Union in trouble?

[David Bean]

The answer to your question is right there in the post above your own: they didn't just take one job and split it in two; the remits changed, and the scope of the roles increased.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[niall]

Quoting David Bean from 22:34, 28th Oct 2007
The answer to your question is right there in the post above your own: they didn't just take one job and split it in two; the remits changed, and the scope of the roles increased.

and the positions of two SSC officers (Ents and Societies) had their remits reduced and moved to the new DoS positions.

[hr]

do you have a tastyspoon?

http://www.tastyspoon.com/forum

[exnihilo]

Valuable changed, worth the many thousands it cost.

[Al]

And it's odd that the Association structure is more hierarchical now than ever it was before the adoption of a "non-hierarchical structure". In addition, there seems to be - especially in the case of the DoR and DoSDA - a sort of "remit pile-up" in the Association at the moment. Does the Association really need someone to co-ordinate the activities of other officers?

[JohnQPublic]

Quoting Al from 22:51, 28th Oct 2007
And it's odd that the Association structure is more hierarchical now than ever it was before the adoption of a "non-hierarchical structure". In addition, there seems to be - especially in the case of the DoR and DoSDA - a sort of "remit pile-up" in the Association at the moment. Does the Association really need someone to co-ordinate the activities of other officers?

I totally agree. We need another sab to do that, we'll call it the "Director of Association Activities." They can take bits of remits from all the other positions and set agendas. Maybe the Association Chair can get elevated to a sab post! Adding two more sab officers would really do the trick, and bring the annual deficit ever closer to £100,000 p/a.

Let's not forget that the VPC (Communication) post is now a paid staff position, so we're really dealing with five sabbaticals on the payroll now.

[Jono]

Quoting johnqpublic from 23:13, 28th Oct 2007

Quoting Al from 22:51, 28th Oct 2007
And it's odd that the Association structure is more hierarchical now than ever it was before the adoption of a "non-hierarchical structure". In addition, there seems to be - especially in the case of the DoR and DoSDA - a sort of "remit pile-up" in the Association at the moment. Does the Association really need someone to co-ordinate the activities of other officers?

I totally agree. We need another sab to do that, we'll call it the "Director of Association Activities." They can take bits of remits from all the other positions and set agendas. Maybe the Association Chair can get elevated to a sab post! Adding two more sab officers would really do the trick, and bring the annual deficit ever closer to £100,000 p/a.

Let's not forget that the VPC (Communication) post is now a paid staff position, so we're really dealing with five sabbaticals on the payroll now.

Nice to see JohnQ is back, performing his usual routine of A-Capella B.S. (live from the Lizard, 9-close! Sluts and spacks welcome).

Quoting Hack of Christmas Past from 19:29, 26th Oct 2007

Making the post of DOSDA redundant and expecting the DOES and DoR to do real work would save approximately £13,000 p/a in salary alone.

Heh! No shit Sherlock! If they don't have the post, there'll be no need to pay the Stipend. Where's the approximate in that? Perhaps they can flog the sofa in the office as well?

As I heard it; the DoSDA exists to do the job, sabbatically and paid, that the Societies officer used to do unpaid and in addition to (and to the detriment of) their degree. I'm also aware that everyone used to complain that the Socs officer wasn't effective, and didn't have enough time for various societies, and was a stickler for stupid rules, etc. So they created the new post. Obviously there's no pleasing some people!

As the current president of one society, and treasurer of another, I'm just happy that the SSC is run by officers who aren't backlogged for weeks at a time, whose office doors are (more-or-less) always open.

As for the deficit, Let's not forget, that we're one of the (if not the) most poorly funded Students Unions per-head in the country. Any chance of an advance on that? We're supposedly the best damn educational house in the country. Why shouldn't we have the best damn grant to piss away on frivolous shit… I mean, make up the operational loss with?


[hr]

BY FIRE; BE PURGED!


http://www.myspace.com/tauntra

[exnihilo]

Which Societies Officer's degree suffered? Who is this 'everyone' who complained? What utter twaddle.

