SRC Meeting Minutes (8 May 2014)

MINUTES OF THE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH
HELD ON 8 MAY 2014
IN THE SRC BOARDROOM AT 21:00
IN ATTENDANCE: MJ Dippenaar, Renita van Zyl, Michelle Bezuidenhout , Tosca
Ferndale, JC Rademeyer, Chrisna Robbertse, Courtney Roots, Willie Ross, Willem
Steyn, Samuel Arendse, Altus Viljoen, Vera Leven, Sifiso Masuku, Josh Chigome,
Marvin Shabalala, Janelle Havenga, Marius Louw, Wayde Groep, Nicole Goldbeck,
ABSENT WITH REASON: Victoria van der Schyff
ABSENT WITHOUT REASON:
OTHER ATTENDANTS: Mr Villet, Mr Hoeben, Brandon Como, Ina Burger (Aristea
Primaria) , Marizanne Visser (minute taker)
1.
DESCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION:
Opening:
MOTIONS/ ACTIONS
None
Ms Van Zyl opens meeting at 21:00
From now on only material mistakes will be mentioned at
meetings, grammatical errors to be mailed to Ms
Bezuidenhout.
2.
Welcoming and Personalia
None
3.
Approval of previous minutes
SRC meeting 29 April:
Ms Leven approves, Mr Groep seconds approval.
Executive Meeting 5 May:
Ms Ferndale approves, Mr Viljoen seconds
approval.
SRC meeting 24 April:
Ms Goldbeck approves, Ms Leven seconds
approval.
None
4.
Items from minutes:
None
p 4 : Mr Dippenaar – not here yet.
1
p 7: Ms Van Zyl – already dealt with.
p 7 – Mr Rademeyer – already dealt with.
p 10 : not handled.
5.
Setting of the agenda:
None






6.
IF (6.2)
Constitutional amendments (8.1)
MAD² (Mr Como) (10.1)
AKSS feedback (6.3)
MILAC feedback (6.4)
Mr Ross requests ten minutes for discussion under
6.1
Feedback:
6.1 General
Mr Ross: Relevant document to be
sent to everyone.
6.1. PK Task Team (Mr Ross):
Mr Ross mentions that sensitive research has been done
and that a structure has been proposed with the need of a
lobbying committee.
Also, a HK of a specific portfolio will meet with SRc
member concerned with that portfolio. There will be a
new position, head of cluster convenors. Clusters need to
fulfill bigger role as part of the institutional plan. With
regards to shadowing period it was decided that SRc
election must take place before HK and prim elections for
the reason that the current structure renders the SRc
option as safety net for students who do not get elected to
be prim or HK.
This structure works against SRc, therefore the
prerequisites for candidate eligibility and dates should be
changed and SRc election should be held first prior to HK
elections. SRc image is not what it is supposed to be. Other
universities have similar requirements for eligibility,
including:
 candidate must have been a prim, been on the SRc,
HK, or SRc subcommittee or chair/vice chair of any
society
2

Hemis (other universities have a 60%
requirement)
 200 signatures – this is in line with the UOFS
and TUKS
 If you have Hemis and 200 signatures but have
not served on any of the above mentioned
positions and still feel that you are an eligible
candidate, you can still apply.
Continuity of student leadership serves as the founding
principle. Mr Ross opens floor for opinions:
Ms Ferndale asks about EDP students with regards to the
academic requirements. Mr Steyn mentions that if there is
provision at the moment for these students, it will
continue to be so.
Mr Ross mentions further requirement of attending house
meeting of ‘vooghuis’ at least once a month.
Ms Van Zyl extends discussion with 5 minutes.
Mr Ross mentions that it needs to be taken into account
that SRc is the highest representative body. Mr Steyn asks
what the lobbying committee will be doing. Mr Steyn asks
if this can be done with the sustainability committee as
well. Mr Ross submits that it can be considered.
Mr Viljoen asks about the rationale behind the decision.
Mr Ross explains that it is to increase the standard of
entry.
