*2007 Macquarie University Student Representative Council Constitution* (1 Viewer)

[nikmueller]

Hey Macquarie Students!

We now have an opportunity to create a student representative body. We want an SRC so that students are represented fairly at Macquarie rather than Student Representative on University Council (me) doing everything. It will create sustainable social capital (community), a student voice and be the hottest place to hang on campus. If we do it right now we can potentially get it up and running for semester 2.

i've attached the proposal that Kegs and i drew up with the help of a whole lot of awesome students and gave to dVC Paul Bowler. It is a concept proposal and not final in any way.

Also attached is the MUSC.ltd constitution. We will not be a company but probably a not-for-profit organisation so a lot of what is in the old constitution is not appropriate. Still it will be good for ideas.

Anyone from other unis here? what do your SRCs constitutions look like?

Cheers peeps. As soon as we have a draft constitution finished we can take it to Paul and get the ball rolling towards elections next semester (fingers crossed).

peace
nik

 

[nikmueller]

um not so awesome replies peeps

thats alright


NEWSFLASH

Club Mac is back online! Phil (Captain Jack) Betts (aka chicken suit poitician) has selflessly provided the stamping ground for discussion on our beloved University. So so so worth joining.

• forums created for chatting on important things like
  • things of import
  • other things
• Spend unproductive study time entertaining yourself and others with the world reknowned 'Maclopedia'
• pwar is there. kegs is there. i am there. kegs is cool.

So in conclusion, join Club Mac. Club Mac is 'your guarantee for a groovy time'

Club Mac - a must for macq studentss
www.clubmac.net.au

 

[xeuyrawp]

Hott.

 

[glitterfairy]

sorry nik, I'd post whore a lot more but it's a bad time for me :/ (assessments)

Going over to phil's site now though (something's funny with the link you gave...)

 

[AsyLum]

Err, how are the uni going to take this whole funding and grant thing from the new amalgamated body?

And a first year rep? For the sake of it? Lets not kid ourselves, the fact that you outline 'representation' for the council is not going to work.

If there are no candidates for that year, will it be defaulted? If we have one, who campaigns and has minority support, but FITS the criteria will they get voted? If someone loses, and you need a queer, can you block their move if they 'turn gay' ?

An election is meant to find the best mix of people, who people think are going to do good with the university. How bout instead of limiting yourselves with the council makeup, you actually design a more 'social' and visible drive of elections rather than the mailed out piece of paper and single paragraph we get, of people who we have nfi? Perhaps even set up open debates somewhere just as a way of garnering support, heck if you did it in the atrium during lunch time, people will turn up just because they're interested.

A first year rep is useless imo. Get a first year advisor, but seriously most first years have trouble finding the toilets let alone knowing whats wrong with the uni. If you ever need opinions, you can always talk to sandie.

As for the publication, I'm all for the exemption of bias and what not, but seriously, how 'unbiased' do you think people on the council will be? I understand that there may be a need to publish stories and press releases on the activities of the actual src, but lets not delude ourselves, if you elect someone from within the the src they are going to be, if at least not more than, the same as someone who was elected on the council. The whole idea of editorials and news making in today's world is to have an agenda, otherwise it'd be boring.

Just irks me that people assume that because you're not part of somethign else that you'll report on matters in an unbiased way.

Finally, I'm worried by the lack of information on the last section, namely the most important part, how will you fund yourselves.

If you really want to show the uni you can be propped up on your own two feet, you have to have results BEFORE you present this stuff. Most things will only ever run if you can show someone you've got the means to maintain yourself, and so I think that funding should entail more detail about what exactly you need. Go get quotes on stuff, go grab yourself an accountant, see what you need exactly, and plan it out, submit a business report if you must. But for the love of god, don't go in with Schwartz at the helm and tell him "Yeah we'll spend it umm...like this!".

 

[AsyLum]

Btw do you have a sister called stefanie? (was looking through media works for mas208)

 

[xeuyrawp]

Okay, I only had time to read it now...