[Hack of Christmas Past]

Quoting David Bean from 17:45, 28th Oct 2007
The position of DoSDA was never intended to contribute directly to the organisation's profitability, but what it does do is to free up the DoES to focus on the business side of things to a greater extent than any previous DoS would have been able to. These comments about the amount of 'real work' you expect any one person to be able to do by themselves are, of course, complete assertion, but if you look at the real increases in the scope of the Association's activities since it was created, there is at the very least a strong case to argue that the members got good value for money, and it was the right change to make.

It depends on two things, really. First, whether you believe that the new directions people like myself, Lee and Jenny took the Association in were worthwhile; others would be better placed to comment on what happened after I left, but as far as my year was concerned, we got significant increases in the Association's focus on volunteering with a new fair, an affiliated SVS and the MV awards; we also got improved relations with the town and careers, further development of the existing subcommittees and a constitutional reform. Solid, structural changes that continue to benefit students now. You might not agree that these changes were worthwhile, but you'd have to be particularly mean spirited to try and claim that we didn't believe in what we were doing at the time.

The second thing, then, is whether you believe it would in any case have been possible for us to do all those things, and the additional changes that happened since, without the DoSDA position being there. Well, it's important first to remember that what happens in a sabbatical's term is due to a great extent to the ideas and qualities the candidate brings with them, so clearly not all of it would have happened even if whoever did get the DoS job those years had had all the time in the world. But apart from that, would it really have been possible for one DoS to do all that as well as run the Association's events and businesses? I can honestly say that I can't see how it would have been possible, and I base my view on several years of working closely with sabbaticals, a year of being one and now more than a year working in a more standard kind of job, and being familliar with what professionals are generally expected to be able to achieve. And I don't see that anyone else is really qualified to gainsay me in this.

I'll address your points in order.

1) "An affiliated SVS" was not so much an accomplishment as it was paper-shuffling. These "solid structural changes" did not, in fact, do very much for the organization. All they do is cost it money.

You refer to "development of the existing subcommittees and a constitutional reform." Come on. You know deep down in your heart of hearts that the way a PDF document (which nobody reads, or can even access publicly) gets bullet-pointed has almost NOTHING to do with the Association's day-to-day operations. In fact, all it really has to do with is what new useless position is going to get made for the SRC. Posts like "Member for Men's Issues" and "Member for Absent Students" come to mind, and don't even pretend like anyone does anything with those remits, because they don't.

I believe that the belief that the Association should make policy like Parliament grossly distorts what it is actually there to do. Its business side exists to make money from its own service provision, and then it is meant to to re-distribute the money in the form of grants and subsidised service provision/use of space. It is supposed to stay solvent as well. Full stop.

Any broadening of that focus is, as the current accounts bear out, unsustainable, and continued far enough down the line will result in bankruptcy or severely curtailed operational capabilities.

2) "Would it in any case have been possible for us to do all those things" without the DoSDA, you ask? The answer is, quite simply, yes. If the volunteer members of the SVS and SRC/SSC actually did any work, between them per project--- between perhaps two or three of them--- they could easily have done all of the things you describe. The Association does not need another paid member of staff to do these things.

The "constitutional changes" you mention afore are simply not all that difficult to execute. You use "merge documents" in MS Word and discuss any potential changes with the relevant copies, print it, proof it, and vote on it. Not hard. Maybe a discussion with the DoR and DoES and three hours' worth of solid work at a keyboard.

3) My own point. The very idea of a DoSDA is that "student activities and development" should be micro-managed by a ladder-climbing functionary rather than being managed by the students themselves.

Cutting out the DoSDA would either remedy the deficit issue (which is an absolute travesty) or, if we are to follow your "it's ok to run deficits" idea, let's look very briefly at:

WHAT THE DOSDA SALARY WOULD PAY FOR:

£5000 for Theatre
£3000 for Debates
£3000 for Music
£2000 for whatever other activities you please


Think about that, kids. The Association would rather reward its own volunteers with an extra CV stuffer rather than give you money which is rightfully yours. Classic left-wing.

I think that anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who looks at those numbers will argue that, in a given year, giving that money directly to societies and students who know what they would like to do with it is a lot better than paying for a bureaucrat who will then make judgments over the remaining, smaller, pool of assets up for distribution.

