1

MINUTES OF THE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH

HELD ON 24 JULY 2014 IN AT THE MILITARY ACADEMY AT 20:00

IN ATTENDANCE: MJ Dippenaar, Michelle Bezuidenhout, Altus Viljoen, Willem Steyn, Tosca Ferndale, Chrisna Robbertse, Joshua Chigome, Willie Ross, Wayde Groep, JC Rademeyer, Courtney Roots, Samual Arendse, Bongi Marvin Shabalala, Sifiso Masuku, Marius Louw

ABSENT WITH REASON:

ABSENT WITHOUT REASON:

OTHER ATTENDANTS: Brandon Como, Maxine Bezuidenhout, Marguerite Roux (minute taker), DISCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION: MOTIONS/ACTIONS 1. Opening:

Mr. Dippenaar opens meeting at 20:00.

Appreciation is shown for the effort that was made to drive to MILAC to accommodate Mr Masuku who often drives through to Stellenbosch Main Campus.

1.1 Minute of Silence for Prof Botman

Every one may take a few moments to think of and remember prof. Botman.

None

Moment of Silence

2. Welcoming and Personalia

The meeting attendants are encouraged to keep it short and concise.

None

3. Approval of Previous Minutes

SRC Meeting 8 May:

Ms Ferndale approves

Mr Arendse seconds approval

Executive Meeting 12 May:

Mr Viljoen approves

Mr Rademeyer seconds approval

Executive Meeting 21 July:

Mr Ross approves

Mr Dippenaar seconds approval

None

4. Items from the Minutes

SRC Meeting 8 May:

P2. Feedback 6.1. PK Task team: Will be discussed.

Executive Meeting 12 May:

Mr Dippenaar apologise on behalf of Ms Van Zyl for her absence and confirms that she will attend to what has

Mr. Ross hands out relevant document

2

to be done.

Executive Meeting 21 July:

Research and Innovation Liaison will be discussed

5. Setting of Agenda

SRC Feedback Session (9.3)

None

6. Feedback

6.1 ABR (Ms Robbertse)

Ms Robbertse apologises for her absence from the afternoon’s activities.

The writing of a new toelatingsbeleid (admissions policy) is underway and will very likely take effect in 2016.

Interviews for a new SSVO chairperson took place in the past week and a candidate has been selected. The announcement of the new candidate will take place in the following week.

Discussion of time table changes due to criminal activity in the 1st semester has been put on hold due to the death of the rector. Discussions will proceed in the following week after which it will be taken to the senate. It is still unknown whether this matter will be approved before January.

ABR Election will take place soon

6.2 Library Committee (Mr Arendse)

Mr Arendse gives feedback on the library committee meeting that took place on the 16th of May.

The Library Committee has to decide when to buy material for the following year.

The Digital Fair is coming soon and the research week will take place from the 4th till the 8th of August.

The library committee has finished their self-archiving report.

6.3 Sustainability Summit (Mr Steyn)

The World Student Environmental Network Summit took place form the 30th of June to the 6th of July. Mr Steyn had the privilege of helping to organize the event. They asked for feedback and students from all over the world replied.

The summit takes place in a different country every year with the purpose of compiling a document to represent the student perspectives and encourage possible initiatives.

In Stellenbosch the students were accommodated to Amazink, Spier wine farm, the Eco Village and to see the biodiversity of Jonkershoek. An American summer school took place at the same time therefore the two groups had the opportunity to get together and share ideas. There were also workshops and talks where each delegate had to share a project from their own university. There was furthermore an expo and a tree planting

None

3

day in Kayamandi.

All projects and documents accumulated through the summit is still being processed and will then be compiled into a document.

Mr Steyn opens the floor for questions:

Mr Chigome asks whether it would be possible to have the summit every second year for example. Mr Steyn answers that it would not be possible since it is hosted by a different country each year.

Mr Dippenaar asks if there is a way of ensuring that new ideas are implemented. Mr Steyn argues that it would be difficult because of the selection of a new committee for the following year.