I really feel slightly dumber for having read that hideous piece of politically-correct bullshit.

a) How about a 'free hugzzz officer' or a 'lah, is okay lah officer'? Rather than being patronising assholes and allocating two seats for a woman and a queer (because they're too fucking stupid to get elected, right?), you allow students to vote in students based merit? I find that governments work better when you haven't got token 'you're too dumb to get elected, but represent an important minority' posts.

b) Could you be any more ambiguous about money-sources? Philanthropic groups? I'm sorry to tell you, but philanthropy died with God back in the nineteenth century.

c) You're not going to get 10 students from each college. If you reduce to 3, you might have enough people applying.

I sincerely hope you get someone more politically ballanced to put imput into it. It's really, really offensive to the students.

I'm sorry I'm so blunt, but I'd feel terrible not saying anything.

To be positive: I think it'll work if you tweak some of the things, namely the finance and the representative situation. If you got rid of the token woman and queer postings, made a tight proposal with finances, and made each college 3 rather than 9/9/10 reps, I'd definitely support it.

 

[nikmueller]

Thanks for reading it guys. no need to apologise.

a) electing people based on merit is great. That will happen. we also need people from marginalised groups because they will make the council representative. Just because they are from marginalised groups does not mean they won't be awesome.

First year rep because we want first years on the council to keep the council sustainable, i.e. getting new students involved. A first year on the council will see what works, what doesn't, they will have the experience for the next year.

i notice you didn't mention the internat representatives as not based on merit? If someone wants to create a better system that would be great.

b) money sources. SRC will probably be given all facilities by U@MQ. some people are certain that business would support us. others want the uni to give us money. $ is important, anyone who wants to look into it more is most welcome. Being independently funded would be positive because SRC would have extra autonomy.

c) don't want 10 students from each college. it was 4 from Commerce, 4 from Arts, 2 from Science and tech, and 2 from internats i believe.

 

[AsyLum]

a) I think you're missing the whole point. The fact you've pre-allocated spots for 'marginalised' people is a total kick in the face to the election process. As I posted above, what happens if no one runs for a particular 'marginalised group'? Are they defaulted in? Its all good and well to get advice from 'everyone' but how the hell are you going to make decisions when half your people are clueless or are in conflict with each other?

b) That worries me. Immensely.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Thanks for reading it guys. no need to apologise.

a) electing people based on merit is great. That will happen. we also need people from marginalised groups because they will make the council representative. Just because they are from marginalised groups does not mean they won't be awesome. .

You're really, really not addressing my point:

1. We both agree that having 'marginalised' groups represented is a good thing.
2. Election should be based soley on merit. Agree or disagree?
3. Women and queers are not a special case and, like everyone else, should be elected based on merit. Agree or disagree?
4. Women and queers are dumb, incapable of being elected, and need to be looked after. Agree or disagree?

What I think (what you think): 1. Agree, 2. Agree (you disagree. You are destroying the democratic process.), 3. Agree (you disagree. You are destroying our way of life by saying that some people are more important than others.), 4. Disagree (you agree. You think that queers and women are too dumb to be elected)...

I don't think it could be any more hilarious unless you had a seat for an Aboriginal/TSI person -- 'We're looking after you - it's the best for you'... =/

You are really contradicting yourself by saying that elections need to be based on merit, yet having these seats. For clarification, here's my point:

As part of our ancient democratic ideology, merit should be the only qualifier of prospective representation. No candidate will need to satisfy one binary criterion (queer, women) which excludes others (straight, men).

If you disagree, you're against democracy. I'm sorry it sounds dramatic, but there is a reason for this ideology: That the state cannot restrict the population's self-governance. Namely, you could put a post in with 'This candidate must be named Nick Mueller', and you could be the only one that runs. Yes, this is extreme, but it's a very very basic principle which applies across the board, no exceptions.

i notice you didn't mention the internat representatives as not based on merit? If someone wants to create a better system that would be great.

I was particularly concerned with the two women/queer positions.