The Association functioned for twenty years without a DoSDA. It could function without one tomorrow as well.

[Bing Bong!]

It seems to me that there's a lot of emphasis put on constitutions, restructuring and other impressive sounding words to put on one's c.v. (paper pushing and meetings...) and frankly not really enough on the business side of things. The Union needs to meet the needs of customers/beneficiaries (otherwise known as students) but it's no wonder it's making a loss as some sections are outdated and sort of run on a "good enough" policy.... Put it like this, any serious company would take a wee look at how many potential customers there are, what they want, and what the facilities and services are like, think "oh shit," beg borrow or steal a few million quid, think things through, then completely remodel the building, because it is blatantly totally inadequate. This could be done in stages so as not to shut down the whole operation for a year, and the increase in profits would cover the loan in time if it were done properly.

Here's what I think needs done:
* A far more energy efficent building - there are a zillion ways to do this and frankly I'm not an expert, but there are plenty out there to consult.
* More and better laid-out floor space (some services farmed further out of town if neccesary)
* Lots more glass, particulary for Bess and a daytime cafe.
* A rethink on the range of services and products offered. Bess is great, but it needs to be bigger and more competitive for the lower-budget customer, it must lose a helluva lot of business to Woolies.
* The bookshop also needs to expand.
* The catering facilities and service are pretty abyismal, don't even get me started. The two main problems are the unappealing surroundings and greasy spoon atmosphere and food. Budget stuff can be ok but by god Beatons is cheap and the books or looking round at lunchtime ought to be enough to tell you that it isn't floating many people's boats.

Sorry to rant but it really is silly that a university which has expanded so much in other areas has such poor-quality union facilities. I'm not slagging anyone off here, I think a lot of people work really hard in the union, often for little praise or recompense, and I think they and the students deserve a nicer, better thought out building, and, in some cases, a completely redeveloped product and service style. Which would incidently make more money....

[worried]

Quoting Bing Bong! from 20:45, 29th Oct 2007
* Lots more glass, particulary for Bess and a daytime cafe.

What are they going to do? Smash through some walls so the customers get a nice view of the toilets/kitchen?

* A rethink on the range of services and products offered. Bess is great, but it needs to be bigger and more competitive for the lower-budget customer, it must lose a helluva lot of business to Woolies.

BESS is making a profit already, and turning the shop into a clone of a national chain would not help - or attract anyone new.

* The bookshop also needs to expand.

The bookshop is owned and run by Blackwells. I suggest you direct your criticism to them. Their selection is terrible...!

The key issue in this whole debate is that the University needs to give our Union more money. It's shocking how small our grant is compared to other universities. Any suggestions on how we can get them to cough up?

[JohnQPublic]

Quoting worried from 01:28, 30th Oct 2007
The key issue in this whole debate is that the University needs to give our Union more money. It's shocking how small our grant is compared to other universities. Any suggestions on how we can get them to cough up?

The point is, they have no reason to give us more money if they know it's going to be pissed away as a deficit (rather than used for site development). They'd rather pay teaching staff with it or use it for development so we can get better educations (which is what universities are for, after all).

[Ewan Husami]

You want lots more glass, site some services out of town AND have energy efficiency?

Have you been to Beatons recently? The food is great - just as good as North Point for example, and a fraction of the price.

[Tweedle-Dum]

Quoting ewan husami from 23:48, 30th Oct 2007
You want lots more glass, site some services out of town AND have energy efficiency?

Have you been to Beatons recently? The food is great - just as good as North Point for example, and a fraction of the price.

I went today and it had huge queues, lacklustre service and the food was bland and greasy. It is a mistake I shall not repeat. I can get better food for less at subway.

[hr]

Tetragrammaton is a four letter word.

[JohnQPublic]

We digress- the point is:

A) the Union has an operating deficit. Last year's deficit was £37,000 and this year's deficit is projected at £10,000, and it's early days. It could get worse. Most of the sabs incumbent now were in the machine last year, and should bear some responsibility.

B) It has not had an operating deficit in 15+ years, at least in recent memory, and it was these deficits that led to the collapse of the Union--- which was bailed out by the University way back in the day.

C) They have predicted a deficit next year, too. This trend ends one way: badly.

