[SSC] SSC Digest, Vol 2, Issue 13
Richard Hall
RHall1 at dmu.ac.uk
Mon Feb 28 12:15:26 UTC 2011
Hi Rosie,
Two interesting points.
1. Location - this has been written as a Lincoln model that other
areas/subjects might utilise, mimic, re-use, re-purpose. Relocation
might be a possibility, but this mirrors the usual HE model - depends on
how the curriculum/learning is constructed/delivered. The
politics/methods of the SSC are negotiable aren't they? So might
Leeds-based study be possible? Needs some thought.
2. Timing - my take was that negotiation is key here too. We are
not looking to mirror usual academic sessions are we? So if we were an
unincorporated cooperative by the summer, one might be able to negotiate
a project/programme/MA-equivalent thereafter. Last week, we discussed
with Charles a plan for contacting "staff", sorting governance, set-up,
membership, attracting "students". We need to sort this so that we can
let prospective interested parties know.
As these issues need more thought, I wonder if we need more than the
monthly meetings proposed at the last meeting? I wonder if we need to
create a issue log, and then aggregate these [e.g. maybe around
organisation/governance, membership issues, curriculum] so that
interested sub-groups can work on them and report back - like the
sub-committee model in the constitution.
Or I might be talking drivel. Happens.
I agree that it has the possibility to be very exciting!!
In solidarity.
R.
From: ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org
[mailto:ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org] On Behalf Of Rosie Sherwood
Sent: 28 February 2011 10:32
To: ssc at lists.aktivix.org
Cc: ssc-request at lists.aktivix.org
Subject: Re: [SSC] SSC Digest, Vol 2, Issue 13
Hello everyone,
I also send my apologies for not making the meeting, currently working
insane hours and based in Leeds.
I know at a discussion on the SSC at the Reimagine the University event
in Leeds a few months ago, the issue of locality was brought up,
including that of potential students. I know that it has been emphasised
that the SSC needs to be tied to a location and a physical space rather
than being another online resource, and I agree completely, but I was
wondering whether there are intentions to keep the SSC as a resource for
the existing Lincoln community or whether members (especially students)
will be encouraged to relocate to be part of it? There were mixed
opinions at the Leeds discussion, but perhaps this has not been
considered an issue so far. I am very keen to be involved in the SSC as
a postgraduate student and I would be more than happy to relocate for
this opportunity, but thought this issue best be discussed first.
Also, do we have any sort of deadline for everything to be sorted by? I
am just thinking about the logistics - people ideally need adequate
advance warning to know whether they can commit to the project and if
plans remain relatively vague until last minute, we may lose potential
members, especially active ones. As someone who moved to Leeds for a
MRes course which never materialised, I'm understandably wary on this
point!
Has a list been drawn up of academics we wish to approach or is this
still being compiled?
This is all looking very exciting.
Best wishes,
Rosie
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:57 PM, <ssc-request at lists.aktivix.org> wrote:
Send SSC mailing list submissions to
ssc at lists.aktivix.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ssc-request at lists.aktivix.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
ssc-owner at lists.aktivix.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of SSC digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Membership types and contributions (Joss Winn)
2. Re: SSC constitution (Richard Hall)
3. Re: Membership types and contributions (Richard Hall)
4. Re: Membership types and contributions (Terry Wassall)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:19:32 +0000
From: Joss Winn <joss at josswinn.org>
To: ssc at lists.aktivix.org
Subject: [SSC] Membership types and contributions
Message-ID: <4D6A4154.2050309 at josswinn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
One of the things we discussed for some time in the pub after the
meeting on Thursday is the need to decide what types of membership there
will be at the SSC and how much we hope/expect people to contribute.
Let's use this discussion thread to work that out. One question that I
think Mike raised was that we might first ask what do we need the money
for?
As for membership types, these might be academic, student, general
supporter, etc. or we might not distinguish between these at all.
As for the amount of contribution, Mike (a Professor), thought it
reasonable to ask that other Profs. contribute between ?300-?500/year or
roughly ?30+ /month.
I think the general agreement at the pub (outside of the formal meeting
when some people were no longer present) was that people should
self-assess their income and pay a fee that was matched to an income
category roughly in line with what Profs. Snr. Lecturers and Lecturers
(and possibly one more level) are earning. Low wage and unemployed would
pay nothing.
So, what do you think about all of this? Please send your ideas to this
thread so we can come to a decision on this.