7. Statutory Bodies and Portfolios None

8. Items for Decision None

9. Items for Acknowledgement and Discussion

9.1 Prim Committee Motion (Mr Ross)

Mr Ross introduces the discussion by suggesting that there will be talked about specific aspects of the PK proposal. He also mentions that under his discretion amendments will be made based on the SRC’s recommendations. He will then take the discussion back to PK and only after that the SRC will be able to vote yes or no.

Mr Ross explains that point 3 must be in the motion while the rest is simply serves as information. For example point 2 is merely a recommendation.

Under point 3 there are three requirements that constitutes the proposal. Mr Ross systematically works through these three requirements A, B and C. Point A refers to the leadership experience of the applicant, point B to the academic requirements and point C to the 200 signatures that has to be collected in order to apply.

Point B is not to be amended while point A and C can be discussed.

Mr Dippenaar suggest that the discussion proceeds from A to C. Where after Mr Ross reminds the meeting that point B is not under discussion. Mr Dippenaar mentions that the paragraph underneath that point is problematic and Mr Chigome asserts that it will cause a massive loophole. Mr Dippenaar suggests that the discussion starts at A.

A:

Mr Louw comments that the criteria for an applicant is unclear. Mr Ross takes the point.

Ms Ferndale mentions that the leadership positions listed excludes certain other positions that are also legitimate. For example society leaders who are highly efficient. Ms Ferndale

None

4

raises her concern that this might cause people to run for HK for silly reasons. She also asks what about rotary which is not listed either. Mr Chigome emphasises the support of the loophole.

Mr Steyn asks if the speaker of Student Parliament can be added to the list upon which Mr Ross agrees that it is a valid position.

Ms Robbertse remarks that academic records in terms of societies’ council and mentors must also be taken into account. Mr Ross validates the point but raises concern about where to draw the line. He explains that LLL is not included either but is it ‘worthy’ (he voices his concern with using the word ‘worthy’)

Mr Viljoen also asks about the combination of positions like student parliament and executives. Mr Ross explains that it is sub minimum, meaning that everything can be listed, but there will be strong preferences.

Mr Groep explains that there is a fine constitutional line to draw on a national level. If anyone feels discriminated against or that their position is unworthy it can become problematic for the SRC and the university. He asks whether anyone is indeed being discriminated in the proposal as it stands and simultaneously he questions who might be in charge as deeming a position worthy. It is important not to take the freedom from the student populace to vote for who they regard as worthy.

Ms Ferndale supports this comment and asks why some positions are deemed unworthy. She mentions that it is important to clarify the reason for the criteria and what the criteria entails. In other words what makes a leadership position worthy? As an example she explains that there must be definite reasons for LLL not being on the same level as HK. Mr Chigome mentions that LLL students might have served on HK already and a general utterance is made that that is not necessarily the case.

Mr Dippenaar asks how one can recognise who the better leader is. He stresses that the decision must be made carefully and thoroughly. Perhaps all people should be included and if not, why not.

Mr Ross opens the floor for any new issues.

Mr Viljoen says that one should not only think about making it exclusively for portfolios. Instead one should encourage students to join in and run for positions in order to promote leadership.

Mr Dippenaar allows three more points and asks that a conclusion be drawn after that.

Mr Ross asks to take one step back and discusses the theme of the proposal which is to change the perception of the SRC. To create an incentive for top leaders to run for SRC. He explains that information has been gathered from other universities in order to do the above mentioned. He explains that he had the feeling the list was being approved. He regards the good

5

suggestions like adding LLL and affirms that it can be added to the list. He explains that the second paragraph is there however, to stipulate that the position is not exclusive. Anyone can run for SRC without the background of a leadership position and in that way the listed leadership positions simply becomes a hurdle to overcome.

Mr Ross continues to explain that he is in favour of an election committee instead of a single election convener in order to lower the hurdle a little bit for the applicant. One does not want to turn people down, this is simply a possible road to becoming an SRC member; therefore the perception of the SRC changes.

Mr Louw mentions that if SRC sub-committees were to be considered as an addition to the list, one has to take into account that all sub-committees are structured differently, some have project leaders, others not. Or sometimes project leaders have more power or authority than others. Mr Louw further asks Mr Groep about his point on freedom.