D) It is the responsibility of the sabbaticals to correct the deficit, not to predict how bad the next one is going to be.

E) The Association should post here or make some other public pronouncement about what he or she plans to do to solve this problem as the student public is clearly concerned with it. A plan is needed and we students should demand it.

F) Failure to do so is a gross dereliction of duty warranting motions of recall or resignations.

[David Bean]

I always feel very awkward responding to posts like these; on the one hand I have little time, energy or patience to re-fight past battles, but on the other I can't stand to see good, genuine, well-meaning people, including myself, baselessly and falsely attacked without some attempt to set the record straight. So I will respond, but without a modicum of pleasure.

I'll address your points in order.

How good of you; if only you'd bothered to respond to all of them, instead of just the ones you thought you could make some kind of argument against.

1) "An affiliated SVS" was not so much an accomplishment as it was paper-shuffling. These "solid structural changes" did not, in fact, do very much for the organization. All they do is cost it money.

Let me push aside for one moment the red mist that rubbish like this conjurs up, and try to respond calmly. Let's start with a couple of facts. Firstly, the affiliation of the SVS didn't cost the Association a penny; I made absolutely sure of that, on the assumption that it would have been irresponsible of the Association to approve the measure if it would have cost us anything. I did guarantee one change in costs, however, by getting the University to assume the cost of insuring the SVS's activities for nothing, when previously, as an independent organisation, they'd been paying what ammounted at last count to £1,500 a year, a figure, given changes in legislation and liability, we predicted to rise sharply in the future. That's money, if I could remind you, that the SVS can now either plough back into service delivery, or can save the time and effort needed to raise it and use it to get on with the business of volunteering. So on the cost issue, you're diametrically wrong. Second, an opinion: if the affiliation really was a paper-shuffling exercise, that's really not a bad thing given what we achieved - if you really believe that a real-world business activity that happens to involve paper is in some way less valuable than anything else, I'd question which planet you're on - but considering the levels of stakeholder engagemement it took to get everyone (even up to the level of the Office of the Scottish Charities Commission, who, had we not followed the correct procedures, could have prosecuted us for fraud) agreed that the systems and structures we put in place were correct, fair, legal and to their advantage, I'd say you'd be stretching the expression beyond the acceptable limits of its definition.

You refer to "development of the existing subcommittees and a constitutional reform." Come on. You know deep down in your heart of hearts that the way a PDF document (which nobody reads, or can even access publicly) gets bullet-pointed has almost NOTHING to do with the Association's day-to-day operations. In fact, all it really has to do with is what new useless position is going to get made for the SRC. Posts like "Member for Men's Issues" and "Member for Absent Students" come to mind, and don't even pretend like anyone does anything with those remits, because they don't.

Again, let's start with facts. Other than those on the SSC we needed to run Volunteering and Broadcasting, I didn't create a single position - in fact, I actually eliminated some that had fallen into disuse. The particular positions you refer to were created by Ben Spiers and Simon Atkins in a previous exercise, in which my role was limited, so whatever your views of that, it has very little to do with me, and nothing to do with my term as DoSDA. As far as the ability to access the document is concerned, I never had responsibility for the Association's web site or what's on hand in the General Office, but the pticular set of Laws I created were accurate, up to date and in publishable form - indeed, that they should be made available was one of my main intentions, and I can't really bear responsibility for what people did with it after I'd left. Lastly, I wasn't talking solely of the constitutional reform, but also of the additional powers I either negotiated or implemented for subcommittees like the Music Fund, Mermaids and Charities, to allow them to get on with their jobs as they wanted to. The MusFund can now offer loans in addition to grants, for example; it couldn't before, because it hadn't been fully developed yet. Their committee and I changed that that year.

I believe that the belief that the Association should make policy like Parliament grossly distorts what it is actually there to do. Its business side exists to make money from its own service provision, and then it is meant to to re-distribute the money in the form of grants and subsidised service provision/use of space. It is supposed to stay solvent as well. Full stop.

Indeed, but I'm not sure why you were presenting that as a rebuttal to anything I said or did, since at no time did I act to the contrary.

