Oh my goodness: soooo cuuuuuuteAli (friend, not prof) was in town the week before last. It was awesome hanging out with him again, if only for a little bit
( Read more... )
If I see you around the MC in the next few days, I'd like to talk with about the meeting with the staff worker. I'm sorry that it didn't go well for you (not that I'm surprised, sadly), but at least you have put forth your thoughts, and that's probably all that we can do for now.
After I graduate this April, I have little intention to have any contact with WCF (apart from the occasional event here and there).
Meeting up sounds good. I'm...... usually in the mc :) If you're bored and around you can check the orangelab or the csc, in general. Or pick a day/time and we can meet up.
You'll have no contact with wcf... but then again, you'll be in seattle methinks, n'est-ce pas?
Just to put it out there, the response from aforementioned staff worker was basically "we're not leaving, so if people don't like IVCF's new vision then they should please leave and form their own club."
I feel pretty crummy about the meeting, but I feel worse about the state that WCF's in, and that I must acknowledge that it's never going to change; not unless the Feds step in on the club's behalf. It's all very sad.
Boy, that sounds familiar.
One problem with the laws governing the clubs at U(W) is that they were never designed to handle large clubs with significant assets (such as CTRL-A and the CSC). Add to that the fact that pretty much nobody, from the Feds right down to individual club members even cares what the rules are or why they should be followed, and what you've got is each club becoming the personal clique of whomever has the strongest personality. That's a bad thing, and it's why clubs have constitutions.
You can try to invoke whatever laws or rules govern the WCF, but as I've discovered multiple times when dealing with the CSC there's no enforcement mechanism for any of them. Unless you're willing to have the Feds disband the club (or oust the exec) for violations of either its own constitution or official Feds
( ... )
Yeah. The WCF constitution has been almost entirely abandoned over the past few years. A year ago there was a push to replace it with something we could actually follow (a lot of the current one doesn't make sense), and a new one was written even, but there was a lot of hush-hush politics about it and most people didn't understand why we needed a new one in the first place
( ... )
Wow. That does sound creepy. This is, for instance, one of the reasons why I was solidly behind the CSC Constitution rewrite to limit exec positions to current undergraduates.
Are these IVCF people Waterloo students? I believe the Feds clubs charter requires club members to be U(W) students. That may be something you can use.
Alternately, they've already thrown the gauntlet - "leave and start your own club". If you go to the Feds and make the case that WCF is being suborned by an off-campus organization, you can get WCF disbanded and then start it up again next year with a Constitution that has some careful exclusion clauses.
Realistically, though, subversion from within is almost impossible for any democratic organization to resist. If the majority of the current voting members of the club are aware of what's going on and don't care, there's very little anyone can do.
The presence of "staff workers" is not uncommon for Christian clubs, here and at other campusses. I don't "get it", but most people in these circles seem to be used to the idea, and even appreciate it, which makes it difficult for me to convince people that we have a problem; it comes down to negotiating the details of a relationship, not the relationship itself.
The staff workers aren't Waterloo students, but two of them used to be at some point. Feds requires that full voting members be UW students -- but, in CSC-style, there can be other types of members. It would even be difficult to prove that the staff are participating as active leaders. They're now tightly involved in suggesting new execs, which now tend to be people who will carry out the staff's suggested ideas. And only the exec knows what's going on behind-the-scenes; noone else can know if there is a problem or not.
Comments 14
After I graduate this April, I have little intention to have any contact with WCF (apart from the occasional event here and there).
Reply
You'll have no contact with wcf... but then again, you'll be in seattle methinks, n'est-ce pas?
Just to put it out there, the response from aforementioned staff worker was basically "we're not leaving, so if people don't like IVCF's new vision then they should please leave and form their own club."
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Boy, that sounds familiar.
One problem with the laws governing the clubs at U(W) is that they were never designed to handle large clubs with significant assets (such as CTRL-A and the CSC). Add to that the fact that pretty much nobody, from the Feds right down to individual club members even cares what the rules are or why they should be followed, and what you've got is each club becoming the personal clique of whomever has the strongest personality. That's a bad thing, and it's why clubs have constitutions.
You can try to invoke whatever laws or rules govern the WCF, but as I've discovered multiple times when dealing with the CSC there's no enforcement mechanism for any of them. Unless you're willing to have the Feds disband the club (or oust the exec) for violations of either its own constitution or official Feds ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Are these IVCF people Waterloo students? I believe the Feds clubs charter requires club members to be U(W) students. That may be something you can use.
Alternately, they've already thrown the gauntlet - "leave and start your own club". If you go to the Feds and make the case that WCF is being suborned by an off-campus organization, you can get WCF disbanded and then start it up again next year with a Constitution that has some careful exclusion clauses.
Realistically, though, subversion from within is almost impossible for any democratic organization to resist. If the majority of the current voting members of the club are aware of what's going on and don't care, there's very little anyone can do.
Reply
The staff workers aren't Waterloo students, but two of them used to be at some point. Feds requires that full voting members be UW students -- but, in CSC-style, there can be other types of members. It would even be difficult to prove that the staff are participating as active leaders. They're now tightly involved in suggesting new execs, which now tend to be people who will carry out the staff's suggested ideas. And only the exec knows what's going on behind-the-scenes; noone else can know if there is a problem or not.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment