Intro to "hackery"?

[Guest]

[s]Bryn wrote on 11:59, 14th Aug 2004:
What a way to dismiss my point completely. Thanks.




It was worth dismissing due to the silly manner in which you tried to convey it - ie a childish manner.

Convey your point sensibly and you may be treated as such. Otherwise, are you on drugs?

[Guest]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 12:27, 14th Aug 2004:
The year is 2034, the St. Andrews SRC now constitutes 3/5ths of the global population with approximately half a million people to represent every single student.

(Based on the assumption of a global population of 15billion and a St. Andrews student body of 20,000)


Have you been taking statistic lessons from Preston?

[lyn jeffreys]

...and people wonder why most hacks aren't terribly well thought of...i would think that the truly malicious tone of some of the comments on this thread would make them the most well-loved people on earth.

[hr]"We are all worms, but i do believe that i am a Glow-Worm" -Winston Churchill

[Kibet]

[s]Bryn wrote on 03:28, 14th Aug 2004:

Bullshit.


Are you suggesting that there are equal amount of homophobes and heterophobes? i believe there are more homophobes than heterophobes and so homosexuals are more likely to face academic problems based on their sexuality rather than heterosexuals. similarly with bisexual and transsexual.

Well this imperfect world that we apparently live in will never be an ideal world if we keep giving special consderation to some groups and not others.


so are you saying to obtain an ideal world we must keep everything fair and balanced that we should have an able-bodied rep,etc..., like my original post?

[Mr Comedy]

Firstly, ladies and gentlemen, shall we back down a little and share the love around? This is turning into a bit of a bunfight.

I do agree with both sides of the debate here, for differing reasons.
Firstly, I see that there is a need for everyone to be represented in the Association, and the University.
However, one must question the sensibility of having 700 reps to represent the very smallest majorities.

As an aside here, if you have a relationships problem, then get in touch with Nightline on (46)2720 during term time.
Or drop into Student Support.
Hopefully when I finally get the 'Welfare' section of the Union webpage put together ( I am fairly helpless at these things), I will be able to include a section on where to go for what.


The SRC Officers and Reps are not actually there to provide counselling. Whereas some of them will only be to happy to help wherever they can, they are there primarily to bring issues to the SRC surrounding the areas that they represent. So a Sexualities and Gender representative is there to represent these issues. And incidentally, it is titled the Sexualities and Gender representative so to eliminate the need of an LGBT Rep and then a Heterosexual representative.
However, this has lead to the unfortunate (and not uncommon) problem of the Rep technically representing everyone, and rendering the position effetively useless. But there you go, that is Association politics for you.

And my thoughts on Assocation politics is that every year a bunch of Officers and Reps come in, make some half baked changes, and then just make it more complicated for everyone.
Feet of clay.

But there you go. I am going to knock up an article for this website, to explain some of the basics of Association politics, and debunk some of the myths and confusion that surround them.


[hr]"My hour for tea is half-past five, and my buttered toast waits for nobody."
-Wilkie Collins, The Woman in White

[exnihilo]

That should be illuminating. Based, one assumes, on your years of experience of the Association?


[hr]Signatures are for fools who haven't said enough already.
(With apologies to Karl Marx.)

[someone]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 12:30, 14th Aug 2004:
[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 12:27, 14th Aug 2004:[i]
The year is 2034, the St. Andrews SRC now constitutes 3/5ths of the global population with approximately half a million people to represent every single student.

(Based on the assumption of a global population of 15billion and a St. Andrews student body of 20,000)


Have you been taking statistic lessons from Preston?
[/i]

Well, he needs to subtract 120 from that number, then multiply it by three, yell "Hamilton Hall is the best thing since the wheel," add Brian Lang, and then add the "SRC Member for SRC Members" as a new officer.

His math makes far too much sense, and is too funny in the conventional sense, to have been taught by me. You, oh Unregistered, invisible opponent of mine, should know that.

[hr]

Disco Inferno.

[Simon Atkins]

The first post seems to have specified that the poster didn't want this thread to descend into bitching. I'll try and write a brief history in the morning but it would be nice if people who just want to slag every one off would at least make it seem like they were trying to be informative.

[exnihilo]

Now why on earth would I want to do a thing like that? I look forward to all these histories/articles with bated breath.

Really, I do.

(Correction duly made, Mr R.)

[hr]Signatures are for fools who haven't said enough already.
(With apologies to Karl Marx.)

[Anon.]

Bated breath. Common mistake.

[Association President]

Sorry none of us were able to respond earlia but we have been away since last wednesday.