A better system is the Australian parliament system. What you do is that you have (for example) x positions:

- 1 President and named positions (secretary, treasurer, etc)
- x any other academic/admin staff from the uni (VC, dVC, admin staff etc/whatever)
- 3 HUM and SS,
- 3 Commerce,
- 3 S&T,
- maybe 3 sporting/club positions,
- etc - minus all the 'you have to be queer, international, a woman, etc etc' positions.

Try to keep the numbers limited. Having 10 from each college is insane. You'll never get more than 4 people applying.

And then, from that pool, you open up the council to elect x representatives for queers, women, international students, etc. So as one member for HUM and SS, I would be the queer liason officer/representative, if I chose to be. I'd put my hand up during the election process ('I'll be going for queer officer'), and when I'm elected, I'll put my hand up again. If there is another councillor wanting to be queer officer, the council will have a vote.

This is exactly how our parliament works: The Australian people don't vote in John Howard as PM, they vote in the Liberal Party. The Liberal party has a meeting and decides that the Prime Minister will be John Howard, that the Minister for Education will be x, Minister for Commerce will be y, etc etc.

In this case, MUSC would chose these positions after the reps were voted in. Having special positions for it would be ridiculous.

I don't think anyone could disagree that the posts aren't important, though. But undermining the entire democratic system is a really bad idea.

 

[Kegs]

I agree with pwar and disagree, in part, with asylum. Do you think that we should have student representation? I am not sure if you have said whether we should have it. I get the feeling that you think student representation is stupid.

 

[nikmueller]

asylum, if there is no-one putting up their hand from any of the groups, say Science and Tech College has a particularly apathetic year and no-one wants the two seats, then the next most popular students should be elected.

b) if we want to run a long-lasting council, of course it needs to be financially sustainable. To explain this, let me story-tell for a little.

I have been part of a macquarie environment group which will celebrate its one year anniversary in a few weeks. we have organised large events (although you may not have heard of us), and been very successful. We have had no university support from SAM or anyone else (although we have asked) and we have only had minor money concerns.

We could run an SRC with no money. easy.

It is a matter of how much we want to achieve.

 

[xeuyrawp]

asylum, if there is no-one putting up their hand from any of the groups, say Science and Tech College has a particularly apathetic year and no-one wants the two seats, then the next most popular students should be elected.

b) if we want to run a long-lasting council, of course it needs to be financially sustainable. To explain this, let me story-tell for a little.

I have been part of a macquarie environment group which will celebrate its one year anniversary in a few weeks. we have organised large events (although you may not have heard of us), and been very successful. We have had no university support from SAM or anyone else (although we have asked) and we have only had minor money concerns.

We could run an SRC with no money. easy.

It is a matter of how much we want to achieve.

You're really not addressing the problems:

1. Finance. You need to put a dollar-for-dollar proposal in:
'We are looking to get x amount, y of which we'll get from z, w of which we'll get from v'. Etc
'We are going to be spending a amount on b, c amount on d'. Etc.

Putting in 'we would like $25,000 for starting up, blah blah' not only shows that you really need adult supervision, but that the uni will immediately knock you back.

2. Representation. Sorry, it's fucked:
a) Numbers. Hoping that 10 people from each old college will rock up is a joke. Reduce the numbers to 3. Also, see the following...
b) Seats. Get rid of the stupid faggot-lefty seats, and make it so that there has to be queer/women/int'l stu/etc representatives elected from the pool of student councillors. Make it a condition of applying to be a councillor that applicants may be elected to fill these roles. Excluding people from representing the uni is insane, it really is.

I'd be thoroughly surprised if the uni even takes you seriously if you don't fix at least the two main points.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I agree with pwar and disagree, in part, with asylum. Do you think that we should have student representation? I am not sure if you have said whether we should have it. I get the feeling that you think student representation is stupid.

This is pretty much what I, and I suspect Mike, mean by vague.

You two people couldn't even be fucked quoting us and reading our posts in full.

