The KK - Is this the end for our intrepid duo (and some)??!

[exnihilo]

Why exactly should societies which don't allow students to join be able to use the resources of the Students' Association?

[Fawksie]

Does he not suggest that the two which refuse membership to students are separate to the six which he's bringing together under the SA-affiliated society?

[Frank]

Does he not suggest that the two which refuse membership to students are separate to the six which he's bringing together under the SA-affiliated society?

That's how I read it, that those two seperate from the six to be satisfied. I wonder, however, what this society is (or will be)?

[exnihilo]

They're excluded from being part of the super-society he's constructing, but they're clearly going to be part of its activities. My advice in this situation would be: don't affiliate. If you're having to struggle and fiddle to get affiliation, don't bother. It's not essential and plenty of clubs and societies manage just fine without the benefits, unless of course you desperately want the cash.

[Jono]

As far as I'm concerned, the Students' Association policy on society membership is equally "sexist", discriminating against both all-male and all-female groups. Even when complementary groups exist to meet the different needs of both sexes, they are forced to form an artificially-merged society to affiliate with the SA.

I resoundingly disagree, in general principle. As Exnihilo says, the resources of the SA exist for the benefit of all students at this university. The money the Students Association is granted each year is given by virtue of their inclusive membership of the student body. It is entirely inappropriate for a student group which caters only for half (or even less), of the student body to be given access to that money. Affiliating two complimentary groups would not act as a solution either. Apart from anything else, the Societies Committee would end up funding two identical societies' identical events. Besides, I don't believe that, in this days and age, there more than a handful of groups where single-sex membership is anything more than a personal preference, as in the case if the KK and Lumsden. It would be possible for you to challenge that policy through the Association's governing bodies, but (judging by the ill-advised veracity of the responses from current and future union officials) I wouldn't hold out much hope of succes.

Not discriminating on "ageist", "theist", "political", etc., grounds is equally troublesome - especially where a student society is associated with (or is even a branch of) a national organisation that has conflicting restrictions on membership. I'm currently trying to reconcile the different needs of six different external organisations that will potentially feed into _one_ SA-affiliated society: Three of them are single-sex (one male, two female), four are religious/spiritual (but only two of them Christian), one has residency requirements, four need a clean Disclosure Scotland check, and five of them have age restrictions but with different limits. It's an absolute nightmare! (Two other local groups are excluded because they don't allow students to join(!), although there's still scope for joint activities.)

Sorting out six different affiliations is always going to be a problem, especially when, by the looks of things, all six want to act as your society's governing body. I suggest you contact the Societies Officer and discuss what your options are with regards to the SA. ([url=mailto:socs@st-andrews.ac.uk]socs@st-andrews.ac.uk[/url])

They're excluded from being part of the super-society he's constructing, but they're clearly going to be part of its activities. My advice in this situation would be: don't affiliate. If you're having to struggle and fiddle to get affiliation, don't bother. It's not essential and plenty of clubs and societies manage just fine without the benefits, unless of course you desperately want the cash.

Ah! But look back at what we're discussing. A society which discriminates in its membership practises can no longer expect any kind of assistance from the University; even in the form of the support previously available to self-styled student organisations. This is why I'm worried about the implications of a general principle being made over this issue.

[Jono]

So... Apparently the motion in support of Louise Richardson fell last night! Does this mean we can stop pretending that the Principal and VC was inspired by the voice of the people?

[RandomMusings]

So... Apparently the motion in support of Louise Richardson fell last night! Does this mean we can stop pretending that the Principal and VC was inspired by the voice of the people?

I think a lot of people had an issue with the notion of a high five to be honest. To commit such an act goes against tradition, and we can't have that!

Saying that, I very much enjoyed last night's debate - excellent opening speeches from both proposition and oposition to start and then everything rolled on nicely from there. Well done to Owen as his inaugural debate - "Ungown the Swine!"

[Animal]

So... Apparently the motion in support of Louise Richardson fell last night! Does this mean we can stop pretending that the Principal and VC was inspired by the voice of the people?

Was that at the debate, or the meeting of the SRC? There haven't been any minutes posted from the SRC or SSC since December 2008. Who should be posting them? Is it the Association Chair, Tom Cahn? Should they be made available by RSS?

[RandomMusings]

So... Apparently the motion in support of Louise Richardson fell last night! Does this mean we can stop pretending that the Principal and VC was inspired by the voice of the people?

Was that at the debate, or the meeting of the SRC? There haven't been any minutes posted from the SRC or SSC since December 2008. Who should be posting them? Is it the Association Chair, Tom Cahn? Should they be made available by RSS?

Jono is talking of the debate. The SRC apparently passed the motion in support after over an hour debating it (with a number of amendments). If you ever want to see the minutes, I believe they can be requested from the General Office, but yes - they should be online somewhere too - not sure where though.

Point of information though, is that the new SRC/SSC took office this week, so Tom Cahn is no longer Association Chair.

[Animal]

So the ball is in Emma Foley's court then!

[RandomMusings]

So the ball is in Emma Foley's court then!

From now on - but it has only been one full day since her meeting, and the minutes don't tend to be ready until a week or so after the meeting (depending upon who the secretary is for the next year) - so they'll come out by the next meeting.

[Lukey2]

So... Apparently the motion in support of Louise Richardson fell last night! Does this mean we can stop pretending that the Principal and VC was inspired by the voice of the people?

The motion, proposed by myself and seconded by James Shield, passed 18-2 with one abstention. The SRC has officially endorsed the Principal's stance on behalf of the student body. Moreover, we have withdrawn our participation from the KK's procession committee. Elected members of the SA will be allowed to participate in the KK procession, but not if they have been invited as elected members of the Union.

"Apparently the motion fell?" Oh, Jono...hope springs eternal, no?

[Lukey2]

So... Apparently the motion in support of Louise Richardson fell last night! Does this mean we can stop pretending that the Principal and VC was inspired by the voice of the people?

The motion, proposed by myself and seconded by James Shield, passed 18-2 with one abstention. The SRC has officially endorsed the Principal's stance on behalf of the student body. Moreover, we have withdrawn our participation from the KK's procession committee. Elected members of the SA will be allowed to participate in the KK procession, but not if they have been invited as elected members of the Union.

"Apparently the motion fell?" Oh, Jono...hope springs eternal, no?

Oh wait, I'm sorry. *facepalms* Were you talking about debating society or SRC? Obviously my response was in reference to the motion passed by the latter on Tuesday night, and not the debate that happened yesterday.

[exnihilo]

Moreover, we have withdrawn our participation from the KK's procession committee.

So you've withdrawn the SA's meddling from the procession, along with the precisely no support that was offered by the SA to the organisation of the procession? They'll be gutted.

Elected members of the SA will be allowed to participate in the KK procession,

How dashed decent of you.

but not if they have been invited as elected members of the Union.

And you'll police that how, precisely?

While I accept that the SRC is elected to represent the student body, is it fair to say that you arrived at this statement on their "behalf" without ever seeking out their opinions?

[Owen Wilton]

This House Would High-Five the Principal

As regards the division in Parliament Hall on Wednesday: votes for the proposition: 78; votes for the opposition, 82; abstentions, 21. The motion fell.

I thoroughly enjoyed the debate, and I hope others did too. (Thanks, RandomMusings!)The superb magicians at Star are trying to 'podcast' it. This is excellent news, but I don't think I could listen to the sound of my own voice in a recording (which is ironic, since I seem to revel in it the rest of the time)...

http://www.standrewsradio.com/news/our- ... -kk-debate

[Lukey2]

Moreover, we have withdrawn our participation from the KK's procession committee.