Mr Groep explains that it boils down to the same idea as applying for a job; if a person has extra qualifications it doesn’t mean that no one else can apply. The problem is a HK member or a person with no positional leadership history can both fulfil the requirements in terms of signatures and Hemis, but the person with no positional leadership history still has to write another motivation as well. In other words some people can apply with fulfilling requirements on fewer categories than others.

Ms Roots replies with an explanation of the importance of academic requirements in order to protect the student’s academic success. If the student is struggling without a leadership position there will be an even greater struggle with the extra workload to attend to when elected for the SRC. She further supports Mr Ross’s point that the list is not exclusive and Mr Louw she explains that the applicant must simply have some sort of leadership background.

Ms Ferndale raises a concern about subjectivity in the measurement of leadership. Mr Ross appreciates that point but explains that that is why people in leadership positions enjoy discretion. They represent a certain body and have the discretion to make a decision on behalf of that body. One should be able to trust a good leader’s decision.

Ms Ferndale sketches a case study of two Heemstede girls having to decide and the subjectivity that revolves around a decision as such.

Mr Steyn raises a point about the requirements in A and whether one has to have institutional knowledge. Because then an exception would not make sense. Ms Robbertse argues that knowledge will benefit the SRC more. She suggests that one can list leadership positions that fulfils the requirement of institutional knowledge. Anyone without a position can still

6

apply then but has to motivate why they think they have institutional knowledge. That will then justify the application.

Ms Ferndale puts forth that everything can be learned over a period of time, upon which Mr Ross states that the SRC will not benefit from a member who is only truly ready for the position by the end of his/her term as SRC member. The SRC need people who are ready at the beginning of their term i.e. that has institutional knowledge at the beginning of their term.

Mr Groep argues that one can’t work with the premise that people in leadership positions (like mentors and HK) have institutional knowledge. He testifies that he has seen mentors etc. who do not have this type of knowledge. The question is how the SRC encourages people. A person who meets all the requirements but had no previous leadership position can be shown away. A strategy has to be worked out to attract quality type people and encourage them to apply. Leadership can’t be measured.

Mr Dippenaar suggests that one looks at the beauty of democracy. It is important not to exclude anyone.

Ms Ferndale explains that it is necessary for voters to understand the attributes and competencies that is required to be an SRC member, because it is difficult to vote for competence if one does not know what the SRC does.

Mr Louw emphasises that the handing over period must be taken more seriously. One has to recognise what values and dreams need to be communicated to the new SRC. Don’t just drink coffee with the new members but convey the ideals of the SRC and what the SRC regards as important.

Mr Viljoen suggests that ideas get passed on to Mr Ross and then when there is decided on a motion it can be voted in or out. This will simplify the process.

Mr Dippenaar closes the point and moves on to point B and C.

B:

Firstly Mr Dippenaar replaces the sentence “…can apply to cluster convener…” with “…can apply to election convener…” He secondly points out the difference between academic and residence hemis. Ms Maxine Bezuidenhout talks about the case of special students and those who change courses that don’t get Hemis. Mr Ross explains that they are simply trying to replicate the current position and put it in this motion. Mr Dippenaar states that this point will then be discussed when it is documented correctly.

C:

Mr Ross says that they received positive feedback around the 200 signatures idea. Ms Roots asks how many students there are.

Mr Dippenaar questions whether getting 200 signatures at

7

Stellenbosch University will have the same purpose as at other universities since Stellenbosch is not a politically affiliated university. He asks what about 100 as a random suggestion. Then the applicant still reaches enough people.

Mr Ross accepts that a 100 signatures make sense in this context. He further holds that one must recognise the value of giving another person a signature which generates an atmosphere of interest in the SRC election. Signatures get people involved.

Mr Chigome asks Mr Dippenaar to repeat his last point and the discussion then moves on to Mr Rademeyer who asks what the purpose of the signatures are. Is it a dual purpose of getting people involved and not only getting enough signatures? It is easy to get many signatures in a residence or a place with many people so as a sole purpose that does not seem efficient.

Mr Ross explains that the purpose is firstly to get student backing and secondly to act as marketing strategy.