Mr Groep raises a problem with the signature requirement
and mentions that SRc as a whole have never gotten more
than 20% of students’ votes. Mr Ross refers to student
apathy and that structural change is needed. Also
mentions that signatures will ensure that students have an
interest in the outcome of the election and will take part in
the election.
3
6.2 IF feedback (Mr Arendse)
So far there has been no feedback and clarification
regarding policy is pending. Will give feedback at next
meeting as well as presentation. The Code of Conduct has
been approved.
6.3 AKSS (Mr Rademeyer)
Initiative was not agreed upon. It was agreed that
restructuring needs to take place and that a green route is
needed, at least on a smaller scale.
Task team will be assembled. The university has given two
cars and patrol officers will be spaced better. At the
moment there are only five that do a figure eight route.
Was suggested that it is changed to a cross over a 2.2km
distance.
Idea of a campus competition was suggested.
Great need for tasers pepper spray was pointed out.
Ms Havenga asks what the residences know about the
issue at the moment. Mr Rademeyer responds that facility
management thought they could dispose of the structure
in a subtle manner by trying to phase it out. So most are
under the impression that it still exists. It needs to be
determined and made public somehow and not be
publicized in documents such as the Matie Diary anymore.
So almal dink dit bestaan nog.
6.4 MILAC feedback (Mr Masuku)
The daily jog matter has been taken up with seniors and
the matter has stopped due to exam preparations. A letter
has been given to Mr Dippenaar regarding their
unhappiness. Mr Masuku will give feedback on sit down
with Commandant.
7. Statutory bodies and portfolios:
None
4
7.1 Council Feedback (Ms Van Zyl)
Meeting was held on the 5th of May.
A lot of money was saved when looked at last year’s
financial statements.
The WNNR announced that SU has the most research
outsets in the country, three per capita. Extra research
chairs have been acquired for continuous research,
including chairs for tuberculosis, water, animals, nature.
Generating a lot of money seeing that we are competing
with universities worldwide. SU is 387th globally.
Big amount has been set aside for institutional
development and especially technology, but cannot
acquire long distance facilities since UNISA as sole rights.
Skype was suggested as a platform to be used in the near
future.
8. Items for decision
8.1 Constitutional amendment (Ms Van Zyl)
Ms Van Zyl begins discussion with reference to many
things that need to be done during very short SRc
membership. Elections weren’t spaced properly and
followed one another weekly.
Cannot amend the requirements this year, but the dates
for elections can be changed and swopped around.
Ms Van Zyl lists all the dates regarding commencement of
second semester, nominations, deadline, investigations
and briefing, caucus. Nowhere in constitution is it
mentioned that elections needs to be kept open for 5
days. Suggests that election only takes place on the 11th,
12th and 13th of August 2014. Committee will be
announced on the 14th and prims and HK’s will be elected
thereafter. This will ensure that BRek week and
Engineering week is open and that HK elections will be
5
done after SRc elections. Ex officio votes will be done
before SRc meeting.
Mr Louw asks about student committees that are to be
chosen before SRc and Ms Van Zyl responds that their
dates aren’t as easy to change as HK dates.
Ms Havenga asks about manager election and Ms Van Zyl
responds that it will be held during the prim and vice prim
elections.
Ms Van Zyl mentions the loss of too many candidates and
good leaders if the HK elections are to be held prior to SRc
elections and with new structure you can apply for both.
Refers to Mr Ross’s structuring plan
Mr Groep mentions that if amendment is to be made,
because it is so specific and portfolios are appointed to top
nine positions, it creates problem with regards to people
applying for these specific portfolios.
Mr Ross mentions importance of governance principle that
needs to be taken into account.
Ms Van Zyl mentions that the requirements will require
much more admin so the amendment as to the procedure
needs to be made as a first step.
Ms Ferndale asks if there is a way that portfolios can be
determined beforehand and if manager’s portfolio can be
decided.
Ms Van Zyl mentions concern of losing people in the
process and that people won’t really know what they want
to do yet.
Mr Ross raises issue concerning the fact that this is the
second last meeting and that a special meeting might be
necessary.
6
Ms Van Zyl mentions that the problem lies within the
amendment procedure. SRc has capacity to make a
ordinary amendment by means of an ordinary meeting,
but the amendment of requirements will be harder to do
at this stage.
