Hall Subs and Fines

[Rob Hearn]

I have recently heard that DRA residents will be fined if they do not pay their halls subs. This strikes me as an outrageous proposal; I wonder what others have to say.

I think what’s important to remember here, though, is that fines for unpaid hall subs are not the real issue. The issue is that residents of university accommodation are required to pay hall subs at all. The university is a business, as are all of the departments within it, but unlike any other business it seems not to be regulated by any consumer-protecting body, and can get away with acts and policies that outside the university would be brought to an end. There are two main policies to which I refer. First - in what seems to be a digression but will cleverly transpire not to be - the newly introduced system of resnet subscription.

I was at the accommodation meeting where the new resnet policy was proposed. There were around a hundred of us at the meeting, in the old psychology library – residence managers, hall committee members, sabbaticals, and so on. I don’t recall a single voice in favour of the proposal, and I recall plenty opposed to it. The crux of the opposition was straightforward: nobody can ethically extract money from a person and then invite her to receive the goods that the money has paid for. Shopkeepers do not debit money from your account and then tell you that there are goods waiting for you if you want them, yet this is exactly what R&B services do by including the price of a room connection in the accommodation fee. Can you think of a single argument in favour of it?

It reduces the IT services workload.

So what? A vendor’s difficulty in providing a service is of no concern to the customer.

Except, perhaps, that the cost of the service may rise without compulsory pre-payment.

Well, the cost has risen, almost doubled, from £50 to £90 a year, and prior to that, the cost did not rise for several years, and the service was never more patchy than it is now.

Really, there isn’t a reasonable argument in favour of compulsory resent charges. All the charges achieve is to make life easier for R&B and IT services, but, like I said, that is not our concern. We are customers.

We let them get away with it for two reasons. One, some students are obedient, or diffident, or simply grateful to be in university residence whatsoever, so will take a bit of abuse. Two, it is a stealth charge that we – I admit, myself included – are willing to pay because it is folded into fees we are already paying – and, after all, over 36 odd weeks £90 doesn’t seem like very much to pay, does it?

The charges should never have been instituted. The principle of compulsorily paying for an optional service is unjust, and the manner in which it is extracted is sleazy.

Why do I bring this up when I purport to be talking about hall subs? The two issues are connected in kind. If you are opposed to compulsory resnet charges, then you are opposed to compulsory hall subs, inescapably, because they represent exactly the same inverted goods-payment principle - every student in halls is coerced into paying for events she may or may not wish to attend.

In essence, a student’s subs pay for a series of balls and parties. A poster on a previous thread (DRA ball) defended the DRA committee by enumerating the events that had so far taken place, arguing, not unreasonably, that the events represented good value for money. If I liked balls I would doubtless be satisfied by those I had so far attended, and would congratulate the committee for their efforts. That I had paid for them compulsorily beforehand would have been no less ethically unsound, but I would take some consolation in the fact that if I paid voluntarily I would not have begrudged the ticket price. It is hardly fair, however – as well as being ethically unsound - for those of us who have no interest in attending these events to have to pay for them. In fact, it is ludicrous, and to suggest that we should be penalised for refusing is unthinkably ludicrous.

So, to the committees: clearly, students should have the option to attend balls. The committees receive money from the union each year, as well as discretionary donations from hall managers, and possibly other sources. Use this money to market hall subs. Sell them as aggressively as you like, and with a clean conscience – you are selling a worthwhile service. Give tickets or bands to those who bite, and only allow holders of those bands to come to the events. Allow students to buy bands later in the year, deducting from the price a sum representing the events that have already happened. This may be more work for the committees, but not much. And, more importantly, tough luck if it is. Recruit more members if you have to. Do anything rather than extort money from those students – not, I suspect, especially small in number - who are getting nothing for their £50.

You might have to hold smaller or fewer events? Well, I understand that the impressive programme of events on the DRA calendar owes much of its girth to an excess of subs money in the treasury. The committee can clearly afford to function with less. And if the worst comes to the worst and the committee does need to scale-down slightly (and I am sure the scaling-down would be very slight), so what? As previous posters have commented in defence of the Aquarium, it is the people who make a party, not the venue.
There is the additional point, to be made by the committees, that subs cover the cost of damages incurred to the hall over the year.

The response is very simple: Pay for damages before I inflict them? Don’t make me laugh! The fair and, outside the university, ubiquitous method of securing renumeration for damage is the deposit system.

