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

[Jono]

Just to re-iterate what I was trying to say before about the debate; the motion fell. I'm not saying that a majority "No" in an LPH debate is any indicator of student opinion (Well, at least no more than Facebook friends' status). However, it shows that the issue is not as one-sided as was initially indicated.

Though I was unable to attend yesterday, it seems that there is a vocal body of opinion on both sides of the issue. Contentious issues are the spice of life, and this issue is massively contentious. The problem is, by coming down hard on one side of the divide, the Association is going to alienate a sizable chunk of the student body who will continue to view the Union as a building made of rules, paperwork, and CV-padding hacks! We had a bloody decent election turnout this year, which I would attribute partly to an improved image of the Union amongst the student body; one where we concentrate on putting on things that students want (massive kudos to the, Just-So-Happens-To-Be-A KK-Member DoES), rather than playing politics. I really hope that this week's shenanigans haven't flushed all that down the toilet.

The SA has acted very successfully in the past by arbitrating between the University and non-affiliated student groups. While I don't want to draw too many comparisons between the PSC and the KK, the former did set a precedent of the SA intervening on behalf of non-affiliated (self-appointed?!)Student groups whose values it doesn't necessarily share. Because the SA has not stayed neutral in this case, it cannot now claim to arbitrate. Unless the KK are so chastened by their rejection that they come to the table repentant in sackcloth and ashes, there is no way any negotiation can occur. Judging by the character of the members I know (meant as a compliment), I don't think that's going to happen!

I agree with the DoES Elect on this point; what has actually been achieved, either by the principal's or the SA's stance? The KK are unlikely to change their wicked ways under duress. Hopefully, they will continue to put on their events in spite of this. Because their events are more public, they will continue to be viewed by the public as part of the University, regardless of what anyone says. If however, they can't continue because of pressures from the university, we genuinely risk losing a handful of decent University traditions!

Thoughts?

[Hennessy]

So how do I opt out of the SA representing me? I'd quite like to represent myself instead.

[Jono]

QUOTE-WAR!!!

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.

You're not. As I clearly stated, past examples where people have stretched the concept of student representation has led to serious abuse. I'm refering, specifically, to the NUS's 80's Stance of "No Platform for Racists and Fascists". I accept that, merely giving speaking platforms to holocaust deniers (for example) serves to aggrandize their stance. However, NPfR&F ended up being used to exclude members of the Conservative party from speaking on campuses. This was all justified in the name of student representation. More recently, during the lecturers strike of 2006, the NUS executive were accused of abuse by issuing statements of support for the picketers. I know we all hate to learn lessons from the past these days, but history is a good (if harsh) tutor.

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.

You're right. The SA has the sole right to act as the student voice, conceptually. However, that concept does not extend infinitely. Take yourself for example. Just because you won Arts Senate by a majority vote, that doesn't equate to everyone agreeing with your political beliefs (or, at least, not those which weren't indicated by your campaign). Therefore, if you were to put forward a motion on participatory democracy, you couldn't argue that the electorate had directly mandated it. The KK weren't even mentioned (at least, not to my knowledge) during the elections. It's a bit of a stretch therefore, to argue that this SRC had support from the student body to put the boot in.

You're right, there is no way to find out exact opinion. However, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to realise that opinion on this issue is divided! As I said above, in this climate, a now impossible arbitrated settlement would have perhaps been far more appropriate.

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.

[/quote]

it is as you say. The invitations were sent automatically, which is why I refused point-blank to participate! I also penned a harshly worded (politically unsent) response asking what, precisely, were they recognising. Still, you're point-blank wrong. There is no official link between prancing for recognition, and being there AS the SSC Societies Officer or whatever. Put simplyl; If Philippa Dunn gets into Drama College, partly or entirely because of the success of On the Rocks, or as DoSDA in general, she is not obliged to ask the union for it's fucking permission! Moreover, what people do in their own time, when not on Association property is, frankly, their own damn business!

I will grant you that there is a *potential* conflict of interest, between supporting the KK, and being an elected official. In the same way there is a *potential* conflict of interest between you being a member of the PSC, or the President being a former Editor of The Saint, or for that matter, over whoever a given official happens to be shagging at the time! There will always be conflicts of interest, real or imagined. That's just an occupation hazard of any public responsibility. This is why the Sabs sign a statement of declared interests. So, Stacy Lee's membership of the KK is publicised. The same cannot be said for other people's private opposition!

[Jono]

So how do I opt out of the SA representing me? I'd quite like to represent myself instead.

You have the right to opt out of your membership under Some education act or other (1973?). I think you go to the general office, and say that you wish to resign your membership of the Students' Association. They should be able to sort you out; otherwise go to the Old Union Reception on north Street (I'm not positive. This hasn't come up for over six years). Should you subsequently wish to rejoin for the cheap beer, the Association is constitutionally and legally bound to let you re-join instantly.

