It was subsequently agreed to re-visit this decision.
The options under consideration are:
- To retain the roles of President, VP Welfare and VP Academic and have 2 VP's without portfolio.
- To introduce a VP with a Union Development role.
- To retain the roles of President, VP Welfare and VP Academic and have a VP with responsibility for Wheatley campus and a VP with responsibility for Harcourt campus.
3 comments:
As democracy and representation continues to develop and become the focus of the SU and commercial activity and interests take a back seat, is there a need for a Commercial Development Officer at all? Is the post a relic (or will it be by 2011) of the old SU that was distracted and dominated by the activity of its commercial department. I then thought about the communications part of the role and remembering what Jon said in the constitution meeting about the role of a comms officer and the president being very similar. So do we need a comms officer?
Maybe instead we could make use of a Students' Union Development Officer, who champions and pushes forward innovation and development right across the whole of the SU. This officer would be responsible for ensuring that all services reflect what students want, and working with and supporting other officers in the realisation of plans to develop and improve service provision in their areas. An officer specifically for the implimentation of strategies and plans and ensuring that they succeed in delivering the intended benefits.
A further development on my train of thought was do we need portfolios for the VPs?
First thought was possibly not, but i think that we would certainly want to in the Welfare and Academic areas, as this will increasingly be where the Union focusses its energies and is also core Union activity. However what about leaving the other two roles currently CDC and AD, as officers without portfolio so any student can run for any purpose other than that specified in the Welfare or Academic positions?
I would like to hear Antoinette's opinion on the communication role...I think President could incorporate communication of successes and achievements etc...
But would communication form an intrinsic part of the development role? Such as web-based, student media, promoting the current services, seeking opinion to develop services, promote changes to services???
I like the idea of a Development Officer (although the name might need a think...to include innovation? Not sure) - but this role should be defined.
I do not agree with the idea of Officers without portfolios - we all know that each year new Officers come in with different objectives within a specified job role which causes some problems, and I do not think this would fit well with the strategies of the Union. Nor do I think this would be easily communicated to students who do not currently understand Officers with specified job roles. I think there is enough flexibility for Officers, while still providing representation across different areas for Brookes' students.
I would also like to keep an Officer for Societies and other activities...but extend this to specifiy volunteering (lose development so as not to confuse with new Officer role as Jason described)...wonder what Mared thinks? Anything else to be added?
More thoughts...
Where would transport issues go? - to Welfare?
I think that to try and cover all campuses within Officer roles would be a nightmare...and wouldn't be beneficial for students. We need to increase support for representation so that current progress at Wheatley, Swindon and Marston Road can continue for all students and we can focus some more on academic representation at Harcourt. All campuses are included in the academic side of things, and the work of the 'Development Officer' would cover services at all campuses, such as the bar at Harcourt, shop at Wheatley and any outreach programmes etcetera...
Post a Comment