16TH UNIVERSITY SCHOLARS CLUB MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE TOWN HALL MEETING 16 JAN 2000 - 2200
AGENDA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CHEAH WENJIE (PRESIDENT) REVAMPED GUI PROCEDURE HILLARY TAN (VICE-PRESIDENT COMMUNITY LIFE) GER1000 - THE ISSUES DEVESH NARAYANAN (VICE- PRESIDENT WELFARE) WELFARE PACKS DEVESH NARAYANAN (VICE- PRESIDENT WELFARE) SPACES UPDATE HONG SHAO YANG (HONORARY GENERAL SECRETARY) SHOULD WE CONTINUE WITH RAG AND FLAG? (DISCUSSION) CHEAH WENJIE (PRESIDENT)
I. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CHEAH WENJIE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS DRAFTING AMENDMENTS: ERRORS IN PHRASING, ADDED CLARITY, RE-NUMBERING OF PROVISIONS. SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS: THREE AMENDMENTS CALLING OF EGMS MAKING IT HARDER TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION USC SUBSIDIARY REGULATIONS
CALLING OF EGMS TLDR: INSTITUTE FAIR RULES FOR CALLING OF EGMS CURRENT PROBLEM 20 signatures sufficient to call 20 signatures = 2 cliques? an EGM. Insufficient to mount proper 3 days' notice mandated. defence. Rules on agenda not present. Open to abuse
CALLING OF EGMS TLDR: INSTITUTE FAIR RULES FOR CALLING OF EGMS USC OTHERS NUSSU Constitution: 5 days' notice. 20 signatures sufficient to call an EGM. At least forty-five (45) Union Members can call a meeting. 3 days' notice mandated. NTUSU Constitution: 3 days' notice. Rules on agenda not present. Five percent of the Union members or two hundred (200) members, whichever is lesser, can call a meeting. Companies Act: 14 - 28 days' notice Two or more members holding at least 10% of the issued share capital can requisition or call a meeting.
CALLING OF EGMS TLDR: INSTITUTE FAIR RULES FOR CALLING OF EGMS PROPOSED RATIONALE 2 cliques to call a general meeting is too low a threshold. Prone to abuse - frivolous calls for EGMs which the 10% of all members, or forty-five (45) Management Committee is obliged to hold. members, whichever is lesser, sufficient to call an EGM. All general meetings already require a quorum of at least 10% of all members or 100 members, whichever is lower.
CALLING OF EGMS TLDR: INSTITUTE FAIR RULES FOR CALLING OF EGMS PROPOSED RATIONALE Compliant with NUSSU's regulations. Allows sufficient time to prepare a proper defence 5 days' minimum notice mandated. or counter-argument(s). Allows more time to change prior appointments to accomodate a meeting.
CALLING OF EGMS TLDR: INSTITUTE FAIR RULES FOR CALLING OF EGMS PROPOSED RATIONALE The notice calling a meeting must contain sufficient Only items on agenda can be discussed in information to enable a prudent member to decide general meeting. whether or not he will attend the meeting (Common law rule). Any amendment of agenda requires fresh Otherwise, ability to amend agenda may allow party notice. to spring surprise motions for the general meeting.
MAKING IT HARDER TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TLDR: TOO EASY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION CURRENT PROBLEM By its definition, a Constitution represents the “fundamental principles" of a body by which it is governed. Fundamentals cannot be regarded as 2/3 of members of the Management such if it is easily amendable. Committee to amend or revoke the Constitution. Prone to abuse if a Management Committee can alter their powers and responsibilities unilaterally, . without need to consult the club members who elected them.
MAKING IT HARDER TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OTHERS Singapore Constitution: Must be passed by no less than two-thirds of the total number of the elected Members of Parliament. Companies Act: Must be passed by not less than three-fourths of members at General Meeting. NUSSU: Must be passed by votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the Voting Council Representatives present during the Meeting + To be ratified by NUS Board of Trustees. Other Constituent Clubs: Must be passed by at least two-thirds of Members at General Meeting. NTUSU: At least two-thirds of the members present at the General Meeting must vote in favour of such amendments + Student Affairs Office to agree + 3 year interval only.
MAKING IT HARDER TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TLDR: TOO EASY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED RATIONALE In line with most other NUSSU Constituent Clubs. 2/3 of members of USC at General Meeting In line with Constitutionalism principles. to amend or revoke the Constitution. Protects USC members from unilateral changes by the Management Committee.
USC SUBSIDIARY REGULATIONS TLDR: FLEXIBLE BUT FORMAL REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK CURRENT PROBLEM Potentially problematic inconsistencies between Administrative frameworks and regulations administrations. exists only in informal documentation Lack of stable and clear framework for students Management Committees to follow. adopt/revoke/create regulations every year. Opaque governance and decision-making processes.
USC SUBSIDIARY REGULATIONS TLDR: FLEXIBLE BUT FORMAL REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK PROPOSED RATIONALE Formalise structures and processes within USC, Formally provide for creation of USC by giving them a written regulatory framework Subsidiary Regulations to formalise rules on GUIs, IGs and upcoming Central Repository. Clarity accorded to these processes, allowing USC members to follow or debate on them. USC Subsidiary Regulations can be amended by two-third majority of Management Flexibility for Management Committee of the day Committee members at a regular meeting. to amend Subsidiary Regulations to push through their initiatives.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CALLING OF EGMS MAKING IT HARDER TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION USC SUBSIDIARY REGULATIONS
II. REVAMPED GUI PROCEDURE HILLARY TAN
HTTP://TINYURL.COM/USCCOMMLIFEFORMS
III. GER 1000 THE ISSUES DEVESH NARAYANAN
GER1000 QR AS DIFFERENTIATOR FOR NUS IMPORTANCE OF STUDENTS QUANTITATIVE REASONING IN NUS’ ACADEMIC VISION LONG TERM PLAN IS TO HAVE A TIERED SEQUENCE OF QR MODULES TO ENSURE NUS STUDENTS ARE QR READY
USP'S ROLE TLDR: TEST BED USP pioneers a three-tiered QRF module with: 1. GER1000 (Tier 1) 2. USP’s QRF (Tier 2) 3. USP QR-based Inquiry modules (Tier 3)
POSITIONING GER1000 VIS A VIS USP QRF Overlap of Content? Both GER and QRF need improvement: QRF needs to be pushed higher into the 2nd Tier GER needs to continue revising its curriculum and pedagogy
POSITIONING GER1000 VIS A VIS USP QRF Overlap of Content? From: GER1000 QRF To: QRF GER1000
WORKLOAD MANAGEMENT ANOTHER MODULE TO READ? Generally, number of MCs to read is unchanged. But some students have it tougher: Students who can’t read WCT in Sem 1 Scheduling conflicts (Pharmacy, for example) Law students (can only read Tiers 2 & 3)
MOVING FORWARD Faculty and the University: Working together to relook at the learning outcomes and curriculum of the two courses, to minimize overlap Data Collection to assess the impact of the GER module and its success in meeting learning objectives USC: Data Collection through periodic surveys and a long-term data collection strategy Amplify the voice of the community
FINAL THOUGHTS Going back to how things were is ‘unproductive’ Continuous collection of feedback, and more conversations with the community
IV. WELFARE PACKS DEVESH NARAYANAN
ONE STUDENT ONE PACK PREMISE 1 NUSSU’s budget allocation for welfare packs is calculated based on the total number of students in the university PREMISE 2 Even though USP students are in two faculties, they only count once in the population statistics CONCLUSION USP students must only get one welfare pack
BUDGET BREAKDOWN $24 $4 to USC $4 to USC $8 to non-faculty $8 to NUSSU $4 to Home Fac $4 to Home Fac clubs $0.5 per pax goes to welfare packs $13125
DISCONTINUING NO OTHER HALLS/RCS RECEIVE EXTRA WELFARE WELFARE PACKS PACK FROM NUSSU TO USC WELFARE CASE ONE: ARGUMENT FROM PRINCIPLE REASON FOR DISTRIBUTION TO RC COULD BE DUE TO PAST AGREEMENT IF SO, MATTER SHOULD BE REOPENED FOR NEW ARRANGEMENT
WELFARE SURVEYS AND DISCONTINUING PACKS ARE GIVEN OUT TO WELFARE PACKS THE FACULTY CLUBS, WHO TO USC MAKE THEIR OWN ARRANGEMENTS FOR CASE TWO: ARGUMENT FROM DISTRIBUTION ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY - DECENTRALIZED DISTRIBUTION SOME FACULTIES ENFORCE STRATEGIES THE ONE PACK PER STUDENT POLICY LESS STRINGENTLY THAN OTHERS NO WAY TO ENSURE THAT THE WELFARE PACK POLICY IS ADHERED TO THEREFORE, DISCONTINUE WELFARE PACKS FOR USC
NUSSU PROPOSED SOLUTIONS 1. Give NUSSU data about all our students, so they can systematically block USP students from access to two welfare packs 2. Discontinue welfare pack allocation to USC, but provide excess sponsored items and NUSSU welfare pack items for us to build our own welfare pack.
NUSSU PROPOSED SOLUTION (II) PROS CONS Contingent on the existence of spare items from NUSSU’s Shorter welfare pack surveys welfare packs Access to 2 x Welfare Packs* USC will be the only faculty to not receive a welfare pack from NUSSU
V. SPACES UPDATE HONG SHAO YANG
THEME INCLUSIVE ENGAGING Home and the idea of shared ownership Conceptual changes to TR1 and Proto Studio Minor changes to TR2, lifts, Chatter, lobby
WELFARE SURVEY 389 PARTICIPANTS Cleanliness Lack of quiet studying spaces Also: doodle/corkboard, pool table (83) , drumset (38)
Recommend
More recommend