[Lid]

The SRC [...] have withdrawn our participation from the KK's procession committee.

Wasn't it the SSC that the Procession Committee carve-up was made? If so, there's no power or provision to do so. If not, what more have you done than cut off your nose to spite your face. Still, as Lyndon B Johnson said of J Edgar Hoover...

Also, to emphasise something:

the KK's procession committee

It's not the KK's procession committee, it's the KK Procession Committee. I feel you've gone about thinking 'hmm, the letters 'KK' = bad'. The KK Procession Committee, just like the KK Trust, are very different from the Kate Kennedy Club. Indeed, the organisation you've just proscribed is headed by a woman. If that doesn't make monacles drop, what will. Am I to believe that Special K will be banned from Beatons next, as it contains a capital K?

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.

What if they weren't invited to attend as elected members but go as elected members? What if they wear some kind of amusing hat with the Students' Association arms drawn in crayon atop it? Just answer me this: what then? Get back to me after another hour's discussion.

[Lid]

Some education act or other (1973?). I think you go to the general office, and say that you wish to resign your membership of the Students' Association.

Education Act 1994. You resign your membership, in writing to the President of the Association.

Should you subsequently wish to rejoin for the cheap beer, the Association is constitutionally and legally bound to let you re-join instantly.

It's actually at the start of the next academic year they're duty bound, or at the discretion of the (I think) executive. However, Haraldsen and I stumbled on this a few years back:

(c) a student should have the right—
(i) not to be a member of the union, or
(ii) in the case of a representative body which is not an association, to signify that he does not wish to be represented by it,

and students who exercise that right should not be unfairly disadvantaged, with regard to the provision of services or otherwise, by reason of their having done so;

i.e. if you do resign your membership, you can still get pissed in the bar† and go to the bop, which is all the SA is to most people anyway. Happy times.

† Drink responsibly.

[Thackary]

I have been led to believe that the Kate Kennedy Club and Kate Kennedy Procession Committee are two separate entities.
So withdrawing support for the procession doesn't affect the Club one jot.

The Procession is a celebration of the University's history, and many people are invited to take part, regardless of their sex, gender or position. Invitations are not sent out automatically; the invitees are carefully selected to ensure that the people are invited in recognition of their hard work for the student body.

Personally, I think that the Kate Kennedy Club would benefit from changing their membership policy to 'by invitation only', and then it is entirely up to them who they invite, and sex/gender doesn't enter into it.
From what I understand, this is unlikely to happen, so I appreciate why the principal has withdrawn university support for KK Club events. I do, however, think that she has gone about it the wrong way by specifying the Kate Kennedy Club and by citing race and gender issues. I also think she has made a mistake by distancing the University from the Procession.

As for the Students' Association, it is entirely within its right to withdraw support from a club which denies access to a large percentage of its members. I think it would be foolish to cut all ties with the KK Club, as there is a very good commercial relationship between the two factors - as Jono points out, they rent tables and venues from the Students' Association and also request the SA's bar services for their external events.


Referring to other points raised:
The Students' Representative Council is the only body officially allowed to represent the students of the University. This, combined with the Students' Union, forms the Students' Association (from 1972 if memory serves).

Hennessy, if you would like to opt out of membership of the Students' Association, I believe you can do this in writing. By opting out, you will no longer have access to any of the Students' Association's services (the stationery and clothing shop, the General Office and Print Shop, the Travel Service, the Catering department (including the Old Union Coffee Bar on North Street), the Bars, the Bop & other events), and most importantly, you wouldn't be able to request assistance with any academic appeals or accommodation crises. You wouldn't be allowed to vote in the Association elections either; nor would you be able to stand in an election. Just write to the president, Andrew Keenan, c/o Students' Association, St Mary's Place, ST ANDREWS, KY16 9UZ

A good few points have already received replies while I've been writing and chatting. Lid - I was under the impression that once membership has been resigned, all services are off-limits, including the bar and Bop. I remember there being some clause about "exclusive facilities" which allowed a certain non-member access to the DDR game, but only if accompanied by a member of the SA.

[Lid]

Lid - I was under the impression that once membership has been resigned, all services are off-limits, including the bar and Bop. I remember there being some clause about "exclusive facilities" which allowed a certain non-member access to the DDR game, but only if accompanied by a member of the SA.

The text quoted above is directly from the Act, and seems at odds with that. The only thing would be they wouldn't be allowed to vote. It's a thrilling read.

[Georgina]

Referring to other points raised:
The Students' Representative Council is the only body officially allowed to represent the students of the University. This, combined with the Students' Union, forms the Students' Association (from 1972 if memory serves).

