Look, we're not rushing into anything. The issue of the necessity of the SVS affiliating to some body or other has been around for years, but for various reasons the attempts to make it happen have stalled, and the SVS itself had to settle the question of who to affiliate to. Now that that question has been settled - and don't think, by the way, that its Convenor woke up one morning and thought it'd be nice to come in with the Union, she'd done her research very thoroughly and well indeed - we want to get it done by the end of the year because otherwise we risk it not happpening at all, what with the changeovers in personnel, and the resulting lack of understanding by our successors of the issues or why we're trying to do it (so quite obviously the end of my term of office is a relevant factor). I must say, this is the first time I've heard someone arguing for a bureaucratic process to take longer than it could!

This talk of 'ulterior motives' beggars belief. Am I enthusiastic about this? Hell yes, because I think it's an excellent project that will provide the best result for everyone. Sometimes, life isn't a zero-sum game. Why else would I even be interested? If you're going to criticise me for caring about my work and trying to get it done quickly and efficiently, I might as well resign right now.

[hr]

I'm your Guardian Angel.