\

THE CADRE,MARCH 27,1973", PAGE 6

AN ORGANIZATIONAL V STU-[TY 6F TFIE' PEI STUEE

u * , NT UNION

This study is an attempt to analyze the Student Union,

its formal organizational structure, and the effect- iveness of this structure. In this study we will point out some of the strengths and weaknesses of the present structure and suggest some alternatives which we feel would eliminate some of the structures inherent weakness— es.

.The present Student Union has been in existence since 1969 and presently functions under the constitution which was re- vised in 1973. This constitut- ion set forth the following positions:

A.President--role; official spokesman of Student Union, responsibilities: the direction of all Student Union activit— ies.

Vice-President—- role: res- ponsible for co—ordination of the activities of the union and sub-organizations.

Treasurer—- responsible for financial administration.

Comptroller—- responsible for all physical assets which are student-owned or controlled.

Communications Officer—— res- ponsible for C.S.U.R., Cadre, student directory, promote communications between sub- organizations. '

B. Council—- consists of the ex- ecutive (as outlined above)

plus equal representation of faculties taken from populat- ion of faculties.

-- purpose of cuncil, to provide for the expenditure of funds

and generally to manage the affairs of the S.U. (all sub- organizations) are responsible to council.

C. Committee Membersé- purpose . ‘u..‘l.'n- 3- -i'.«. -

Science Dept Student Reps

sector of student activity i.e. film club, Cadre, etc.

D. Speaker-- interpret constit- ution, sets by-laws subject to the S.J.C. and enforce the 7 rules of parliament according to Roberts' rule cf order.

E. Students-— will be defined as Student Body and shall be referred

to as the UPELSU, as a body they shall have the power to elect as well as to recall members of the executive.

Deviations from Normal Organization Structure

The preceding represents the formal organizational structure. However, in actual practice, by means of personal interviews with the execut- ive members, we have found the £011- owing variations:

A. Power Structure-— As we have noted above the council has the theoretical power of control over the student union, however, through our sample survey we have discovered that 54%

of the students feel that the execut— ive controls the Union. This was further supported by personal inter- views with the past council executive members who supported the notion that they in effect control the student union. N.B.-- Several executives feel that in essence in operations, the student union is controlled by the most dominant individual . (This will be further elaborated upon in a latter'part of the report.)

B. Communication—— The formal structure indicates that students with problems should theoretically report to their representatives.

In actual practice the trend appears to be towards students avoiding the

’bureaucratic structure and communicat

—ing directly with the president who then acts upon the issue.

C. Business Manager—- the organization chart makes no reference to the Busin- ess Manager. Although still in pre- liminary stages as npted bykthe;past executive, the_new”executive’are seek— ing advice not from the leaving exec-

P'eSIdent Proposed Structure Treasurer 1 Arts _ 1 Science _ 1sEducation' Representatlve Represetatlve ljflgsentative

Education Dept Student Reps

This indicates that a trend could be developed in which the Business Manager

I would be an informal leader and have

the actualfcontrol and power of‘the Student Union. ’

D. In summary, therefore, the formal structure is meaningless in terms of practical function. The Communication Channels are discarded and replaced with direct lines to the president which could in the future discard the president and be replaced by the Business Manager.

PURPOSE OF S.U.

By means of the question— ~ naires, we have found the following concerning the purpose of the Student Union:

A Social 12%, B Academic 4% C Protection of Student ‘ Rights ‘ . 44% A¥B Social and Academic 4%

B¥C Academic and Rights ' 7% AfC Social and rights _ 5% A¥BfC Social-Academic—Rights 24%

By means of personal interviews with the executive we have found the

following: ‘ ’ 80%

Social and student rights Academic, Social and Student Rights 20%

Thus, the majority of students and the executive feel that the prime function,

of the student executive is the protect-

ion of student rights. Student rights shall be defined as all areas of life which either directly or indirectly affect the student.

General Weaknesses of the present form:

1. Members are elected:—— This seems

to be a contradiction to the democratic system but it is the belief of many students that elections held at UPEI are nothing more than popularity con— tests with the individual's capacity to do the job ranking second to the individual's social achievement.

2. Location of Cffices:-f The offices} of the executive are located'fidtéihithe

M'Il.l ., r _

student building bfit*in?théfflaé&fi§fitlpii

g 0 P

€05”

D '0 H. H- I n . . u

marmrrbeb

J a p

C0

st of be pa

en

er fr or wh wh de b0

Co 1e an- pd ur tn

eit co ca

are thu mar of

am ive the

whe tha Fro min tai ect EFF NON DON BOT N.B dra cat Pr” ins iff GoW If occ the 1. an ble

.355 7rd?

SUI