Ms Robbertse supports the notion of getting 200 signatures. While Ms Ferndale asks whether there will be someone checking the legitimacy of the student numbers and signatures. Mr Ross suggests a random selection check-up and explains that one does not have to check every single signature.

Mr Chigome also agrees with 200 signatures as he believes that without that kind of support the candidate won’t get on the SRC anyway. He also agrees that getting the signatures will create far better awareness.

Mr Groep points out that in the past with only 10 signatures or names one can recognise who have been endorsed by people and one can look at the calibre of the people since there are only a few. In other words in the past the ten names have been key.

Mr Ross disagrees and gives an example of someone who does not know the chairperson of the SRC Mr Dippenaar. In other words the average student, according to Mr Ross, couldn’t care less about who endorses the candidate. Mr Chigome also regards Mr Groep’s point as invalid as he applied with the names and signatures of his closest friends. Mr Louw says that it would save time.

Ms Ferndale asks what would happen if a candidate applies and fulfil the requirements of two of the criteria but get shot down on the last; for example if they get the 200 signatures but don’t get Hemis. How would a candidate know that they are cleared to carry on with the application process, because a person only gets told that (s)he is a valid candidate after submitting the form.

Mr Ross states the candidate will be eligible if they fulfil all the requirements.

Ms Robbertse asks whether the application form has space for

8

the signatures or whether the signatures must be collected separately. Mr Ross answers that it is all together.

Ms Maxine Bezuidenhout says that all students have access to someone who can work out their Hemis for them. Ms Roots affirms that the candidate must be informed about their Hemis upon which Ms Robbertse explains that they are in the process of having an academic record and hemis available.

Mr Dippenaar closes the point and Mr Ross thanks everyone for the discussion and declares himself available for discussion until the following meeting.

Mr Dippenaar asks Mr Groep about the concerned expression on his face. Mr Groep replies that he is afraid that the point is not being discussed to its fullest now and that it will have to be voted in at the following meeting to be in time for the referendum. The topic must be wrapped up properly in the current discussion.

Mr Ross says that he will make the changes to the document and send it to everyone by the upcoming Sunday. Feedback is then welcome for a week and a half. He encourages everyone to take part in the discussion but also reminds the meeting that he is in the position to make amendments.

9.2 Research and Innovation Liaison (Mr Dippenaar)

Mr Dippenaar explains that every leg of the university management has a leg that works with the topic at hand. He mentions the examples of Student Success and ABR etc. etc. Mr Dippenaar has worked with the innovation leg and he suggests that the SRC has a member that works directly with innovation in order to promote it. Mr Dippenaar asks for input.

Mr Viljoen asks if it would be a management role and Mr Dippenaar says that it can even be included under Student Relations. The most important thing is to promote that relationship. Mr Groep suggests that it can be a committee to liaise with instead of being the direct responsibility of an SRC member. Mr Louw states that it is important that it falls under a portfolio where it can be held accountable.

Ms Ferndale suggests that it would be difficult to put the responsibility on a liaison portfolio and that it must be given to a portfolio that the SRC already has. Especially in the beginning to piggyback on something else.

Ms Michelle Bezuidenhout says that the SRC has to talk to prof Cloete to make sure that it is not a useless portfolio. One also has to clarify the goal of the portfolio.

Mr Louw says that it must be a portfolio that communicates to other portfolios in order for everyone to buy in. Mr Groep agrees that the role and responsibilities of the portfolio must be very specific. He asks whether the role would be critical engagement or to share information.

9

Mr Dippenaar agrees and says that the importance of the portfolio is indisputable. Therefore expectations must be defined. He further asserts that prof Cloete may have an input. He suggests a consolidating body that collects information to a central space and then distribute it.

Mr Ross says that it would be fantastic if it could be launched through SRC channels and that it is a wonderful innovative idea and a good suggestion.

Mr Dippenaar will get back to the SRC about how to launch the idea to students. He deliberates that it might event become an incentive for someone interested to run for SRC.

9.3 SRC Feedback Session (Mr Groep)

Mr Groep introduces his point by mentioning that Tosca’s job will be made a lot easier if everyone would share information with her; dates and times are necessary for students to attend event. He continues to state that the quality of the feedback session was not that high and although the time was limited more can be done during that time.

