[committee] UCC- Issues from recent minutes

[Thomas Miller]

Committee of UCC,

I send this email because the current committee meeting time is during the time I run Uni tutorials..

I hope that points from my email would be raised at the next committee meeting and I would welcome direct and indirect response.


Objective error in minutes 2016-10-26

Mentioned section only contained Jordan Meerwald, [TFM] mentioned under action items re: snack machine.


Snack Machine

In the past, it has been the instruction of committee to fill the machine regardless of best before dates.

The idea being the products are not actually affected and if someone has an issue it can easily refunded.

I saw a vague mention in minutes of someone complaining? Details please!

What is the current plan for the 'bad' goods? Chris told me to feel free to eat the chips! Is this the official stance?

Why aren't the removed products now left outside the clubroom as a 'help yourself' free reign?


Date for CITS Day

Advertised as 1st Oct, should be 1st Nov?


Prices of sign ups

It seemed to me that the minute did not properly address the fact that:

- some people sign up and never use their dispense money, in which case the club is better for taking $10 rather than $5.

- Given the financial position of the club, this may not be a point of concern.


Regarding adjustment / reiteration to dooring responsibilities:

There have been recent mentions of doorings with regards to 'matters involving hygiene', or 'arguing in the clubroom' or 'scaring off freshers'.

The latter two were under the heading of '2 month warning/next year'

The first however was not. If this is the wish of the committee it ought to be communicated to the door group in a more clear way.

a) by being less vague and defining clearly what is required and why

b) by using the door 'list' (if it has been appropriately deemed working)


Regarding 'lock-out hours'

The only clearly stated problem is "- people sleeping or staying overnight looks poorly towards potential sponsors"

>From this, I can only see sleeping as unequivocally problematic. This one problem could be addressed by simply re-asserting (to all door members, then passing on to the membership)  that the clubroom is not a place for sleeping

Other than this, the rest of the discussion appeared to be regards to things that were:

a) not a problem

b) a suggested solution that did not effectively deal with any stated problem

following discussion with other members both affected and unaffected by the proposed changes, It sounds so poorly thought out, that there must be some ulterior motive.

Specifically the statement " - [CHS]: Should be a gaming overnight lock out" is a targeted response. If you're saying overnight gaming is a problem you should also be saying that day gaming is a problem?


Regarding 'time limits' on computers:

This is something that i suggested to Oscar and a couple others previously, saying "I know that I could dicked over by this as much as the next person, but maybe we should have ~2 hour time limits at times when people are waiting for computers"

I have heard many interpretations on how such a system may be implemented, many of them needlessly drastic.

In the  past i had been laughed at for coming 'close' to a suggestion that members waiting for computers should be in some orderly queue /waiting line (not necessarily physical).

Such thoughts did not gel well with the long standing 'system' that UCC had. Perhaps now is a time when people are keen to try something new.

as such my simple suggestion:

a) a member walking into the room with all occupied computers writes their name and time on the whiteboard.

b) members logging into a computer write their name and time on the whiteboard.

c) If a member has had over a set amount of time they will be asked to give their computer to the top of list a).

many aspects of this whole concept will need to be clearly reasoned and established, including time before members can re-join the list waiting etc.


Regarding 'health' of members

When I hear people talking about being 'responsible' for the health of the members I can sometimes imagine they mean the health of members THEY deem to be unsatisfactory.

Full stop, the health of members is not of concern or responsibility of UCC, rather that is to the persons themselves.


I anticipate that true motives will be made clear in response to this and I look forward to addressing the actual problems when they are made transparent.

Thomas Miller

charcoaldragon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/committee/attachments/20161029/e41ad36f/attachment.htm>