"As yet it is uncertain how many clubs have actually been informed of the training"

C&G clubs and societies have not yet been informed - but only because the timings and specific structure for C&G has not yet been finalised. Once it has been they will all be invited to come along.

A three-hour training session is better than a six hour disciplinary once scarce union funds have been poured down the drain.

With union funds at a premium this year most agree that this concept is a good step forward.

The sabbs however, have tried to steamroller policy through without wide consultation and are again destroying what should be a good idea by their continued mismanagement of important issues.

Correcty me if I'm wrong, but isn't the last term of the year a bit of a stupid time to train up clubs' execs? I know nothing about the proposals apart from what is written above but surely we'd do better to concentrate on training next year's people?

Training is a MUST especially to those who are incompetent (should not be elected in the first place anyway). Too long or too short? Depends on what the content is. Good luck to ALL Club Exes!

3HOURS. 3 HOURS. I can understand club training but 3 hours??? Are we just going to listen to the DPCS talk continually about clubs - I thinke veryone has better things to do with 3 hours.

As I understand it:

• The training is for next years execs.
• The three hours consists of about 45 minutes of the DPCS talking about clubs, followed by coffee, followed by 4 30 minute sessions on various things.

Training is not a must. Reading the clubs and socs handbook and the finance manual is not just a comprehensive way of doing things but a fairly foolproof way, many years of previous execs have been able to function without training. And who's to say that (like most subject people are studying at IC) educating someone in something now guarantees that they'll remember it after a four month break. Like any form of study, the best way to learn is practice as opposed to lecturing in something which people won't remember and wasting time and money.

Oh by the way, money is not often thrown down the drain because there are people like me to remind incompetent people they're muppets, when concerning finance.

I should point out that this is not the first time that anyone has been trained! I ran a training session for C&G clubs and societies in October that was very well attended, cost about £25 in doughnuts, lasted 45 minutes and, I think, was pretty successful.

At least you get training. Some unions are paying so much for their rubberstampy decisions and the NUS (or are just to up the arses of the NUS) that they can't afford to devote time to those who matter.

Perhaps your concerns lie more with the "lack of democracy" surrounding the decision to do this style of training than with the concept of training itself?

Anyway, it's just another excuse to get pissed... oh I forgot, students these days don't do that :P

I think it's a good idea - 3 hours is nothing - all you'd be doing that afternoon would be getting pissed/watching telly anyway.

If the DPCS (who incidentally you elected to make decisions about this sort of thing) deems it necessary, then you should be content to give 3 hours of your time - I would be.

But I'm not a club/society head - selected to run their club/society in the best way possible (and thus should welcome any opportunity to improve service), so my opinions probably don't count.

Thanks for the correction Oliver. In that case it seems daft to hold the training before the holidays, when the vast majority of them are going to do next to nothing over the break and will doubtless return in October with little memory of the doubtless invaluable info imparted four months earlier.

Other than that, I agree totally with Nick Maynard - small investment for potentially great improvement in running of clubs (understanding of regs and financial procedures, etc).

starbuck, I disagree - a face-to-face instruction session with Q&As is far better than being given a copy of the ICU finance tome and told to get on with it.

You may disagree idris, but which club have you run exactly. The best way to learn financial regulations is to practice them, speaking from experience. Its not hard. and like I said nearly 5 months after the training who's going to remember everything exactly. Do you remember boring bits of lecture courses you did this time last year? It takes no more than a day to read AND understand the finance manual. Dave P has always put a lot of effort in to write a decent readable book that is easy to comprehend. And if there's stuff you don't get, then you can ask previous year's bods or the permanent staff, who are there to provide continuity. Simple. Training? People turn up, go away with some stuff, don't remember it then waste the same amount of time having not prepared properly at the start of the next year. Waste of time, yes! If it was done during or just before freshers week would it be a waste of time, no!

I won't bore you by listing my club, soc and other credentials as its pointless (and I'm not entirely sure I can remember them all).

I agree with you insofar as usefulness depends on the format of the session. If its going to be Mr R Davenport, Esq. standing there and droning to the usual suspects who've been running their clubs the same way for seemingly decades then fine, its pointless. If there is some - any - opportunity for questioning which could:

a) improve the way those present understand the rules, some of which you must agree are less than clear from the UFH

OR

b) highlight some of those procedures which may be overdue for change and thus precipitate that change by drawing them to the attention of said Davenport

then it will be worthwhile. IMHO of course ;)

So darn hypothetical !!!

Well what I'd like to know is when the club execs are actually going to hear about it themselves so that we can send next year's president can get along there??? I even asked Sen the other day and he didn't tell me. Is it too much to ask? Surely not.

If you delete "we can send" what I wrote before actually makes sense!

I have been quoted in the above article, and while the comments are made are accurate, I'd like to add the following points:

1) The training itself will actually I am sure be quite useful to those club officers that are new - as Idris says it is a little pointless for the people who've done it before.