So you've withdrawn the SA's meddling from the procession, along with the precisely no support that was offered by the SA to the organisation of the procession? They'll be gutted.

Elected members of the SA will be allowed to participate in the KK procession,

How dashed decent of you.

but not if they have been invited as elected members of the Union.

And you'll police that how, precisely?

While I accept that the SRC is elected to represent the student body, is it fair to say that you arrived at this statement on their "behalf" without ever seeking out their opinions?

I apologize that I don't have a copy of the amended motion on hand. It went through a few changes, so I don't have the version that was accepted.

You have understood very little about the last week if you think we were trying to "gut" anyone. We acknowledge the KK's right to exist just as much as the Principal does. We have withdrawn ourselves from the procession for the same reason Dr. Richardson withdrew the support of the University. Because the KK's admission policy contradicts some of the SA's most important values, it cannot associate with the KK in any official capacity. This obviously includes carving people onto the Procession Committee, and it also includes allowing members to participate in the procession. I realize that it has been eons since you actually attended this University, but, in your day, did all elected officials receive invitations to participate in the procession? "In recognition of your outstanding contribution as so-and-so on the SRC, the Gentlemen of the Kate Kennedy Club invite you to...etc etc." I don't think that is an un-reasonable to keep members from participating in such an official capacity, and I don't think that, given the overwhelming success of the motion, there will be much of a need for policing.

If the SRC officially endorses the Principal's stance, it does so on behalf of the student body. That's how the SRC works, and, more generally, that it is how representative democracy works. Even if a majority of students didn't support the Principal's decision--and I contend that a majority do--it would still be the SRC's prerogative to endorse it on their behalf. It was perfectly fair for us to word our endorsement in that way because coming to decisions on behalf of students is what the SRC is supposed to do.

[Jono]

I apologize that I don't have a copy of the amended motion on hand. It went through a few changes, so I don't have the version that was accepted.

You have understood very little about the last week if you think we were trying to "gut" anyone. We acknowledge the KK's right to exist just as much as the Principal does. We have withdrawn ourselves from the procession for the same reason Dr. Richardson withdrew the support of the University. Because the KK's admission policy contradicts some of the SA's most important values, it cannot associate with the KK in any official capacity.

Difficult to resolve that with the fact that, over the last year, the KK have been allowed to book tables from the union to sell tickets for the opening ball and pantomime, they were able to advertise the opening ball in the Union, and performed their pantomime in Venue 1. Food for thought.

This obviously includes carving people onto the Procession Committee, and it also includes allowing members to participate in the procession. I realize that it has been eons since you actually attended this University, but, in your day, did all elected officials receive invitations to participate in the procession? "In recognition of your outstanding contribution as so-and-so on the SRC, the Gentlemen of the Kate Kennedy Club invite you to...etc etc." I don't think that is an un-reasonable to keep members from participating in such an official capacity, and I don't think that, given the overwhelming success of the motion, there will be much of a need for policing.

Well, the motion has not gone through the SSC or the Executive yet. A glance at the constitution will tell you that It is not an Association-wide policy.

With regards to the invitations; Being asked to participate in the procession in recognition of hard work is not attending in an official capacity! It's not like they've asked the SRC to show up gowned up for the procession. In any event, most of the invitations would have gone out to the previous SSC/SRC. I got one, though I didn't take up the offer. Had I done so, what do you think the SRC could do about it?

If the SRC officially endorses the Principal's stance, it does so on behalf of the student body. That's how the SRC works, and, more generally, that it is how representative democracy works. Even if a majority of students didn't support the Principal's decision--and I contend that a majority do--it would still be the SRC's prerogative to endorse it on their behalf. It was perfectly fair for us to word our endorsement in that way because coming to decisions on behalf of students is what the SRC is supposed to do.