Unfair or not, subs are bullishly collected every year, as though paying up is a moral and legal duty incumbent upon every resident. The charges should never have been instituted. The principle of compulsorily paying for an optional service is unjust, and the manner in which it is extracted is sleazy.

I am a member of the Fife Park Committee. I do not defend our committee, and nor do I criticise the DRA committee (beyond the pressure I understand to have been exerted by its members to have these scurrilous fines implemented.) I may agree with the infamous Rennie on several points, but whoever says that our committee is ineffectual is, I think, pretty well justified in saying it. (Although, for any Fife Parkers reading this, I assure you that at least one more event is forthcoming. Probably another BBQ towards the end of term, but if you have any suggestions please make them on the Fife Park forum). I don’t believe that DRA events are poorly organised, and I have the greatest respect for those responsible for organising them. All I am saying is this: the people who pay for the events should be the consumers of the events, and nobody else. The alternative – the current system – is simply not ethical.

Incidentally, I apologise if this post appears twice. I submitted it last night without an account, but grew impatient with the length to time it was taking to appear, and so created an account and posted it again.

[Simon Atkins]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 14:05, 7th Apr 2004:
Well, the cost has risen, almost doubled, from £50 to £90 a year, and prior to that, the cost did not rise for several years, and the service was never more patchy than it is now.

Not passing an opinion on the situation. Bear in mind this was not my area last year so I will not understand it as some, but I’ll try and explain a few of the bits that did come up at SRC last year.

The charges were split in two, the computer charge £50 and the phone charge £40. The excuse for the phone charge was that the company that installed the phones were going to rip them unless they received the charge. It was a result of the profit from the 0870 numbers and people calling out were insufficient to cover the costs.

Later in the year Richard found that Court agreed to pay for the phones about 10 years ago but this info was not found in time to be used in the negotiations.

[Rob Hearn]

That's right, thanks for clarifying.
Ericsson pulled out because they were losing money, which was because, if I remember rightly, we were all using 01334 instead of 0870 as a dialling code. Good on us, and fair play to them.

Still, the amount is not relevant, and needn't have made its way into my original argument. That the £50 charge is made automatically rather than in the case that the service is required is the issue.

[Pandora]

Yes its true. I didnt pay my hall subs so now hae a fine at the cash office. I got an email today asking me to sort it out but I think I hae till the end of May so will keep the £50 pounds (and any intrest accumulated) till then. What annoys me is that since the main building is gone there is no Sky TV or newspapers. So we are paying hall subs but only get ball tickets. I have no intention of going to this ball so why sould I pay for tickets? Another thing is that hall subs are used to pay for damage done to the hall. But why should I pay for damage that people are to cowardly to admit to doing themselves? Or to put it another way why should I pay for damage that I have not done? But my experince is that the university dont really care about who is responsible for damage or kitchen mess. They just charge everyone. Another reason I didnt pay hall subs is that I am disapointed by the service provided at DRH this year. The lack of bike storage space, the letter box fiasco and the fact that we have to walk round to Fife park with our laundry are just some of the things I am peeved at. None of this is the responsibility of the Hall Committee who I am sure work very hard to organise great events. I just think that for the price we pay per week we shouldnt have to put up with these inconveniences.

[Mr Tickle]

I would take legal advice before paying your fine, with a solicitor outside of St Andrews. You probably can fight it.

[Rob Hearn]

I agree. Anyone who is being fined, fight it. And those of you returning next year who don't stand to get anything in return for paying subs, don't pay them. In many cases the extraction of subs money is little more than extortion. Don't let it happen to you.

[atreus]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 07:30, 15th Apr 2004:
I agree. Anyone who is being fined, fight it. And those of you returning next year who don't stand to get anything in return for paying subs, don't pay them. In many cases the extraction of subs money is little more than extortion. Don't let it happen to you.


Unfortunately, I believe that you will lose. If you would take a gander at the contract signed as a legally binding agreement with the university, accepting the room in which you live, there is a clause which states "you agree to pay on arrival to the Warden or Student Treasurer of your residence a house subscription to be used by the Student House Committee"
Considering all residence must sign this, all those who haven't paid their hall subs are in breech of contract and can therefore be legally fined by the University. I don't think the hall subscriptions relate in any way to extortion... in fact, I fail to see the connection. It is debatable whether future subscription will be collected in the same manner as in past years. Such decisions are up to the University and the Hall Committees.

"The principle of compulsorily paying for an optional service is unjust"

What about taxes? What about the government? The Hall Committee is like the student government (that is, your representatives) trying to provide services for you. The only way in which this can be done, is with money, collected by taxes, or in this case hall subscriptions. The Hall Committee and their activities are apart of the enrichment of the stundent life in a hall. If people are unhappy about these, they can choose to live outside the university or in Fife Park where the Hall Subs are not compulsory, or Albany Park where Hall Subs are not charged. Afterall, nobody is forcing students to live where they choose to live. Perhaps the amount charged for the Hall Subscription should be made available so that students can use this information to better choose where they want to live.

[Matt B]

It doesn't seem cricket to sign a lease agreement saying you'll pay hall charges and then get on your high horse when you're actually asked to.

The lease does still make it clear you'll be expected to pay hall charges?

[Rob Hearn]

This is a response to atrius's last post.

I wasn't aware of the contractual arrangements. If it is the case that the payment of hall subs is contractually enforced, then yes, students who bluntly refuse to pay may come off badly. However, I'm sure it is possible to appeal on financial grounds. Just do that.

You fail to see the connection between the charging of halls subs and extortion? Well, failure is nothing ashamed of. Just try harder next time.

Of course, whether it is extortion is a matter or perception, but in my perception saying, in the form of policy, 'you have to give us this money or else' is extortion. Those sympathetic to the principle of hall subs will no doubt call it something else.

I'm rather taken aback by your comparison of hall subs with taxes. There is a similarity in that, as you point out, both taxes and hall subs are compulsory, but that's where the similarity ends. Taxes pay for the health service, infrastructure, military upkeep, and so on. The mandatory contribution most working people make enables the country to function. Hall subs pay for piss ups. I still believe that, broadly speaking, compulsory pre-payment is wrong, but in the case of taxes it has to be excused for pretty obvious practical reasons.

Moreover, significantly, even though taxes pay for the essential services I have just described, the taxation system is moderately flexible - even generous. Most of the people reading this are students and therefore almost certainly don't pay taxes. People who earn small incomes pay less than people who earn large incomes. My unemployed friends don't pay tax at all and, even better, the government actually gives them money to tide them over and pays their rent.

My taxes, which I do not have to pay, mean that I can, amongst innumerable other activities, go to the doctor and have her monitor my health for free.

Hall subs, which, if I were a resident of an appropriate hall, I would have to pay, would enable me to get pissed with people in nice clothes - automatically, instead of just if I feel like buying a ticket - and maybe read a newspaper once a week which I share with hundreds of others and I can find anyhow in the library or simply buy for peanuts.

You are right about the principle, but I hope you can see that the comparison is feeble in every important respect.

Your final remarks. You are entitled to your views on the 'enrichment of student life'. I happen not to agree. People I have known in other universities have not paid hall subs, or even had hall committees, and have enjoyed a rich social life. Some people enjoy tradition, some people think it's a waste of time. Everybody is allowed an opinion. However, the hall subs are an imposed and, to blamelessly asocial students, expensive tradition, and that isn't fair.

In addition, I didn't suggest that we get rid of hall subs. I suggested, quite clearly, that hall subs be marketed and sold instead of imposed. The outcome, in my opinion, wouldn't be much different. Most people would pay, and an ample fund of cash would be generated to host balls (like I said in my initial post, the DRA committee has a budget much fatter than it initially anticipated, and even now, after hosting unplanned extra events to try and drain the excess, it is still pretty rich). Those that didn't would have to pay for ball tickets, just like non-residents. Halls subs stay, people don't get ripped off. Everybody wins.

People could choose to live elsewhere? I don't know what to say about that. It's completely true, but, as I expect you are aware, a pretty vacuous point to make. Who is going to give up perfectly good accomodation for nine months over a £50 charge? Most, if given the choice, would stay in their preferred accomodation and, in the case that they didn't want to pay hall subs, would bite the bullet and pay them anyway. They shouldn't have to.

Your concluding remark. I agree; the amount should be advertised in the contract. For those who don't wish to gain anything from the committee's activities, the amount should be £0.

p.s., I would like to apologise for my tone in this post. I am coming across a lot more crabbily than I intend. I look forward to any rejoinders in the spirit of congenial debate.

[Rob Hearn]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 01:54, 18th Apr 2004:
This is a response to atrius's last post.

I wasn't aware of the contractual arrangements. If it is the case that the payment of hall subs is contractually enforced, then yes, students who bluntly refuse to pay may come off badly. However, I'm sure it is possible to appeal on financial grounds. Just do that.