According to Mr Groep the SRC must acknowledge failures along with the success that they have achieved during the year. Transparency is of utmost importance. Mr Groep explains that the discussion should not only be about portfolios but should extend to more serious things that have been discussed throughout the year, because students are unaware of that; students don’t read SRC reports. The SRC must further be firm on what the various portfolios has done and they must evaluate the portfolios. Perhaps two SRC members can be nominated to assess the standard of work.

Mr Groep further questions the possibility of disseminating more information on feedback sessions to the whole of campus in order for students to see what the SRC has and hasn’t done.

Ms Ferndale proposes her plan of making the slides short and rather focussing on discussions and questions in the feedback session. In that way the session does not revolve around the SRC telling the audience things. She further suggests opening a Bonfiire page with the slides and information in order to get feedback online. Thereafter she will write a report on the constructive student feedback.

Ms Ferndale further states that she would like similar feedback at student parliament. The SRC wants to be held accountable and students must be aware of this. She states that there are certain portfolios that need more feedback for example safety. The SRC must choose who gives feedback in order to get the core to students.

Mr Louw states that they must have another feedback session and create a criteria of what is to be said; for example what have and haven’t been done. He continues to say that internal feedback is also important in the beginning and the end of the

10

year. Mr Chigome reminds of the general feedback session in the previous year and explains that the current SRC should have done that before and then an internal feedback session followed by a feedback session on campus.

Mr Ross refers to the feedback session the PK had. He explains that it was more in the line of a heart-to-heart and that unity was created by getting issues out on the table and working through it. This type of session must be done more often. Ms Ferndale mentions that that is what she understood under the buddy system.

Mr Dippenaar concludes that there is a problem with the buddy system and holding each other and ourselves accountable. If a portfolio doesn’t have a high standard or if things are late it is unacceptable. He explains that one cannot fail to pitch up for feedback session. To say that an SRC member will not get their honorarium is not ideal either since there must rather be positive encouragement. SRC members should not be afraid of the feedback session and to be kept accountable. If one has done what one should’ve done there would be no reason to be afraid.

He suggests a possibly radical idea of hosting an SRC Underperform Session to explain what has not been done and for what reasons. The purpose of such a session would be to find solutions from a variety inputs. Mr Chigome continues on that point that the Executive Committee has regular feedback sessions so it is their responsibility to put pressure on the SRC to perform. All in all the SRC has itself to blame.

Mr Louw gives an example of what works well in church: to appoint a ‘negative person’ who’s role is to bash his colleagues.

Ms Ferndale asserts that she will go forward with her plans of contacting student parliament and Bonfiire and she asks that everyone would please send a summary of what they planned on doing and what and why they didn’t. In other words she wants a portfolio recon from everyone. It must further include an explanation of what SRC members still intend to do and a motivation for all of the above. Ms Ferndale then asks if everyone supports her plan.

Mr Dippenaar does not believe that the Bonfiire idea is necessary. He suggests another feedback session instead. He further encourages everyone to focus their recon on what they didn’t do. He explains that more can be gained in that way than through Bonfiire.

Ms Ferndale asks that the recon be sent to her in two weeks’ time.

Ms Roots understands that there are things the SRC did not do, but she encourages everyone to not neglect what they have done. Ms Ferndale agrees that all of this should be included.

Mr Steyn asks if it is not a report if everything is included upon

11

which Ms Ferndale replies that one can copy and paste from the report. The recon is very important.

Mr Louw mentions that funds are not an excuse for failing to do what was planned and Ms Ferndale asserts that that is the reason why she wants the recon.

Mr Arendse asks if feedback can also be given from the statutory bodies.

Ms Robberste explains that it is difficult for the ABR to do the task at hand since everything they are doing is in process. Mr Dippenaar tells her to present the process in that case. Mr Chigome suggests that Ms Robbertse speak to Mr Ross and she will find that it can be done.

Mr Dippenaar encourages everyone to use their planning as a guideline. Ms Ferndale says that it is simply about putting the information on the table.

Mr Groep mentions that Ms Ferndale must give a definite date to hand in the recon instead of asking what time will suit all members. This is important to maintain a sense of professionalism.

