Artsoc should have been sent straight to Council anyway - Their proposal was exactly the same as the one that Council denied last year, and therefore only Council can overturn it.
I'm hoping that the Student Activities Committee might actually focus on student activities this year, and stop obsessing over money.
The problem apparently stems from the fact that last year's Sabbs had fundamentally different ideas about the purpose of SAC - former DP (Clubs and Socs), Sam Sharpe (who now chairs SAC) is known to have favoured a committee talking about student activities, and management speak like "sharing best practise", while Etienne Pollard (ex DP Finance and Services) favours a more money-led committee (no surprise there then!)
Whilst I sympathise with the feelings of Lone Gunman, it cannot be denied that funding plays a very significant part in most, if not all, student activities.
All clubs and societies have been allocated a budget from Union funds for this academic year.
When a club or society then encounters a setback that they could not have budgeted for (such as thefts from the Union's inadequate storage facilities) a quick and effective method of remedying the situation must be sought.
This is where the old, and "money-led", UFC provided the opportunity to submit claims to the Union's contingency fund, aka TFWNN.
This system was by no means faultless, but gave all student activity representatives the ability to scrutinise the finances of their peers (and avoid the need for lengthy council meetings).
What the new SAC is suggesting by referring contingency claims to exec for approval is ill fated and reckless since they are depriving their selves of this basic right in preference of a meeting to tackle 'the real student issues'.
The two issues were debated effectively enough in previous UFC meetings. Or maybe we should re-instate the UFC to deal with financial matters, and allow SAC to be free to discuss all other factors pertaining to student activities.
Surely nobody claiming to represent the student body would object to a further meeting aimed at tackling this issue?
i thought you were meaning house. though maybe it will do something useful this year (visibly usefull that is before i get a stearm of things that it has done). No hard feelings to you guys - yet ;-)
I shouldnt let the trolls get to me....
more generally though....
Can you have representation of the entire Union Membership without committees?? I agree that some things which go on at comittees are pointless. But is transferring all power to a select few really the way forward? Afterall, it doesnt really take that much to get elected to a high position (a sad refelction on the level of interest of many iCU members) does it now?
who has taken over from UFC if not SAC??? The societies at iCU are soemthing that make us stand out from every uni that my friends go to. They are something to be proud of and supported. Gives us something to do other than just get drunk.
SAC (should)= UFC. Not what it was supposed to do - what it actually did. Money is a critical element of virtually all clubs and societies, to have that decided on by Exec (which does not represent clubs and societies) would just be stupid.
SAC only does a subset of what UFC did, it only allocates money to clubs, (and Dramsoc) - not to general Union projects as a whole. But SAC could do much more about how we run clubs and societies, that was my vision - it's the only place apart from council that those involved in supervising Clubs and Societies can get together. I beleive (although obviously i am impartial) that money is not what drives our clubs, people do. You can run a club with no money (Linux User Group do), you can't run a club with no people. And working out what things work, and what don't is a people issue, not a money issue. - That's what SAC should be talking about.
On the topic of standing orders - yes SAC should have them - action DPCS to produce a suitable document for next meeting. - once we have such a thing - maybe i can make sure we stick to it!
Clubs need people, true. Most also need money. To suggest that because you can run a club without money that all clubs should be run without money is a bit daft.
SAC should have the powers of UFC regarding funding club TFWNN claims. If it does not it simply means lots more work for the executive - a body which does not represent clubs and is not really suited to it. I'm sure it has better things to do with its time anyway (I know C&G exec does)
perhaps i wasn't being clear. I'm not suggesting all clubs should be run without money - i'm suggesting that money is actually one of the less important items in running a club, yet it's the one we all get fixated on.