Thanks very much
Joss
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:46:09 -0000
From: "Richard Hall" <RHall1 at dmu.ac.uk>
To: "ssc" <ssc at lists.aktivix.org>
Cc: CCooke at lincolnshirecda.coop
Subject: Re: [SSC] SSC constitution
Message-ID:
<290C0FAF9352E54EB483CBA4ED12133C026B1CF5 at artemis.LEC-ADMIN.dmu.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
George raises a good point for it drives much of our *politics* and
agenda, and whom we might approach/include. It might also connect into
how we partner with other organisations.
We focused upon the connections between the productive/consumptive
nature of the Centre, the political basis rooted in consensus, and the
emergent nature of our work. That stuff/projects/ideas/objects would
happen/develop over time was, I think, central.
Within our extant economic reality we noted that subs would enable us to
develop our alternative[s], but that we would generally not take monies
out - we might discuss expenses for travel, or employing an
administrator. But perhaps we could swap subs-paid-as-cash for
subs-paid-as-skilss [e.g. auditing accounts, managing membership
database etc.] The main focus of our alternative thinking was, I think,
on higher learning [HE equivalent but not HE in structure, accreditation
etc.], negotiated co-production, and engaging with political
differences. Nigel began this latter discussion when he asked about our
subject scope. I then asked whether our political base/values/objects -
as a scope for our work - might enable, for instance, neoliberals to
join.
R.
-----Original Message-----
From: ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org on behalf of Joss Winn
Sent: Sun 27/02/2011 10:50
To: ssc
Cc: CCooke at lincolnshirecda.coop
Subject: Re: [SSC] SSC constitution
On Sun, February 27, 2011 9:30 am, George Roberts wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Thank you for circulating the draft constitution of the SSC
>
> Drifting off the topic of formal organisation, I have a general
question
> about workers v. consumers co-operatives.
>
> I think workers co-ops have the aim of providing a living (or at least
a
> wage) for their members through the provision of goods and services to
> others (e.g. Infinity Foods of Brighton), while consumer co-ops, which
may
> enable or even require members to work, have the aim of providing
members
> with benefits: goods and/or services on a preferential basis (e.g.
Weavers
> Way of Mt Airey, PA). There are of course many examples of both kinds,
and
> not all to do with food. And, I suppose there is a continuum between
the
> two.
>
> Education (higher or other) is an interesting and challenging
good/service
> to be provided on co-operative lines. If the co-op is to provide a
living
> (wage) for members, this presumes some exchange of value between
members
> and
> others. If "others" are learners, and "members" are teachers, the
> traditional institutional power divide appears to be replicated. If
all
> participants in the co-op are deemed
> learners/teachers/researchers/scholars,
> then there are no "others" with whom to exchange value. The co-op then
> might
> become dependent on third-parties (the state, charities or other
> donor/patrons), or possibly the members themselves, i.e. members are
> required to work for a living (wage) elsewhere. This latter model
either
> replicates the old state-funded "free" education model - students get
> grants, teachers/researchers get wages, or is more like a consumer
> co-operative, where members work for the benefit of the co-op, but do
not
> derive a living (wage) from it.
>
> George
Hi George,
To some extent, this issue was raised at our meeting last Thursday. In
our
case, we're proposing that all members, teachers, students and other
supporting members, assume an equal membership in the governance of the
co-op and that decisions are made by full consensus. This should mean
that
no one person or type of member (academic, student, etc - we've still to
decide what the membership types might be) has any greater power than
anyone else.
The constitution being proposed assumes that no-one will make a wage
from
the SSC. We did discuss the possibility that some roles might receive
payment, although this wasn't discussed in detail and I'm not sure of
the
implications of this. It was suggested that where possible, specific
roles
such as secretary, treasurer, etc. would be rotated, so that no person
remained in the role permanently.
My recollection is that Charles said that if we really wanted to make
the
distinction between what kind of co-op we were, it was closer to a
consumer than worker co-op, but he felt that in the case of the SSC, the
distinction was pretty meaningless. The SSC, at least initially, is a
co-op where members provide services to themselves and what we are
proposing is that members directly fund the co-op from external sources
(i.e. wages brought in from elsewhere). This isn't fixed in stone of
course, and it will be up to the members over time to decide on the
funding model. The advice we received was to initially assume as little
organisational complexity as possible, which is why we're also proposing
that we are not incorporated until we find it necessary.
Someone else at the meeting might recall what else we discussed on this
issue, but it was put to us as a pretty obvious way to proceed
initially.
Your thoughts on this would be greatly valued.
I've copied in Charles (who's not subscribed to the list) in case he
wants
to expand on answering your question.