You fail to see the connection between the charging of halls subs and extortion? Well, failure is nothing to be ashamed of. Just try harder next time.

Of course, whether it is extortion is a matter or perception, but in my perception saying, in the form of policy, 'you have to give us this money or else' is extortion. Those sympathetic to the principle of hall subs will no doubt call it something else.

I'm rather taken aback by your comparison of hall subs with taxes. There is a similarity in that, as you point out, both taxes and hall subs are compulsory, but that's where the similarity ends. Taxes pay for the health service, infrastructure, military upkeep, and so on. The mandatory contribution most working people make enables the country to function. Hall subs pay for piss ups. I still believe that, broadly speaking, compulsory pre-payment is wrong, but in the case of taxes it has to be excused for pretty obvious practical reasons.

Moreover, significantly, even though taxes pay for the essential services I have just described, the taxation system is moderately flexible - even generous. Most of the people reading this are students and therefore almost certainly don't pay taxes. People who earn small incomes pay less than people who earn large incomes. My unemployed friends don't pay tax at all and, even better, the government actually gives them money to tide them over and pays their rent.

My taxes, which I do not have to pay, mean that I can, amongst innumerable other activities, go to the doctor and have her monitor my health for free.

Hall subs, which, if I were a resident of an appropriate hall, I would have to pay, would enable me to get pissed with people in nice clothes - automatically, instead of just if I feel like buying a ticket - and maybe read a newspaper once a week which I share with hundreds of others and I can find anyhow in the library or simply buy for peanuts.

You are right about the principle, but I hope you can see that the comparison is feeble in every important respect.

Your final remarks. You are entitled to your views on the 'enrichment of student life'. I happen not to agree. People I have known in other universities have not paid hall subs, or even had hall committees, and have enjoyed a rich social life. Some people enjoy tradition, some people think it's a waste of time. Everybody is allowed an opinion. However, the hall subs are an imposed and, to blamelessly asocial students, expensive tradition, and that isn't fair.

In addition, I didn't suggest that we get rid of hall subs. I suggested, quite clearly, that hall subs be marketed and sold instead of imposed. The outcome, in my opinion, wouldn't be much different. Most people would pay, and an ample fund of cash would be generated to host balls (like I said in my initial post, the DRA committee has a budget much fatter than it initially anticipated, and even now, after hosting unplanned extra events to try and drain the excess, it is still pretty rich). Those that didn't would have to pay for ball tickets, just like non-residents. Halls subs stay, people don't get ripped off. Everybody wins.

People could choose to live elsewhere? I don't know what to say about that. It's completely true, but, as I expect you are aware, a pretty vacuous point to make. Who is going to give up perfectly good accomodation for nine months over a £50 charge? Most, if given the choice, would stay in their preferred accomodation and, in the case that they didn't want to pay hall subs, would bite the bullet and pay them anyway. They shouldn't have to.

Your concluding remark. I agree; the amount should be advertised in the contract. For those who don't wish to gain anything from the committee's activities, the amount should be £0.

p.s., I would like to apologise for my tone in this post. I am coming across a lot more crabbily than I intend. I look forward to any rejoinders in the spirit of congenial debate.

p.p.s., By suggesting that residence committee balls represent the opportunity to 'get pissed with people in nice clothes' I risk sounding as though I am deriding the events. I am not, it was just rhetoric. I have been very fortunate to attend several DRA balls and parties this year, and have enjoyed and been impressed by each of them.

[helpful]

The hall subs issue comes up again and again in all halls with people disgruntled that they have to pay around £50 to fuel other people's drunkeness. And yet nothing ever changes, the hall subs always remain compulsary meaning that a lot of people are paying for things they never use and the committee has no incentive to put on good events that will attract people.

Perhaps you should mention this on the main sinner board and start getting the ball rolling. Remember this is St Andrews, nothing ever changes by itself, and I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would back you up and get stuff done

[Pandora]

"It doesn't seem cricket to sign a lease agreement saying you'll pay hall charges and then get on your high horse when you're actually asked to.

The lease does still make it clear you'll be expected to pay hall charges?"

Just because its on the contract it doesn't mean we have to accept it. As its on my contract I will have to eventually pay the fine. However if enough people get disgruntled then hall subs can eventually be removed. Perhaps you could argue that I didnt have to go into halls however halls are the best option for me. Despite the fact that you are contractually obliged to fork out £50 for events and facilities that I have no intrest in.