Any broadening of that focus is, as the current accounts bear out, unsustainable, and continued far enough down the line will result in bankruptcy or severely curtailed operational capabilities.

Apparently you're wrong, since you fail to have realised that not every increase in the scope of something actually entails an increase in cost, considering most of the best work done on the Association's behalf is by unpaid volunteers, whose activities deserve to be celebrated, not derided or dismissed. I agree that there are possible cases where an increase in scope may carry an increase in cost, but your use of the word 'any' is inaccurate and misleading, and tends to suggest that you have rather less of an idea of what you're talking about than your assertiveness would suggest. In any case, following your logic it would almost always be in the interests of the Association to reduce its scope of activities in order to save money, and given that it is essentially a charity that exists to serve its members' interests, that is clearly a flawed analysis the situation.

2) "Would it in any case have been possible for us to do all those things" without the DoSDA, you ask? The answer is, quite simply, yes. If the volunteer members of the SVS and SRC/SSC actually did any work, between them per project--- between perhaps two or three of them--- they could easily have done all of the things you describe. The Association does not need another paid member of staff to do these things.

I'm sorry, but it's very hard to remain calm when you start talking such trash about the excellent, highly committed members of an organisation like the SVS, who work at least as hard as any other student group in the entire university, for no pay and basically because of their own altruism and belief in giving something back to the community. You should be ashamed of yourself for speaking about them like that, but since you apparently have no qualms about making baseless attacks on anyone else, I doubt you'd even think twice. The rest of your 'argument' is, again, complete assertion; how on earth do you know what it is or isn't possible for certain other people to achieve, when someone like me who's actually been in the job offers an informed opinion to the contrary, and all you have to back yourself up is some vague claim of having been a 'hack' in the past? This is sheer ignorance - bitter, malicious ignorance at that.

The "constitutional changes" you mention afore are simply not all that difficult to execute. You use "merge documents" in MS Word and discuss any potential changes with the relevant copies, print it, proof it, and vote on it. Not hard. Maybe a discussion with the DoR and DoES and three hours' worth of solid work at a keyboard.

In that case I'd be interested to hear - no, scratch that, I don't want to say anything that might make you think I'm the least bit interested in any more of your bile - I'd have to question why it hadn't been done for about two years previously. I'm sure you'd come back with some rubbish about how everyone who's ever gone near the door of the Association (apart from yourself, presumably) is incompetent, but there comes a point where you just can't keep on increasing the number of people you say are wrong when you alone are right - after that, you just begin to sound insane. Yes, the parts that involved merging things together wasn't particularly difficult, but all the bits that had to be rendered consistent in language, and in many cases created from scratch, weren't quite so simple as you make out, especially given the number of people (each with their own agendas) who had to be involved in the decisionmaking in order for the thing to pass at all. If what you suggest is the degree of thoroughness you like to bring to a piece of work, well, I feel sorry for whoever employs you these days.

3) My own point. The very idea of a DoSDA is that "student activities and development" should be micro-managed by a ladder-climbing functionary rather than being managed by the students themselves.

That seems to be your own idea, but I can assure you it isn't shared by anyone who was involved in setting the position up. Anyone interested in ladder-climbing (instead of, for instance, working for the good of a group of a student body they really cared about) would need their head examined to stand for a sabbatical job in the Association, and (at least in my term) the job was never about micro-managing anything, but freeing the student officers from the less appealing aspects of running their organisations, so they could get on with the job of being as creative, innovative and useful as the students of St Andrews at their best are - so that they could actually run the activities, not worry about the minutiae. It was about empowerment, not control.

Cutting out the DoSDA would either remedy the deficit issue (which is an absolute travesty) or, if we are to follow your "it's ok to run deficits" idea, let's look very briefly at:

WHAT THE DOSDA SALARY WOULD PAY FOR:

£5000 for Theatre
£3000 for Debates
£3000 for Music
£2000 for whatever other activities you please

Well, for a start you can subtract the £1,500+ bonus the SVS would never have got, but apart from that your idea that problems can be solved, and organisations can move forward, simply by throwing money at them is fatuous in their naivety.

Think about that, kids. The Association would rather reward its own volunteers with an extra CV stuffer rather than give you money which is rightfully yours. Classic left-wing.