Yeah, lets be very careful about how far we stretch that concept. By that same standard, it would be the SRC's perogative to endorse anything and everything it could vote on. A look at the history of student activism will reveal just how abused that idea has become; Denying democratic participation, free speech, and even history itself in the name of "taking desicions on behalf of students." If I want my voice heard, I'll damn well make it heard!

[exnihilo]

The SRC's decision looks like jumping on a passing bandwagon. The Association has dealt with the KK for years, and agreed to being on the Procession committee precisely so the Procession was not seen solely as the preserve of one club but a tradition of the University and its students. Withdrawing from it now says the exact opposite.

As for invitations to take part - what Jono said. If someone receives an invitation for all their work and happens concurrently to be a student officer are you going to censure them for accepting? Will this policy extend to officers in clubs and societies funded by the Association? To subcommittees? Where's the line? Or is it, as you seemed to say earlier in your post, going to be frowned on for "members" to be involved in any capacity?

I also find it very interesting that people keep saying they're certain the student body is on their side, but nobody seems the least inclined to put their money where their mouth is and find out. It's all well and good to take decisions for the student body but they ought to be in the interest of the student body and that should involve some measure of consultation, it did "eons ago" as you so charmingly put it.

[Lukey2]

Difficult to resolve that with the fact that, over the last year, the KK have been allowed to book tables from the union to sell tickets for the opening ball and pantomime, they were able to advertise the opening ball in the Union, and performed their pantomime in Venue 1. Food for thought.

This obviously includes carving people onto the Procession Committee, and it also includes allowing members to participate in the procession. I realize that it has been eons since you actually attended this University, but, in your day, did all elected officials receive invitations to participate in the procession? "In recognition of your outstanding contribution as so-and-so on the SRC, the Gentlemen of the Kate Kennedy Club invite you to...etc etc." I don't think that is an un-reasonable to keep members from participating in such an official capacity, and I don't think that, given the overwhelming success of the motion, there will be much of a need for policing.

Well, the motion has not gone through the SSC or the Executive yet. A glance at the constitution will tell you that It is not an Association-wide policy.

With regards to the invitations; Being asked to participate in the procession in recognition of hard work is not attending in an official capacity! It's not like they've asked the SRC to show up gowned up for the procession. In any event, most of the invitations would have gone out to the previous SSC/SRC. I got one, though I didn't take up the offer. Had I done so, what do you think the SRC could do about it?

If the SRC officially endorses the Principal's stance, it does so on behalf of the student body. That's how the SRC works, and, more generally, that it is how representative democracy works. Even if a majority of students didn't support the Principal's decision--and I contend that a majority do--it would still be the SRC's prerogative to endorse it on their behalf. It was perfectly fair for us to word our endorsement in that way because coming to decisions on behalf of students is what the SRC is supposed to do.

Yeah, lets be very careful about how far we stretch that concept. By that same standard, it would be the SRC's perogative to endorse anything and everything it could vote on. A look at the history of student activism will reveal just how abused that idea has become; Denying democratic participation, free speech, and even history itself in the name of "taking desicions on behalf of students." If I want my voice heard, I'll damn well make it heard!

How is anyone denying you free speech? Of course you are allowed all the dissent you would like. I imagine your voice will be heard for as long as people are willing to listen. However, as was emphasized repeatedly during the occupation, the SA is the only body that has the right to speak on behalf of all students. Given that there are no effective mechanisms for finding out the exact opinion of every single student, having a body to act on their behalf is a necessity. As for your point about hard work? I'm sorry, but no. Because the invites are sent automatically to all elected hacks, the sole reason for the invitation is because of the office they hold. If you are only invited to prance around in a stupid costume because you have won an election, I fail to see how said stupid prancing is not official. Elected members of the SA are part of an organization that is supposed to represent every student. For that reason, their official participation in the events of a discriminatory group is a conflict of interest.

[Lukey2]

Oh god, I fail utterly at quoting Jono. Oh well, you all get the idea.

I fixed it for you, because I'm kind - Jono