2) It is apparently designed to eliminate all the silly questions made at the beginning of the year when people get confused about not being allowed to buy food, not knowing membership includes VAT etc. This is generally caused by club handovers being almost universally crap.

However, as Stuart points out, thats what we have CSC execs for, and hence why the get specific training in September. God knows he's made my job a damn sight easier this year!

3) The reason its 3 hours is that the union has so many hoops to jump through it can initially be very confusing and daunting - hence why EVERY DP(C&S) candidate promises to "reduce buerocracy" (i can't spell sorry) and yet does nothing. The merits or otherwise of those hoops are an entire new thread of debate.

4)My real complaint was with the aggressive style it was presented - "turn up or you don't get to run a club". That's just silly and creates more bad feeling between union and ordinary students.

5)The decision was taken by student development committee not by SAC. This is the worst defined of the new committies which has, I'm afriad, been caused by a lot of last years policies that have created a lot of solutions for problems that don't exist, and have been poorly implemented by the sabbaticals complete lack of a (seemingly) coherent plan for this year, and any semblence of leadership from the president.

I actually recommeded the training to my clubs highly, becuase I beleive it will provide them value, but not if they go in with a negaitve attitude presented to them by their union reps. I hope C&G do the same.... The timing, length and compulsory nature of the training is caused by a wider problem that has no simple solution.

C&G will indeed be recommending the training to our clubs, once the format has been suitably tweaked to take allowance of our own methods of operation...and just as soon as we've sorted out when it's going to be....

Gus Paul said: "hence why EVERY DP(C&S) candidate promises to 'reduce buerocracy'"

yeah don't you hate it when they say that and win ;o)

I'll just stick my oar in now that that this discussion thread seems to be dying...

The concept of clubs' training is sound - bear in mind the work imposed on the sabbaticals and staff to run this training is substantial too.

If the policy introduction has been mismanaged than that is unfortunate - it certainly has nothing to do with Student Development Committee, which, contrary to Gus' assertion, has existed long before I reviewed the committees last year.

If someone could be bothered to complete (or even start) the clubs' section of the online Resource Book, with some simple guides on how to do the most common tasks, than that might also be of assistance.

My apologies to Hamish - I was given the impression by the sabbs that SDC was new this year.

As it isn't, it really is this years Sabbs trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

<Shakes his hands to the sky> How did Sen get re-elected? (And that really is your doing Mr Common...)

Sen got relected because lots of people knew who he was, and no one (apart from indian society, appologies if that isn't the right name) really had a go at him for anything this year. Stuart's campaign was frankly rubish (no offence stu) as he was to busy running a ccu to do any posters or canvassing. Only the people at the hustings, hacks, and those who attended an RCS event this year would even know who he was.

Being a Sabb is a really unfair advantage in elections. I think it's a really bad idea to have two year sabbs, as although they obviously know a lot about the job, that's what handover is for. Once someone has done the job for a year, they should have implemented all their good ideas, and it's time to get someone with new ideas in instead. Otherwise you might as well let people carry on doing the job year after year, as they are the most qualified. That is what permanent staff are for, not what sabbs are for. I am not the only person that thinks this, high-level figures in the union aggree with me.

But what about Idris? Sen might not be president if the medics had been given a chance to vote. "ICU - doing it the Mugabe way etc. " for those of you who have read Prince Albert.

There's a conspiracy for you....."I'll stop the medic block vote if you'll give us a pop at the NUS" or vice versa.

As one of those club treasurers who has spent most of their year working hard and asking questions to avoid being a muppet I can't help but be slightly annoyed at being told I must give up 3 hours of my time to 'learn' things I already know. If I do not do this I will be deemed unfit to do a job I have just spent a year doing. All seems very wrong to me, IMHO obviously.

On the question of the possibly corrupt returning officers for the sabbatical elections and NUS referendum (and I make no comment on either) and the anti-medic voting system: you are from this year allowed to dismiss and replace returning officers and members of elections committees. There should be no need to continue elections under incompetent or corrupt management, if indeed that happened.

As for two year sabbaticals, I think in the long term it should be good for ICU. If it clearly isn't, then it should revert to one year sabbs.

Sadly, there are members of Club (etc.) committees and execs who are not as contientious as many of the people who have posted above. Sad reflection that it is, many must now spend three hours some time being told stuff, which largly we can find out from booklets and the Union website, it seems to ensure the word is put out this is what we must do. I am sure there are savings for some sabbs and union staff if all this stuff is laid down in the beginning, if you are going to say it, ou might as well say it to everyone once. Whether anyone remembers anything, only time can tell.

The training must happen this term (assuming it must happen at all), as if it was held at the start of next year by the time it was held then most societies are already active, and one way or annother would have had to learn these things. Shame it seems to have cropped up at short notice (and only in one half of term so for some it is garunteed to clash with exams)

I recon its a good idea, if only to solve the problem of some clubs and socs not getting training whilst others have recieved loads of support. Guess it all depends on what the people running the CSC/CCU's are like....