[Rob Hearn]

Okay then. If you are opposed to hall subs, or if you agree with me that they should be optional and marketed, not obligatory, post on this board. If you know anybody else who feels the same way, ask them to post. If enough people register an interest, then we can come together and petition in force to Roger Smith and the senior members of the wardennial hierarchy for the fines to be removed and hall subs taken out of the standard residence contract.

[Rennie]

I agree with Hearn, and his proposal.

[Alex Muir]

As do I.

My primary reason being that we are being charged twice for maintenance of Residence buildings - once through hall subs and once through our rent(which should legally cover 'general wear and tear')

[penfold]

Three times normally as when you vacate you're room they like to stick extra charges on at the end, out of the deposit for self catered accomodation payed with the first instalment of the hall fees. Which is probably the best way to pay hall subs as well if you have to.

[Jim Brown]

Just a quick comment. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with all or any of the postings on this thread, however I would like to ask why members of the Fife Park Committee are waiting until this time to petition against Hall Subs and Wardenial Fines?

The Hall Subs issue was raised at the last Residential Accommodation Forum in March. This meeting had representatives from the Wardenial Team, Residential & Accommodation Services, University Senior Management, Residence Managers and Senior Students, or their representatives, from each of the various halls. However no one from the Fife Park Committee attended this meeting. Surely this would have been a good time to raise your points and voice any concerns you have?

[Robert Tonner (RA Fife Park)]

[s]Alex Muir wrote on 23:25, 19th Apr 2004:
As do I.

My primary reason being that we are being charged twice for maintenance of Residence buildings - once through hall subs and once through our rent(which should legally cover 'general wear and tear')


'We' in Fife Park are not being charged anything from our halls subs as they are voluntary and therefore not attributable. Just a small point and I will now bugger off before I get involved in the wider argument, which, as an RA, I could not possibly comment on.

[Rob Hearn]

Hi Jim,

I am indeed a member of the Fife Park Committee, but my comments have nothing to do with that. I raise these points independently. As a matter of fact, I wasn't aware of the meeting you refer to. If I had been, I probably wouldn't have gone, since I am largely indifferent. I have already admitted that my role in the committee is ineffectual, and I have no qualms about stating that my membership is due solely to my friendship with Rennie, whom I agreed to assist with the setting up of the committee. For the purposes of this discussion, and indeed any discussion, my membership is completely irrelevant. Moreover, I regret that the point you raise seems to be aimed more at bringing mine and the other committee members' abilities as student representatives into question than discussing the issue of the thread, which - while you are entitled to say what you please - is not germane to this discussion.

I state, for a final time, that my committee membership is wholly irrelevant.

You're right of course; as it happens, the forum would have been a good time to raise the hall subs issue. But since that's a missed opportunity, let's focus on what's happening now.

With respect.

p.s., Thank you Rob for clearing up Alex Muir's error. By 'we' I assume he refers to students who do pay subs, a group of which he is not strictly speaking a member, as you rightly point out. Please feel free to get into the wider debate (unless you are constrained). I feel to do so would constitute a more valuable contribution to the discussion than the minor outside issues that have been raised today.

With respect.

[Jim Brown]

Hi Rob

Like I said before, my opinions on the rights and wrongs of the discussion I'll keep to myself, and the statements that I make in this post aren't meant to be inciteful, so please don't take them as such. I have enjoyed reading the posts within this topic and I am in no way attempting to hinder anyone from stating their views or opinions on the matter. I am merely trying to point out different directions where your energies might be more effectively channelled.

In my last post I wasn't attempting to bring anyone’s abilities into question but merely to point out that as committee members you are/were in a position to attend meetings and forums that the normal student body cannot access and that these were indeed missed opportunities. It is during such meetings and forums that suggestions can be put forward and discussed with all the decision making bodies and real change can be made. That is one of the reasons, in my opinion, why Student Committees exist. I am not suggesting that airing views within this forum is not an important part of creating change or recruiting support, but at some stage you will have to act in an official capacity and I personally would think it would be easier to initiate change by first exploring the official channels that are open to you.

Also, I do feel that your committee membership is indeed relevant to the discussions at hand as the students in Fife Park voted you into office to represent their interests to the University. Therefore I would imagine that at some point in the future, should your petition take off, your official position, and those of your fellow committee members, will be brought into the discussion when the students that you request to join your petition ask who will represent them and be their official voice.

Best wishes,

Jim