REVISION OF CPUT SRC CONSTITUTION:
Definitions of words and concepts
Page 1 of 10
Section 1
Section 1.3 - after the word “publications” should also be the word “uniforms”.
Section 2
This section should be called “Definitions” in place of Explanation of Terms and should be done in
alphabetical order, i. e. Starting with Act thereafter AGM, thereafter Campus etc. (campus should
include the names of all 5 campuses).
The following words appear in the Constitution but not presently in the Explanation/ Definition of Terms
section.
Student - It is submitted that this should be defined as:
o
any person who has registered as a student at CPUT or has taken part in any university
activity with the intension to register.
Benefits at page 16, at point 6.5.1.9.
-
no definition
Campus Secretary at page 18, point 6.5.5.4 (c). -
no definition
Executive Committee of SRC at page 9 point 5.1.4. -
no definition
CSRC support staff at page 13. point 6.3.3.6.
-
no definition
Organisational report at page 13 point 6.3.3.7. -
no definition
Faculty Council does appear at 2.12 but is silent as to how it should be composed and this
should be described in the Definition of Terms.
Local Housing Committee at page 19, point 6.5.8.3. - also Central Housing Committee needs to
be defined.
Mass meeting/ Student General Meeting/, AGM, are all these the same structures? at page 22
9.2 and 9.2.1.
Structure - Page 22 point 9.3.3. – are these political or student structures or both?
Stakeholders at point 9.3.3 page 22.
-
no definition
Page 2 of 10
CPUT Disciplinary Committee at page 23 section 10, 5th bullet - there’s no definition of the
composition of this Committee or when it needs to be constituted by and / or who should
preside over it. This needs to be addressed.
Recall/ withdrawal/ reshufflement -
no definition - are they all the same concept?
Section 3
3.7 - greater clarity needs to be given
3.8 - the last bullet point should actually be the first.
Section 5:
5.1.2 - who decides on the portfolio distribution?
5.1.13 - Should this two thirds majority of its members to call a “special meeting” also apply to meetings
for a reshuffle?
5.1.14. (c) - “quorum”, this allows full power in the hands of four SRC members and this seems to be
undemocratic
5.1.14. (e) - the word consensus is used, does this mean 50% plus one or everyone agreeing? In the
same paragraph the last words, “shall be recorded in minutes of the SRC meeting” - is this just a
numbers or does it also include the names of the parties?
Section 5.2.1 - in essence this means that one campus could theoretically recognise a student
organisation which another campus may have refused recognition. Is this an acceptable situation?
5.2.2 - “Facilities” are not defined here.
5.2.3 - How often and what would happen if the Local SRC convenes in terms of Section 6.
5.2.7 - more detail is required.
5.2.10 - by whom?
5.2.11 - how often?
Page 3 of 10
5.2.13 - two thirds majority of LSRC member needed to call a special meeting - to do what?
5.2.14 (a) - how should notice of the meeting be given, in what form?
5.2.14 (e) - consensus? is this majority or everyone agreeing.
Section 6:
See Annexure A, page 2, where the composition includes Faculty representatives - they are not included
here!
6.2 - portfolios of the Central SRC do not include a Judicial Portfolio, should this not be addressed?
Should Housing not have its own representation on the Central SRC elected from
amongst the primarius? (primarii).
6.3.1.2 - Is it only the President and should he or she alone have this power? Should not all Committee
Representatives be nominated already at the beginning of their term of office?
6.3.1.3 - What if the President is ill?
6.3.1.4 - What time frame?
6.3.1.5 - Who delegates the SRC members and how does this choice take place?
6.3.1.6 - Should not this membership be shared between other SRC members?
6.3.1.7 - Should there not be two persons involved here? Proposal is that the Treasurer’s signature
should be mandatory to all transactions of the SRC - and that an official of the University is custodian of
all the SRC funds.
6.3.1.10 - How is this accountability going to be enforced?
6.3.2.3 - A time frame is necessary for the setting up of the Disciplinary Committee, furthermore, who
should set it up? What format and composition?
6.3.2.5 and 6.3.2.6 - Who do these Sub Committees consists of and who sets them up? This needs to be
stated.
Page 4 of 10
6.3.3.1 - How does this power fit in with the President and the Deputy President’s powers?
6.3.3.7 - To whom must this be reported to and by when? Time frames need to be set.
6.3.3.8 - By when? Time frames are necessary here too.
6.3.4 - How often? Time frames need to be set.
6.3.5.2 - Time frames need to be set.
6.3.5.4 - When? Time frames need to be set.
6.3.5.6 - When? Time frames need to be set.
6.3.5.7 - Date should be set here.
6.3.5.8 - Assisting of who, how many people and when should they sit?
6.3.5.9 - From whom should these resources be lobbied?
6.3.6.4 - Should this Transformation Officer not be person that sits in the Tender Committee?
6.3.6.6 - Time frames need to be set.
6.3.7.2 - Does this portfolio also include legal?
6.3.7.3 - When and how shall these campaigns take place?
6.3.7.4 - Should read for instead of of.
6.3.7.8 - Time frames are necessary.
6.4.3 - Why should it be necessary that the Executive Committee take decisions without the rest of the
SCR being involved?
