[s]
munchingfoo wrote on 02:00, 17th May 2004:
Just so eveyone knows, executives of the union are allowed to sign two (I think) people in at any time of day free of charge. Now I see the point of this as people from outside the uni who come for meetings and stuff need to be signed in. However, I believe it is unfair that these people should be allowed to sign their friends in (and they do) on a friday/saturday night at whatever time they like for free.
Well that is an interesting read of the rules. I have been on SAEC since 2nd year and have never signed someone in free of charge I (or they) always pay. Normally when I have been asked by the door staff to sign someone in as they know that they are students here but they don't have their matric card (wallet stolen etc).
To Ralph’s point:
Not every member of SAEC is on SAB the chair isn't. The remaining 9 (along with the non student members) are those liable for the Association as they are the Board of the Charity.
In previous years it was an SAEC member who could authorise the signing in by any other member but it was a check to see if there was an acceptable reason why it hadn’t been done in the appropriate time. Also at that time they were allowed to sign in an unlimited number of people. The system gradually changed to what it is today.
To the original post:
Members of SAEC are not “executives of the union” the title is highly misleading and encourages the “I’m better than you” attitude. If you were to compare what other Associations and Unions have as an executive it is very different. Unfortunately we still use a title that doesn’t reflect what the purpose of the committee is. Silly names internally are just annoying by causing self importance and endless hours of time wasting, externally however they cause confusion which makes the Association look unprofessional. In the requirements for fair trade university status it states:
“The group would include a
representative from the following groups:
…
• the Students’ Association executive…”
What documents like this are actually referring to is someone who is involved in trading, basically the DoS or nominee. It remains a ridiculous title that simply misleads anyone who is not aware why the committee exists (including many who should).
To Marco’s point:
I’m not sure I would consider what you have described as an accurate reflection of what she said. It was more of a “it’s fair enough” point she was making rather than a necessity for people to be given perks.
The “I’m better than you” attitude has been a major problem that included far more than simply SAEC but the problem has been made worse by attaching a name that misrepresents what their job is. We have consistently had people who have used the “I’m the (insert title here), don’t you know” with staff and volunteers. My predecessor as Education Officer tried to tell members of staff he could sack them, an idea that is laughable at best. It would help if everyone understood that SAECs job is to steer a weekly meeting not to “Rule the Union” a point that some people still haven’t managed to get their heads around.
On the issue of recognising members of SAEC:
If someone has lost their matric card there is a photo board on the foyer. Alternatively you can explain the situation to a member of door staff, Mandy or George are usually around and are the people who normally find me to sign people in. On a Friday night there will be someone on “exec duty” so you are guaranteed to have someone in the building.
The main thrust of this thread seems to be that some people are not happy with the behaviour of one or more members of SAEC. If this is the case then I suggest you email
doserv@st-andrews.ac.uk as the DoS is the appropriate Sabb to take this matter up with. This issue dose not seem to be a good one to have in the abstract as there are 10 people that could be possibly talked about and I doubt it is more than one or two of them, if problems with the behaviour of individuals is taken up with the appropriate Sabb then no one is questioning the behaviour of everyone else. I can’t imagine anyone could have a problem with Ben, Alex or Jayme it is not really fair to make comments that could lead to generalisations which would include them.
On reading this through it sounds very confrontational, sorry about that, it wasn’t supposed to but I don’t have time to rewrite it at the moment.