I stand by what I did in office and what it achieved for the students of St Andrews, and had I been around to be able to comment on what Lee and Jenny have done - and I realise that restricting one's comments to areas we actually have a clue about seems to have gone out of fashion in this discussion, but here we are - I'm sure I'd stand up equally for them, but I also stand up for the three of us as people, knowing that to accuse us of acting other than as we truly believed was for the students' interests, and I think your constant carping about how we were only in it for ourselves (as well as being absurd, since other than a great deal of experience in running an organisation and some good times I personally benefitted in no way from my time as a sabb) is, frankly, a disgrace.

I think that anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who looks at those numbers will argue that, in a given year, giving that money directly to societies and students who know what they would like to do with it is a lot better than paying for a bureaucrat who will then make judgments over the remaining, smaller, pool of assets up for distribution.

And I think you have no idea what you're talking about, and anyone who actually did would draw completely the opposite conclusion.

The Association functioned for twenty years without a DoSDA. It could function without one tomorrow as well.

The Association could function without many things, but in its present form? To its present scale? Doing anything like as much for the students as it does - doing its job nearly as well as it does? No. Utter rubbish.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Jono]

Nooo! No change! Change bad! Nothing new for St. Andrews.

Quoting exnihilo from 08:22, 29th Oct 2007
Which Societies Officer's degree suffered? Who is this 'everyone' who complained? What utter twaddle.

Not everyone. Just every Hack I happen to speak to, various people from back in the day. Since when has anyone called you on your vast sweeping statements?

Honestly; what's with everyone? Aren't you lot always the first to criticise anything published in The Saint? There's enough bile here to fill the bathing pool.









[hr]

BY FIRE; BE PURGED!


http://www.myspace.com/tauntra

[exnihilo]

What?

[turnblad]

Quoting Johnqpublic from 19:50, 31st Oct 2007
We digress- the point is:

A) the Union has an operating deficit. Last year's deficit was £37,000 and this year's deficit is projected at £10,000, and it's early days. It could get worse. Most of the sabs incumbent now were in the machine last year, and should bear some responsibility.

Yeah, and it could also get better. It is also still only early days, and at least they are being up front about it.

B) It has not had an operating deficit in 15+ years, at least in recent memory, and it was these deficits that led to the collapse of the Union--- which was bailed out by the University way back in the day.

This doesn't mean that it is going to happen this time does it?

C) They have predicted a deficit next year, too. This trend ends one way: badly.

They've predicted a deficit of £10k. That is £27k LESS of a deficit. That doesn't scream terribly bad to me.

D) It is the responsibility of the sabbaticals to correct the deficit, not to predict how bad the next one is going to be.

I'd much rather have sabbaticals that behave realistically and admit that everything isn't going to be hunky dory straight away and be totally honest, upfront and realistic to avoid a worse case scenario of the Union going bust.

E) The Association should post here or make some other public pronouncement about what he or she plans to do to solve this problem as the student public is clearly concerned with it. A plan is needed and we students should demand it.

Is the whole student public that concerned about it? Really? Because I have yet to come across anyone who is remotely worried in the slightest outside of this thread.

F) Failure to do so is a gross dereliction of duty warranting motions of recall or resignations.

The current incumbents have not been in their positions for that long yet (with the exception of Tom D'Ardenne) so they should be given a chance. That and all Sabbatical positions will come up for re-election next semester. If you are still really unhappy about it you can use your democratic right then.

[hr]

The purpose of life is to die. So everyone should eat pie.

[Mr Comedy]

I'd also like to point out that an Association making a 10k deficit each year with a £1m bank balance will take 100,000 years to go bankrupt. Although the state of the Union's finances in the year 102,007 are admittedly of some concern to me, it isn't currently keeping me awake at night.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[romantic]

Quoting Mr Comedy from 10:38, 1st Nov 2007
I'd also like to point out that an Association making a 10k deficit each year with a £1m bank balance will take 100,000 years to go bankrupt. Although the state of the Union's finances in the year 102,007 are admittedly of some concern to me, it isn't currently keeping me awake at night.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

The deficit is £10,000, not £10 per year.