Well the history to how we got to the last couple of years will be brief. In 1996 there was a Sabb Team consisting of Vince Barnes, Susan Wesselkamper and Chris Richardson. They decided that the SRC was too big and that the Sabbaticals were not spread evenly across the representation and services, this resulted in the creation of the VP(R) and the dramatic down sizing of the SRC to 20ish members. In 2002 Phil Reid and Richard Poet decided that 4 Sabbaticals was to many and that the VP(C) was not an appropriate job to elect someone to and a staff member would be better, every one else agreed with them. A year later every one everyone changed their minds and decided to keep electing a publicity person. A year later I suggested a compromise of appointing a sabbatical so that it would remain inline with the student position that everyone had been very keen on the year before. Nicola agreed and proposed the change.

At the same time Ben (1) was concerned that SRC had become too disconnected from the student body and could become very insular. I was concerned that SSC was full of too many positions that were not appropriate to elect and just filled up what is better as a small committee. The theory behind expanding SRC was that if the senior election officer dose their job right and the SRC were large then more people would know some one on the SRC and it would be more effective at truly reflecting the views of students. The possibilities for how to expand were the main area of contention. Ben (2) and (3) were inflator of a multimember constituency system, lots of ordinary members etc. Will and Ben (1) had concerns that people would be more likely to stand for jobs with a specific remit where as those without would attract just friends of those hacks who wanted to get some kind of dominance on SRC. As you can see Ben (1) won the argument.

SSC this year is smaller than it was in the past as we finally accepted the three types of jobs (representational, administrative and technical). The abolition of most of the technical jobs to select them through some process (Particularly abolition of VPC/DoC to create the HoMMD) hopefully will result in people getting the job on the basis of talent not random election. Many of these positions existed as a hangover from the time where the Association didn’t have permanent staff to do many of the jobs that are now dealt with by staff.

On the issue of post graduate representation and whether it can be done by one person. Well the various roles that were all dealt with officially by one person were a bit of a problem. There was an issue of whether the post grad officer was previously able to deal with all areas, also if you look at the level of commitment that was required as Ralph had to put in such a huge time commitment it was unfair to ask this of a post grad. Breaking the job up was designed to spread the burden across more people to allow all areas to be properly addressed and to spare already busy post grads an excessive workload for the association.

On the number of absent students, I don’t have exact figures to hand but it would be every student on a year overseas, in industry or who has taken time out of their studies so if you wanted to calculate it you could guess at All 2nd year French, German, Spanish, Russian those in chemistry industrial placements the number of scholarships to places like the US and Canada and guess at the numbers of students who will temporarily withdraw.

The possibility of constituencies was looked at but not considered appropriate for St Andrews. As for another review this year I have serious reservations about this as that would be the third year in a row the SRC had been reviewed, it would be rather silly to try and change a system that had not been tried. There are many important issues that will be effecting students this year that I believe we should be concentrating on to ensure the best deal for students not worrying about wholesale reform, again. Personally I believe we have concept for SSC that is generally right and to investigate that again would be pointless, there are some little changes which would make the whole process a lot better but as proved at the SRC I wasn’t able to make it to at the end of last year certain people were able to turn a small couple of minutes issue in to a half hour argument that seemed to miss the point entirely.

Test of the system will be if we get a good number of normal students getting involved this year by both election and volunteering to the technical roles. A better focus is how to encourage people from a broad spectrum to get involved not slagging what is currently there. If no one runs or we find a factional system (as exists in many other places) then we should deal with that at the time, for now trying to encourage involvement is far more productive.

[Al]

Well, it proves that needless tinkering is always going to lead to more tinkering. I think many of the changes to the internal structure of the Association over the years can be attributed more to ego rather than any real need.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[help?]

[s]Mr Comedy wrote on 15:30, 15th Aug 2004:
But there you go. I am going to knock up an article for this website, to explain some of the basics of Association politics, and debunk some of the myths and confusion that surround them.


That would be handy because I'm still as confused as when I first asked as to what the point of it all is and who is who relative to everyone else!

[Rex Mundi]

[s]RJ Covino wrote on 18:39, 12th Aug 2004:

CUT - A detailed explanation of what all the SSCs are for...



Ok let’s cut through the crap and explain what these position are really for:


SSC Member Without Portfolio

A sop position for people who feel left out when they don't get elected but still want to have something to put on their C.V. OR a stepping stone for people who have their eye on lots of SSC posts in the not too distant future

SSC Member from First Years

A sop to uppity first years that want something on their C.V. but as they have only just arrived haven't had the chance to stand in an election

SSC Member for Societies Elections
Someone to do the donkeywork of making sure there is no (or as little as possible) nepotism going on in the societies. Oh and it looks good on the CV...


SRC Member for Postgraduate Accommodation
SRC Member for Postgraduate Students
SRC Member for Postgraduate Taught Courses
SRC Member for Postgraduate Research Courses


The classic "split a job in 4 to create more jobs" technique. While one person doing all 4 jobs would be very busy, 4 people doing 1 persons job will probably be bored. But it looks good on the CV... And the sub-committee will be a fun way for Postgrads to find and get to know other likeminded Postgrads


SRC Member for Special Needs Students
SRC Member for Ethnic Minorities
SRC Member for Sexualities & Gender


The group of reps who will form the "Politically Correct Sub-Committee" in which people will spend their time not offending each other and making sure that there is someone to take offence is taken at anything remotely politically incorrect said by the other members of the SRS.