You haven't pointed out what you've disliked about Mike's posts, and Nick hasn't even responded to my points about the insanity of having rep seats which both discriminate based on sexuality or gender and reduce our cherished democratic system to dirt.

If you want to be real reps, you need to address all the issues specifically, and not continually straw-man and ignore arguments.

 

[Kegs]

I'm going to play into your hand and say whatever. You have continually said that we have suggested 10 reps from each college, when the proposal clearly states 11 from the three colleges combined. Arguing on here is not productive, as neither of us seem to be connveying our points. This I am sure will illicit the response from you of 'We are conveying our points, you are not and you refuse to address our concerns.' I see that pwar thinks student rep will work, my question was directed to asylum. Sorry if that wasnt clear.

I am going to say 1 thing and probably be quite for a while. It is too time consuming and I have all my exams still to go. What we have written is the draft of an idea. We said this in the meeting. We want to change it. We would be happy to scrap it for a better idea. It needs fleshing out as to what the money would be spent on. Obviously we can't answer how you want, or we would have done it already. I'm sorry I suck at trying to be helpful. I am not ignoring what you are asking on purpose. I thinking I am missing the point. *insert 'Then you are a fucking idiot*

 

[Kegs]

PS. See how I am using '...' instead of "...". Thats just for you. I give people shit about it all the time now. You have created a monster.

 

[nikmueller]

elections

• 4x College of Commerce
• 4x College of Humanities and Social Sciences
• 3x College of Science and Technology
• 1x International Students
• 1x Non-English speaking background
• 1x Campus Colleges
• 1x Queer
• 1x Woman
• 1x Mentor Program
• 1x First-year student

maybe that will clarify things. don't need to bring out the dirty 'L' word pwar.

the uni is behind students on this one, finances worked out or not. It would be great to have it all done up like an accountant or the way the auditors have just done sam, but would not be realistic.

i agree with benny boy, but i don't think i can stop. this is way more addictive than stats in psy331.

Anyone want to help out starting up a mediawiki for the draft constitution? clubmac.net.au

 

[iambored]

hmmm

in theory i'm against the minority seats as well

in practice though i think it will work well. my school had a similar system (with seats set for leaders from certain school areas) and it was nice because it ensured that there was always a broad representation in leadership

 

[glitterfairy]

hmmm

in theory i'm against the minority seats as well

in practice though i think it will work well. my school had a similar system (with seats set for leaders from certain school areas) and it was nice because it ensured that there was always a broad representation in leadership

I'm with iam on both points.

That being said, with conditions being what they are I'm not sure you've got the safety of a "try it for a year and see how good it is" option - it feels like you need something that sounds flash-hot appealing right from the first look.

EDIT: This post only refers to nik's above post where he lists his proposed number crunchdown. I haven't yet read the pdf etc in the original post, and as such my comment in no way deals with anything other than the aforementioned number crunchdown and iam's post thanks for listening!

 

[nikmueller]

That being said, with conditions being what they are I'm not sure you've got the safety of a "try it for a year and see how good it is" option - it feels like you need something that sounds flash-hot appealing right from the first look.

perhaps i should update on the "conditions" that i know of, i.e. the macquarie family get-to-gether.

VC Schwartz has nothing against the SRC going ahead. he sees it as a worthwhile thing for students to do. Having said that, he wants students to do it autonomously. i.e. grandpa schwartz is not yet senile but happy to let the grandkids play with the tools from the garage, as long as they do it outside.

dVC Bowler is very encouraging and willing to help out where he can. Current CEO of U@MQ, Dee from MUSR, is really supportive and keen. Also, U@MQ has all but signed on the dotted line to pledge funds and facilities for the SRC. i.e. parents are tucking into the roast, glad that the kids are out of the kitchen even though they took all the fairybread and ice-cream. does anyone know where they are?

Conditions are looking perfect from a support point of view. now we need to get students interested. i.e. rob, start up the whipper-snipper. lynlyn, call the cousins. i'll get the cat.