Hennessy, if you would like to opt out of membership of the Students' Association, I believe you can do this in writing. By opting out, you will no longer have access to any of the Students' Association's services (the stationery and clothing shop, the General Office and Print Shop, the Travel Service, the Catering department (including the Old Union Coffee Bar on North Street), the Bars, the Bop & other events), and most importantly, you wouldn't be able to request assistance with any academic appeals or accommodation crises. You wouldn't be allowed to vote in the Association elections either; nor would you be able to stand in an election. Just write to the president, Andrew Keenan, c/o Students' Association, St Mary's Place, ST ANDREWS, KY16 9UZ

I have no idea what the rules say, but just wanted to say (in a friendly way!) that if someone came into the union asking for help with academic appeals or accommodation (or anything else related really), we would try and help them whether they had opted out of membership or not!

[David Bean]

Hennessy, if you would like to opt out of membership of the Students' Association, I believe you can do this in writing. By opting out, you will no longer have access to any of the Students' Association's services (the stationery and clothing shop, the General Office and Print Shop, the Travel Service, the Catering department (including the Old Union Coffee Bar on North Street), the Bars, the Bop & other events), and most importantly, you wouldn't be able to request assistance with any academic appeals or accommodation crises. You wouldn't be allowed to vote in the Association elections either; nor would you be able to stand in an election. Just write to the president, Andrew Keenan, c/o Students' Association, St Mary's Place, ST ANDREWS, KY16 9UZ

Yes, Lid's find does seem to contradict this, although given Association policy it might be necessary to secure a court order to enforce it. However, surely a resigned student would still have access to BESS, given it's open to the general public? I mean, the Association could decide to enforce a blanket bar on all resigned students, but that seems like a perversely spiteful (not to mention counter-productive, considering it's a shop) idea to me.

EDIT: Georgina, I'm sure that's true, considering even banned members aren't excluded from the Association's representational and advocacy services. Again, the reverse would be absurd; imagine people who'd glassed other students in the main bar being given access to certain services that someone who'd just resigned their membership were turned away from!

[RandomMusings]

Similarly to Georgina, if someone wanted advice about an event or technical stuff or health and safety or whatever, and they were unaffiliated - I do not see how I, or anyone, could refuse them that next year, or this year, or whenever. Just because they may belong to an 'unrecognised' group does not mean that they still are made up of students who have a right to the services the Association offers with their role as Association members. The same applies to non-members - to opt out of Union membership as a matter of protest seems a harsh way of losing the chance to use the expertise.

I have to say, I think Thackary put this whole debate very nicely. Good job, sir.

[Georgina]

Similarly to Georgina, if someone wanted advice about an event or technical stuff or health and safety or whatever, and they were unaffiliated - I do not see how I, or anyone, could refuse them that next year, or this year, or whenever. Just because they may belong to an 'unrecognised' group does not mean that they still are made up of students who have a right to the services the Association offers with their role as Association members. The same applies to non-members - to opt out of Union membership as a matter of protest seems a harsh way of losing the chance to use the expertise.

I have to say, I think Thackary put this whole debate very nicely. Good job, sir.

Well, I was talking about individual students not groups.

[RandomMusings]

Well, I was talking about individual students not groups.

I know - but there are not many events etc that are put on by just one person, whereas the representational stuff is obviously often a one-on-one issue. Individuals, groups, whatever - I don't see why advice cannot be imparted one way or the other if required..... (of course, I may charge for it :p)

[Thackary]

Lid - I was under the impression that once membership has been resigned, all services are off-limits, including the bar and Bop. I remember there being some clause about "exclusive facilities" which allowed a certain non-member access to the DDR game, but only if accompanied by a member of the SA.

The text quoted above is directly from the Act, and seems at odds with that. The only thing would be they wouldn't be allowed to vote. It's a thrilling read.

I stand corrected - I must admit I haven't had the inclination to leaf through the Act

[James Shield]

The motion passed by the SRC can be found here:
http://yourunion.net/files/KKmotionApproved.pdf

18 members voted in favour. Stacy Lee and Luke Woollen voted against the motion. Philippa Dunn abstained.

Again, the distinction between the vote at SRC and the division at the debate is important. The people who voted at SRC were elected in a cross-campus election less than a month ago, with the largest voter turnout we've ever seen. Voting at the debate, meanwhile, was restricted to those who arrived earliest (it was a full house). It's likely that those were the people with a vested interest in the motion.

[Andy Monkey B]

I have been led to believe that the Kate Kennedy Club and Kate Kennedy Procession Committee are two separate entities.

Wait a second, there seems to be a HUGE hole in this whole deal here! The Kate Kennedy Procession Committee is the organisation officially in charge of the procession, and is not gender exclusive. So withdrawing support for the procession is surely distinct from withdrawing support for the Kate Kennedy Club? What is the logic behind this one? What, in fact, is going on?

