>
> Why don't you post the list of proposed amendments to the Union's Articles
> (or whatever they're called)?
I did not write the original article. I kinda thought the header would
make that clear.
> This will help people make informed decisions at Wednesday's meeting.
There are many demands. I do not have them on hand, apart from free gym
access, car parking prices $2 (same as Union members), cutting the price
of food by 20% across the board (so our fees *subsidise* the cafeteria)
and aiming to employ more UTS members.
> As far as I am concerned, the changes are ridiculous because they are
> totally unrealistic. Calling a general meeting EVERY time an amount of
> over $150,000 is involved is just plain STUPID. Freezing cafeteria prices
> for three years is even sillier. Etc, etc, etc.
Why? The $150,000... it's our money. And motions can be amended from the
floor.
> Remember back to '93... the SA opposed the Gym at Sydney Boys, and they
> were outvoted by at least 5:1. Yet, there they were with megaphones, acting
> the part of the noisy minority. The Union requires a petition of only
> 15 signatories before a General Meeting must be called (the sheet I saw
> only contained 12 signatures...) - I wonder why the SA hasn't suggested
> that this is changed so that you only need five!?!?!
Union requires 25 members to sign. The sheet you saw contained both
students and staff as signatories. 25+ people signed the list of demands.
This is not an official SA thing. You do not understand the nature of the
Students' Association. When our membership makes a complaint it is our
duty to investigate. Almost all of the impetus for everything that's
happening tomorrow came from members outside of the Students'
Representative Council or any other SA collective or committee. And as
for that last line... please don't be silly.
> I'm not trying to defend the Union. Nor am I suggesting that changes should
> not be made. Rather, the proposed changes should be of a realistic nature.
> When we show up on Wednesday, we will vote "Yes" or "No" on the proposed
> amendments AS THEY STAND - we will not be negotiating the changes. Thus,
> if there is even only ONE WORD which modifies ONE aspect of the amended
> clause that is objectionable (with the rest of the clause being perfectly
> reasonable), then that entire clause would need to be rejected. More effort
> needs to be put into the construction of the amendments.
I feel (personally) that the changes ARE realistic. That could be why I
am one of the 25+ signatories. As I have said before, motions can be
amended from the floor on the day. I imagine some, or even all, may be
amended. I feel the issue is one of accountability. If Union members can
not get access to what's being discussed, or to Board meeting
minutes/agendas, or what is happening with our money there is a problem.
> Enough said for now.
FOr my part, I would like to see Union members attend the meeting... even
if you think the Union as it is is great... the membership (I feel) needs
to have *some* mention of what's happening... the Board appears to me to
be so out of touch that ANY step towards more information about what it's
doing seems to be in the best interestes of Union members.
Alister
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Alister Air | "People that are really very wierd |
| Information Studies student | can get into sensitive positions |
| University of Technology | and have a tremendous impact on |
| Sydney --==> Australia | history." <==-- Danforth J Quayle |
+----------+------------------+----------------------+-------------+
| http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~baitoven |
+-----------------------------------------+