But Ms Ferndale is concerned about what she is to do if everyone does not meet the deadline or does not have slides. She asks for suggestions because she honestly does not know. Mr Groep suggests she report it to the chair- or vice-chairperson. He scorns that there must be internal discipline and encourages his colleagues to take the term seriously. He supports the idea of having another feedback session and being really honest.

Mr Dippenaar cuts off the point. Ms Ferndale wants sets the deadline for the recons on the 6th of August.

Mr Dippenaar issues a warning to the SRC and states that feedback sessions must be in line with standards. He holds that slides were insufficient and Mr Dippenaar asks for more effort and better standards at the following feedback session and in the recons.

Mr Steyn asks whether it is realistic to run through everything that has or hasn’t been done upon which Mr Dippenaar asserts that it is expected from the SRC to do so. Mr Steyn still asks whether it is realistic.

Ms Ferndale answers that it will be sorted out but there firstly needs to be information. Mr Dippenaar agrees.

Mr Louw asks if the point in the meeting can be dealt with by the person in control of the portfolio, particularly in the feedback session.

Mr Dippenaar want the meeting to move on.

Mr Chigome makes a suggestion that every person must develop his/her buddy’s recon as a way of keeping each other accountable. But Mr Dippenaar says that it would be difficult.

12

There is a general response that it would be too complex. Mr Dippenaar states that everyone must do their own recon and give it to their buddy to assess.

10. General None

11. Questions and Varia

Ms Michelle Bezuidenhout will keep everyone up to date on sêr tickets. Everyone must check their emails regularly.

Mr Rademeyer markets the Validus cluster event where Tim Noakes will be in Stellenbosch on the 11th of August. He will send information to Ms Ferndale.

Ms Robberste asks to be informed about the rector appointment.

Mr Louw mentions that information is needed on using leftover residence food for food parcels.

Mr Chigome feels that the SRC is getting lazy and encourages everyone to end their term on a strong note.

Ms Roots received an email from Ms Ferndale about the Polytechnic University of Namibia who wants to visit. She has not received any further information but they might be in Stellenbosch the following day. Mr Groep wonders if they haven’t been in Stellenbosch already. Mr Como has also heard of it. General comments are made and a conclusion is drawn that the visit might have happened already. Ms Roots states that she would not be available the following day and that someone must please stand in for her if the visit is to happen.

Mr Ross asks that everyone check their emails for the document that he will send by Sunday. He further asks for continuous feedback.

Mr Groep thanks everyone for coming all the way.

Mr Masuku thanks everyone for coming and announces that he will be attending Mr and Miss Maties so he hopes to see his colleagues soon.

Mr Shabalala asks that everyone supports his event and that perhaps the SRC would like to enter a team for the Enduro challenge since he is having trouble with the relevant HK members and the challenge won’t be successful with only two teams. He asks for support even if there are enough teams. He further mentions that MILAC sports teams are coming soon and he would appreciate it if the SRC can show face and support on that day too.

Mr Viljoen talks about sponsors for every portfolio and that he will send out a meeting request soon.

Mr Rademeyer announces that the cluster convener applications are also open.

Mr Como raises his concern about someone taking his coffee and that he would appreciate it if the person in question would

None

13

tell him afterwards.

Mr Groep asks whether it must be financial sponsorships upon which Mr Viljoen replies that everyone must use their discretion.

Mr Dippenaar thanks Mr Masuku for hosting the meeting. He also asks that everyone will stay up to date with the events taking place and attend accordingly.

He further notes that a committee has been appointed for the appointment of a new rector. The SRC must also appoint to people but the finalising of the procedure is still taking place. This matter will be further discussed at the following meeting or via email.

Mr Dippenaar again thanks everyone for the coming and supports Mr Chigome’s point of standing strong for the last bit. He mentions that there is still enough time; i.e. an entire term and a term to shadow. He asks that everyone encourages people to run for SRC.

Ms Roots asks when the office times will change. Mr Dippenaar states that it is Ms Van Zyl’s responsibility and that it will be discussed with her.

Mr Dippenaar further encourages everyone to check their emails. And closes by thanking everyone for coming.

12. Next Meeting

7 August 2014

None

13. Closing None