SRC Member for Women's Issues
SRC Member for Men's Issues

Created as the Member for Sexualities & Gender couldn't possibly be expected to represent Women's or Men's issue. In fact it may be an idea to amend the "Member for Sexualities, Gender Orientation, Fetishes and Other Sex Orientated Subjects" so people aren't confused about whom they should go to if they have a "Man's" or "Woman's" issue. Personally I'd recommend Boots or your GP.


SRC Member for Medicine Faculty
SRC Member for Science Faculty
SRC Member for Arts Faculty
SRC Member for Divinity Faculty

4 people with supposedly similar roles, but very different workloads; for example the first 1 represents about 350 students' interests, while the second represents a few thousand students interests.



If there was any doubt before, there shouldn't be now; the SRC is for people who want to play Parliament, and want lots of interesting things to put on their CVs and to talk about in future interview.

The increased size lets more people enjoy the fun, and makes it even harder to blame anybody should something ever go wrong.

A minority of them will work hard doing useful jobs trying to help people, but will never be appreciated, and will be overshadowed by members of the committee with big egos and small work loads.

[Director of Services]

I have written an article explaining the basis of SRC and SSC and general stuff. Oli hasn't posted it yet though.
I'll start working on the next one explaining individual posts later, probably after 8:00 tonight.

Oh, the suspense!

[s]If you're wondering why the three sabbs haven't responded much lately, it's because we've been representing all students and providing services to all the students and haven't had access to the internet for about a week, except in rare short spurts.[/s]

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Thanks Rex Mundi, that post cracked me up.

[RJ Covino]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 15:54, 13th Aug 2004:
[s]RJ Covino wrote on 15:40, 13th Aug 2004:[i]
[s]puzzled wrote on 13:14, 13th Aug 2004:[i]
Sounds great in theory, but just how many students are absent?

More than are enrolled in the part-time degree program...
[/i]
Yikes, talk about not answering the question...
[/i]

I am afraid that I am not currently in St Andrews with oodles of time on my hands to find the actual number for you at present. However, as Simon has pointed out, the number is far from insignificant.

[RJ Covino]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 19:19, 12th Aug 2004:
So you are confirming in fact that those four positions can and have been handled by one person - thus meaning that it could have all been fitted into the one post?

Like many of the other posts no doubt?


I would confirm most gladly that these four jobs could be handled by a single competent person with copious amounts of free time and a genuine desire to serve to his fullest ability and the balls to risk his degree; I did it and the job of the SSC Postgraduate Officer as well. Oddly enough, in the years I've been involved in the Students' Association on the PG side, I've seen very few officers of the type just described.

The rationale behind cleaving the Association Postgraduate Officer's job up is the simple fact that when one has so much on one's plate, some things have to go. One of my predecessors focused on the representational side of things on the national level. He put on precisely zero events for the PGs and never once convened the Association Postgraduate Committee. Another predecessor focused on putting on events - no progress was made on the representational side. The PGs' voice was effectively silenced in favour of pub nights. Still another sought to be the Officer just to wear the gown - you can guess how much he accomplished...

Additionally, with only one person speaking for the 900 or so PGs in St Andrews, there's virtually no guarantee that his views even take theirs into account. Would anyone who remembers him say that Marian Tupy's extreme right-wing take on matters was representative? I doubt it highly. More people on a committee help balance out extreme views - that's simple logic.

A final two points:

1) I've no idea why you're chosing to attack this reform. Given the upsurge of PG numbers in recent years and plans for further expansion in the PG sector in the future, it was about time that their representational structure be adapted.

2) The idea of more postgraduates ought to be welcomed to such bodies as the SRC - they bring experience from their undergraduate years and are helpful and moderating voices on an otherwise potentially divisive body. It should come as no shock that, currently, the Senior Officer of the SRC is a postgraduate, as is one of the deputy senior officers. Eliot Wilson before them performed the task of Senior SRC Officer with his usual aplomb. I myself am the Senior Officer of the SSC. I suggest that you ask yourself why PGs keep getting returned to these posts before you start making trouble.

[Guest]

[s]Association President wrote on 13:27, 16th Aug 2004:
Sorry none of us were able to respond earlia but we have been away since last wednesday.



In any company they make sure that not everyone takes their holiday at the same time, why is not the same in the union?

[Guest]

[s]RJ Covino wrote on 19:57, 17th Aug 2004:
1) I've no idea why you're chosing to attack this reform.... I suggest that you ask yourself why PGs keep getting returned to these posts before you start making trouble.



Attack, make trouble? Simply a few questions that I had - no need to get so defensive!