6.4.6 - This would mean that only four SRC members would be able to make decisions.
6.5.1.9 - This indicates that the Faculty Chairperson is not already a member of the Local SRC, there
should therefore an indication as to how they are elected.
6.5.2.2 - If the LSRC President is hostile and refuses to preside over a meeting, it would mean that no
meeting could take place.
Page 5 of 10
6.5.2.9 - Compare this with 9.3. This section would seem to indicate that there should be GSC (General
Student Council) meetings on every campus, which is correct.
6.5.2.11 - Time frames are necessary here.
6.5.5.5 - Time frames are necessary.
6.5.5.7 - More clarity needs to be given here.
6.5. 6.3 - Time frames necessary.
6.5.6.4 - Which committees?
6.5.7.1 - What of the powers of the Deputy Secretary General? See page 13.
6.5.8 - Should the residence students not vote directly for their own local SRC representation from votes
taken from Residence?
6.5.8.5 - Who are the relevant stakeholders here?
Section 8:
All of Section 8 is unclear.
8.1 - In what way should the SCR be able to challenge decisions of the Student Code of Conduct?
8.3 - What are these privileges? Where are they defined?
Section 9:
9.1 - The AGM should be given a times frame - first term?
9. 2 - Who will chair the General Meetings, who will attend? Should an Agenda be drawn up?
9.2.7 - the word “voters”, does this mean students?
Page 6 of 10
9.2 - The General Student Council, why is this listed under meetings of CPUT SRC - should this not be a
separate chapter?
9.3.3 - The word “structure” - does this indicate that if they are both PASMA and SASCO structures that
each has two delegates? Also the clubs and societies should be listed.
9.3.4 - What is to happen if they are dissatisfied with the recommended budget?
9.3.5 - The word “affiliated” - does that mean delegated?
9.3.5 - What is the consequence if a member is absent without an apology?
9.3.7 - What does happen when the meeting is not convened by the SRC? - who chairs?
9.4.1 - At the request of either the Central SRC or Local SRC?
9.4.4 - The word “may” should be replaced with “must” and in this way a hostile President would
nevertheless be required to host a meeting should the majority of the SRC require it.
9.4.7 - This is a request to university members, what if a university member refuses?
Section 10:
Section 10 speaks of the SRC being governed by structures, the Central SRC Disciplinary Committee and
the Local SRC Disciplinary Committee. There is no indication of how either of these is to be set up or
who will serve and what the format should be. This needs to be addressed.
Section 11:
There is a problem here with the word and the concept of “registration”. If a student leader has not yet
registered, he/ she is consequently not a leader and should therefore not be allowed to represent
student interests at the time of registration. The indication should be given that at first registration, the
rights and duties are carried over until the student finally leaves the university. See my suggestion on
section 2 page 1.
Page 7 of 10
11.1.1 - The word “registered” should be replaced by the word “passed”
11.1.2 - 50% seems low, should this not be increased to 60%.
11.1.3 - Should this criminal sentence not also be modified to read “suspended sentence”?
11.1.13 - Speaks of non eligibility on “serving a criminal conviction” of the South African Law courts and
CPUT Disciplinary Committee.
The CPUT Disciplinary Committee does not pose “criminal conviction”. This should read “having
received a sanction other than a verbal warning”.
11.2.1 - Here again the problem of later registration plays part.
11.2.3 - The word “consecutive” should be removed.
11.2.4 - How is such a finding to be made? Who is to chair this?
11.2.5 - Should also be tempered by inserting after offence “other than a verbal warning”.
Section 12:
12.2 - How should this take place”?
12.4 - “Principles of co-operative governance”, this should be specified.
Section 13:
A method needs to be developed which prescribes the exact procedure for reshuffling and the concept
of discretion be removed.
Section 14:
An exact procedure needs to be set out for the establishment of this Disciplinary Committee together
with time frames.
Page 8 of 10
14 (b) - this is vague, it needs to be discussed.
Section 15:
Because it is limited to Local SRC approval, it could mean that there are different student bodies on
different campuses, is this what is intended?
15.7 - What happens in the case of a stalemate when the SRC and the head of students have a
difference of opinion? Should they appeal to the VC or Council?
Section 16:
16.2 - Why and for what purpose is the minimum necessary and to who and why is this money paid?
16.7 - Is the appeal here to Council?
Section 17:
17.1 - After the word “SRC” the word “in” should be inserted and the word “uphold” should be replaced
with “constitute”
17.3 - Third last line “sufficient evidence” - what constitutes this? in whose opinion must it be
sufficient?
17.2 - Why should this be on structure or party lines?
Section 18:
18.1 - After “entire student community, the word “who” should be inserted. Is this the most efficient
way to amend with? What about management input?
18.2 - Describe how
Page 9 of 10
18.4 - it must be remembered that Council approval is necessary, so some input from management/
Executive Management would be probably be useful.
ADDENDUM:
Section 10 of the Election Diagramme deals with bi-elections and inconsistency is reflected herein, in
that no “bi-election” is required in terms of 10.3, which states mainly that when a vacancy exists, the
vacancy will be filled by a student who was on the candidate list of the CSRC. The power here lies in the
hands of the structure. Is this what the intention is?
Page 10 of 10