Mr Groep raises concern regarding little time that is left to
implement the amendment.
Ms Van Zyl mentions that it can be started immediately,
but if it is not initiated now, less time will be available for
the bigger substantial change. Reasons will have to be
provided and everything cannot be done at once, and
irrespective of what is decided tonight, student inputs will
be required.
(Ms Van Zyl reads procedure in Chapter 12 ; section 96(1)
of the SRc Constitution)
o “…starts on the first day.... and continues
to the last meeting..”
o Amendment: “…starts on first day of fourth
term and up until day before start of
fourth term following year”
 Ms Robbertse mentions that it
should rather be “academic year”
Ten votes are required.
Thirteen votes FOR the
amendment have been cast.
First amendment is accepted.
One abstained from voting.
Second amendment relates to Schedule 1 part 6.2 of the
SRc Constitution regarding nominations and criteria.
Nomination period must last for a period of ten university
days. Proposal is that it be amended to ten calendar days.
This is to make period a bit shorter but without material
effect.
7
Mr Groep asks if we can amend this part, why not amend
the 10 votes to 200 votes and Ms Van Zyl mentions that it
is too fundamental.
Voting takes place.
Mr Como mentions that Tygerberg must be informed as
soon as possible.
Fourteen votes have been
cast for the amendment and
amendment is accepted.
Ms Van Zyl points out that SRc need to be prepared to
receive critique and to give reasons. If unsure, refer them
to Mr Ross.
Ms Van Zyl responds to Ms Ferndale’s question whether the
document can be published in the affirmative.
9. Items for acknowledgement and discussion
9.1. Facilities Management (Mr Hoeben and Mr Villet)
Mr Villet introduces himself and Mr Hoeben and outlines
what will be explained. There are three specialist groups,
including planning and development, property services
(maintenance and facilities) and security services. Briefly
mentions the people responsible for each branch: Schalk,
Ms Sibanda and Viljoen.
Need to contact specific responsible person has proven to
be a challenge. Campus is divided into four parts: sports
campus, housing, academics (two clusters).
Mr Hoeben is facilities manager and he wants to make
himself available in order to be contacted and to refer
students to correct persons.
Details are:
th2@sun ; 021 808 3775 ; 083 454 8217
24 hours
8
9.2. LLL Fees (Ms Ferndale)
Ms Ferndale: everyone was under impression that R27 000
is the fees to be paid. In houses it is R22 000 and in the
village it is R27 000. At the end of February both were
increased with R 5000 and this only reflected on student
account and students weren’t informed about increase
beforehand.
Ms Roots mentions that it was stated in the signed
contracts that there would be furniture. Ms Ferndale
mentions that university is not going to change this and
the best recommendation is that everyone pays R 32 000
and that the extra money be paid into a maintenance
fund. No one can pay less and SRc needs to take a stance
and decide whether proposals will be made.
Ms Roots and Mr Ross mentions two issues, namely that
students weren’t aware from the outset and also that a
different amount needs to be charged since the two
environments are different. The difference needs to be
communicated to student in future. Administration
already has the money and that renders the situation
difficult. A bursary fund might pay half of the increase
(14% reduced to 7%) thanks to a compromise.
Discussion takes place between Mr Steyn and Ms Ferndale
regarding bad maintenance and difference in furniture and
room sizes.
Mr Dippenaar believes that if a stance is taken, it would be
that it is unfair. Will pay more for something that’s
possibly going to happen to someone in future.
Mr Groep agrees with Mr Dippenaar and Mr Steyn and
mentions that there is a forum that all LLL houses have a
rep on. We should also acknowledge that standards in the
houses aren’t the same.
Discussion takes place regarding students in future and
9
that it is an irrelevant matter now. The fact remains that a
contract was signed and the university disclaimed that
amounts were subject to change without notification.
Ms Van Zyl agrees with Mr Groep that a stance cannot be
taken when no foundation exists for challenging the
decision. Uncomfortable with taking a stance based on
feedback.
Ms Roots will talk to chair of student housing.