[observer]

Again, the distinction between the vote at SRC and the division at the debate is important. The people who voted at SRC were elected in a cross-campus election less than a month ago, with the largest voter turnout we've ever seen. Voting at the debate, meanwhile, was restricted to those who arrived earliest (it was a full house). It's likely that those were the people with a vested interest in the motion.

Oh, right. That's how you lost the debate. Tactical voters dying to satisfy their "vested interest" in the KK. Not your shoddy debating skills. If by "vested interest" you mean a desire to keep KK events-- traditional or social-- alive so that we don't have to go to Bops or freshers' week comedy acts, then perhaps you're right.

The fact that the SRC vote was 18-2, compared to the considerably more even numbers in the two facebook groups, is only evidence of the fact that the SRC doesn't really enjoy popular legitimacy at all. This is more the fault of the student body for being disinterested, but the fact remains that the SRC isn't very sensitive to the views and desires of the student body. Maybe if you if poked your head out of the 60's cement building you call home 9 hours a day, you'd see that the SA has successfully angered a great deal of students at this university by neglecting to take a neutral position in this row, and taking its "constituency" along for the ride. Anyway, I'm glad to see that you realised you couldn't possibly handle running events like the Opening and May Balls, and so struck that article out of the final motion.

[Bizarre Atheist]

There's still a serious stumbling point in it being called 'The Kate Kennedy Procession' rather than something - dare I say it - more inclusive.

[munchingfoo]

Again, the distinction between the vote at SRC and the division at the debate is important. The people who voted at SRC were elected in a cross-campus election less than a month ago, with the largest voter turnout we've ever seen.

That matters not a jot unless it was part of their campaign, or they made their feelings on the matter known before the election in some other way (even then it would be a stretch to draw your conclusion, they'd pretty much have to have campaigned with this as their sole issue for that to be a sensible conclusion). I don't remember anyone campaigning using this issue as a means to be elected.

[Lukey2]

Again, the distinction between the vote at SRC and the division at the debate is important. The people who voted at SRC were elected in a cross-campus election less than a month ago, with the largest voter turnout we've ever seen. Voting at the debate, meanwhile, was restricted to those who arrived earliest (it was a full house). It's likely that those were the people with a vested interest in the motion.

Oh, right. That's how you lost the debate. Tactical voters dying to satisfy their "vested interest" in the KK. Not your shoddy debating skills. If by "vested interest" you mean a desire to keep KK events-- traditional or social-- alive so that we don't have to go to Bops or freshers' week comedy acts, then perhaps you're right.

The fact that the SRC vote was 18-2, compared to the considerably more even numbers in the two facebook groups, is only evidence of the fact that the SRC doesn't really enjoy popular legitimacy at all. This is more the fault of the student body for being disinterested, but the fact remains that the SRC isn't very sensitive to the views and desires of the student body. Maybe if you if poked your head out of the 60's cement building you call home 9 hours a day, you'd see that the SA has successfully angered a great deal of students at this university by neglecting to take a neutral position in this row, and taking its "constituency" along for the ride. Anyway, I'm glad to see that you realised you couldn't possibly handle running events like the Opening and May Balls, and so struck that article out of the final motion.

Ah, yes: Observer is looking into a very bright future in which all things democratic are decided either through facebook or the debating society. First things first: do not pretend you know how the students feel. You have been observing the facebook behaviour of a minority, and that tells you NOTHING but the facebook behaviour of a minority. The two groups are now a little closer to even, but if you add the members of both together, you are still missing about 80% of the student body. I know several people who joined both groups, and I know even more people who don't have facebook at all. All that the groups measure is who has been most aggressive in inviting all of their friends; it is not a sign that the University is divided down the middle.

Second things second: do not pretend that the debate was a barometer of public opinion. Think with me for a second: do you really think that people attended with open minds, ready to hear both sides of an argument? It is the nature of the debate that it attracted the people with the strongest feelings about the issue. One side got in four more strong-minded people than the opposition before the doors closed. Seriously, though, if the 1000 participating on facebook are a minority, then (do the math with me) what do you think the 150 people in LPH were?

Would someone get Bean in here to explain how representative democracy works? Because they are elected, the Union acts on behalf of its constituents. Insofar as the word "election" has any meaning, it enjoys slightly more legitimacy than the debating society and facebook (god, I can't believe I actually had to write that). Even if you could show that a majority were against the Principal--and I still maintain that the opposite is true--it would still be the Union's prerogative to endorse the Principal's decision on behalf of the students. Yes, a big part of being an elected official is listening to your constituents; however, another big part is acting as you think you should.