Exec. sign ins

[munchingfoo]

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.

Now I'm not suggesting that everyone should be able to sign people in when ever they want, only that execs are only allowed to sign people in in their usual way for union businness and for no other reason.

[RJ Covino]

[s]munchingfoo wrote on 02:00, 17th May 2004:
Just so eveyone knows, executives of the union...

I've never thought of myself as an "Executive of the Union" before. Quite nice, really. I may get it engraved on something.

I always thought the point of having the SAEC privilege was that on the off-chance a hapless member should forget his/her matric card and was clearly a member, there'd, chances are, be someone on hand in the building at the time on the night who'd be able to help said member out by signing them in as a one off. The SAEC types are the ones who tend to inhabit the main bar etc. and, more importantly, as members of Board (SAB) are on the license, if I'm not mistaken. Bens? Simon? Help me on this...

It strikes me, though, that you've got a particular issue with somebody using the Exec Sign-In, however. Wonder who it could be. Hope it's not me.

[Marco Biagi]

There was a meeting a few years ago where a sabbatical basically said it was fair for Exec members to have the right since they needed some perks for the position - just that they shouldn't abuse it.

You're right though about the difference between union business and just letting friends in, and I think I agree with you. It does seem a bit "I'm more important than you...". Then again, that's before the whole bloody gowns issue...

[munchingfoo]

Oh, and you execs who expect me to recognize you on a friday and saturday night and let you in without checking your matric card, come on. I could probably give a better description of the ten most wanted americans than I could of you guys.

Note:

Please don't think I have anything against execs, they do a good job in general, but the ones who do this really get on my nerves. I guess it's kind of like the, I'm better than you scenario described by Marco.

[Simon Atkins]

[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.

[Bonnie]

(I'm not on exec now except for as an invited attendee but I used to be and will be in 6 weeks)

But we can only sign 2 people in a night so that we don't just sign in friends. (Interestingly, this was per a request of the porters)
Basically, as a private members club, before entering the building you need to show that you are a member (i.e. matric card) or in the circumstances where that is not possible, you can be signed in as a guest. The student members of the Students' Association Board can sign you in as a temporary member for the night so that you can have al the rights of a member even though you forgot/ lost your card or are a guest of the Association (ie. you can buy drinks and use the facilities). You, in effect, become the guest of that SAB member (much like your mate can sign you in on Friday afternoon for the weekend and you're their guest) and they are signing that they will take responsibility for you while in the building. (Maybe this is where the confusion lies, as I know I wouldn't want to take responsibility for someone's actions if I didn't know they were a student or if they didn't have a mate attesting to their studentship whom I could trust.) Otherwise, we'd just have to turn people away whom we know are students.

But I do back up Simon on this, if you think the responsibility is being taken for granted or abused, please contact the DoS.

[Al]

Laughable it may be for any Executive Officer nowadays to claim to be able to sack staff but it was not always the case. In the days before the merger of Presidencies, the Union President could hire and fire staff. And did.

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

[Bonnie]

In the way that the sabbaticals are on the staffing committee, yes, they still do.
But logical staffing procedures in a small fishing village with a limited employment market dictates that one doesn't hire and fire staff willy-nilly or else no one in town will want to be our employee.
There are many funny anecdotes of what people used to do or used to think they could do.
Ask the enPSIclopedia, and he'll tell you a few.

O dear, I actually think that joke is really hilarious. I think I'm going to use it now. I must be really exam-stressed out.

[Al]

True; but the person sacked, as the story was related to me, was sacked because he was ripping the Union off.

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

[RJ Covino]

[s]Simon Atkins wrote on 12:49, 18th May 2004:

I can’t imagine anyone could have a problem with Ben, Alex or Jayme

You missed out Louise and I.

I feel hurt.

[Bonnie]

???
Do you have a cold or something, Ralph? Surely you don't actually have tear ducts which function enough to cry with emotion.

[Simon Atkins]

[s]Bonnie wrote on 19:23, 24th May 2004:
[i]???
Do you have a cold or something, Ralph? Surely you don't actually have tear ducts which function enough to cry with emotion.
[/i]

It's not the tear ducts that aren't working it's the emotions.

[someone]

[s]Simon Atkins wrote on 01:51, 25th May 2004:

It's not the tear ducts that aren't working it's the emotions.


Hey, Catholics have feelings, too.

[RJ Covino]

[s]someone wrote on 02:26, 25th May 2004:
[s]Simon Atkins wrote on 01:51, 25th May 2004:[i]

It's not the tear ducts that aren't working it's the emotions.


Hey, Catholics have feelings, too.
[/i]

OK, less of the Ralph-bashing. I need not remind you, Simon, that I've spread more 'love' around this town than the rest of you lot combined.

[someone]

Dude, there's no Ralph-bashing coming from me (forgive the pun.) Remember, I'm a Catholic brother in arms... even though my knowledge of St. Simeon Stylites is somewhat lacking.

[grousefanatic]

[s]RJ Covino wrote on 20:15, 25th May 2004:

OK, less of the Ralph-bashing. I need not remind you, Simon, that I've spread more 'love' around this town than the rest of you lot combined.


Oh really?

[hr]
veni vidi nates calce concidi - i came, i saw, i kicked ass

[Guest]

[s]Bonnie wrote on 13:16, 18th May 2004:
Basically, as a private members club, before entering the building you need to show that you are a member (i.e. matric card) or in the circumstances where that is not possible, you can be signed in as a guest.

Unless the law in Scotland is very very different, thats not true; I 've been in many private members clubs (which have alcohol licenses) and there is no requirement for you to have to prove membership at the door.

On a separate point, why do we have a deadline for signing people into the union; most people have better things to do then fill in forms for the union on a friday - why can't you just turn up with your guest and sign them in right then?

[phil reid]

i suspect the'special request of the porters' mentioned above is a jeffism and can be disrgarded.
for all the time i was on exec signed in 2 people at liberty, but were expected as board members of the organisation to behave responsibly. when i was vps i actually re-read the rule and believe that the exec member can only authorise, rather than sign in the guest, so they remain under the person signing them ins responsibility, not the exec member, and they still have to pay.
the matter was never discussed when i was in office though, as we had far more important issues on the table such as exec office paint jobs and tea and coffee for meetings.

after finishing i was informed by someone who had been on exec before me that the authorisation only had been the case when they were on exec, and unless the laws have changed i think the current interpretation of the exec member actually signing someone in, but not being responsible for them is utter nonsense.

it's all fairly irrelevant anyway as i seem to recall it breaches a part of our licence or constitution somewhere anyway, but i'm probably not meant to mention that.