Mr Dippenaar mentions that stance also cannot be taken
without input from entire LLL community.
Ms Roots mentions that a letter can be written and sent to
student housing to inform them that the topic is currently
under discussion. Ms Van Zyl agrees that unhappiness can
be shown with regards to the notification issue.
10.
General:
10.1 MAD2 (Mr Como)
Mentions changes in committee that will be made. A
coordinator must be appointed to serve on MAD
committee. The focus will be shifted to fundraising and
events will be spread out through the year. Spading will
only be done with regards to Vensters partner, the MAD
partnership isn’t necessary anymore.
Mr Louw mentions that the decision flows from fact that
students don’t take part in projects. Mr Kloppers wants to
raise funds and the biggest concern is what would serve as
motivation to raise funds.
Ms Roots also spoke with Mr Kloppers and Mr Como. In
terms of fundraising, the JOOL-committee had better
incentives. A change in focus and extension of period with
events throughout the year with cluster events. Only the
10
coordination will change, two clusters will work together.
Mr Dippenaar asks if discussion ever took place, since it
sounds as if the decision is already made. Mr Como
responds that discussion was informal with MGD and
other parties engaged in the matter. Mr Dippenaar feels
that more student input is needed and is uncomfortable
with idea that focus will be solely on fundraising and that
fun element will be taken away.
Mr Groep raises concern that it is still important to have a
MAD coordinator that is responsible to communicate and
oversee cluster convenor. Central person is required to
oversee process.
Ms Roots mentions that welcoming is made up of three
parts and that it is only said that focus is to be emphasized
on fundraising, not as exclusive focus. Coordinator’s
specific job is to regulate cluster convenors and to manage
Vensters so that certain residences don’t have to do all the
events.
Mr Louw suggests that Mr Kloppers can be asked to help
explain the matter. :
Mr Steyn asks which events will be taken away and Ms
Roots responds that MAD committee will decide upon the
issue, but Vensters will stay and other events will take
place in cluster fashion. Supervising over coordinator
needs to take place.
Mr Groep mentions that mission, roles and aims need to
be put on paper to avoid unhappiness and friction.
Ms Van Zyl asks that action plan be suggested.
Mr Viljoen suggests compiling a document with clear
outline of responsibilities and changes. Mr Como agrees
that document can be provided. Ms Van Zyl suggests that
an interest group be formed that can take part
11
continuously. Ms Roots mentions that task team will lodge
a motion and give feedback.
Mr Dippenaar mentions that SRC needs representation on
task team to contact MAD HK’s and bodies directly in
terms of working on a vision and mandate.
Mr Como mentions the fact that he was given the
mandate. And that documentation was sent to the SRc and
no one provided inputs. Ms Van Zyl agrees that this is not
the first opportunity that the SRc has had to say
something, but that something is required to work from.
Mr Como mentions unhappiness and the SRc making the
process more difficult with many implications to follow.
Ms Van Zyl ends discussion.
11.
Questions and Varia:
Mr Viljoen mentions deadline tomorrow at 12:00 for
summary of incomes and expenses.
Ms Ferndale asks that communications be sent to houses. Ms
Van Zyl concerned that it is not an effective way of
communication. Mr Dippenaar suggests getting a mailing list.
Mr Shabalala asks that support be shown the weekend at
intervarsity with UCT. Ms Goldbeck mentions that it looks
bad that SRc is not making an effort and that UCT has gone
through extensive measures to ensure Varsity Cup tickets.
Ms Van Zyl mentions the little time left, exam preparation
and uncertainty whether it will work.
Ms Roots mentions SAWIP raffle.
Mr Masuku thanks SU SRc for invites and printer. They will
try to attend events so far as possible and mentions that a
facility will be made available for the SRc meeting.
Ms Van Zyl asks that everyone makes sure the office door is
12
shut properly at all times. Extends term report deadlines to
Sunday evening.
Ms Van Zyl mentions that next meeting will be held at MILAC
and asks that everyone bear in mind that an extra meeting
might be scheduled in first week of next term.
11.
Next meeting:
24 July 2014
12.
Closing:
22:50
13

Download Report