Best,
Joss
--
_______________________________________________
SSC mailing list
SSC at lists.aktivix.org
https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20110227/8f1d216e/a
ttachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:46:34 -0000
From: "Richard Hall" <RHall1 at dmu.ac.uk>
To: <ssc at lists.aktivix.org>
Subject: Re: [SSC] Membership types and contributions
Message-ID:
<290C0FAF9352E54EB483CBA4ED12133C026B1CF6 at artemis.LEC-ADMIN.dmu.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
1. How much do we need to run the Centre for 20 students per annum?
Costs of renting, expenses, journal subscriptions, library memberships,
stationery, online provision etc..
2. Do we wish to maintain a cash surplus? Why is cash more important
than, say, time in organising, developing curricula, auditing accounts
etc.? Are we in danger of stratifying what does not need to be
stratified?
R.
-----Original Message-----
From: ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org on behalf of Joss Winn
Sent: Sun 27/02/2011 12:19
To: ssc at lists.aktivix.org
Subject: [SSC] Membership types and contributions
One of the things we discussed for some time in the pub after the
meeting on Thursday is the need to decide what types of membership there
will be at the SSC and how much we hope/expect people to contribute.
Let's use this discussion thread to work that out. One question that I
think Mike raised was that we might first ask what do we need the money
for?
As for membership types, these might be academic, student, general
supporter, etc. or we might not distinguish between these at all.
As for the amount of contribution, Mike (a Professor), thought it
reasonable to ask that other Profs. contribute between ?300-?500/year or
roughly ?30+ /month.
I think the general agreement at the pub (outside of the formal meeting
when some people were no longer present) was that people should
self-assess their income and pay a fee that was matched to an income
category roughly in line with what Profs. Snr. Lecturers and Lecturers
(and possibly one more level) are earning. Low wage and unemployed would
pay nothing.
So, what do you think about all of this? Please send your ideas to this
thread so we can come to a decision on this.
Thanks very much
Joss
_______________________________________________
SSC mailing list
SSC at lists.aktivix.org
https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20110227/17a73b78/a
ttachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:57:27 +0000
From: Terry Wassall <T.Wassall at leeds.ac.uk>
To: Joss Winn <joss at josswinn.org>, "ssc at lists.aktivix.org"
<ssc at lists.aktivix.org>
Subject: Re: [SSC] Membership types and contributions
Message-ID:
<D327F9D8FBEF8449A9768C933870D93D019978F3D828 at HERMES8.ds.leeds.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear All
Thanks Joss for sending round the notes etc. so quickly. As I said
before, I am very sorry I was not able to come to the meeting. Sounds
like you had a really interesting discussion. I have just got back from
a weekend in an internet free part of Scotland, practically mobile phone
network free as well. I will try to respond to the emails in reverse
order over the next day or so startng with the first about membershipd
fees/contributions.
There is quite a broad band of professorial salaries, starting not much
above the senior lecture salary. Some profs. also have additional
incomes related to their professorial work. If the prof rate is used as
a benchmark then presumably lecturers A, B, Senior etc. will be
proportionate, say ?80, ?160, ?240 and ?300+. Some more junior academic
staff may be on part-time of fixed term contracts, and so the a varity
of circumstances will need to be considerd and allowed for. Then at any
one time there will be different numbers of students with varying
numbers of them able to pay anything. A general quesion is whether the
'fee's model is likely to be adeqate and equitable.
Many academics might be willing to contribute, their subject expertises,
their materials, their experience of being learners and researchers,
their ability to be facilitators of discussion etc., maybe even their
travel expenses to attend face-to-face sessions. They may not be willing
to pay a fee to do so. One answer to this would be, of course, if they
are not commited enough to the idea and the ethos, then the Centre
doesn't want them. There could be differeing views on this.
I agree with Richard's comments about the need to have some sort of
costing and projections. I guess you could call this, between gritted
teeth, a business plan. This would need some sort of consideration about
sustainability, in terms of finances and objectives, and any obvious
risk factors (for instance, under recruitment of paying students). Have
a realistic idea of what the costs would actually be is another way of
estimating contributions as these could be divided, suitably weighted by
income, across the membership.
As far as 'profit' or a surplus is concerned, I think there may be 2
main reasons for needing this - the financial sustainability of the
Centre for at least 3 to 5 years (to do right by the students who enrol
and to give the project the time to develop and solve the problems and
issues that will arise) and to fund the further development of the
Centre. This may not only be in terms of social science activity. I
understand there has been some discussion of embarking upon other sorts
of activities and services in the Centre that may raise money.
Best wishes
Terry
Dr. Terry Wassall
Principal Teaching Fellow
School of Sociology and Social Policy
University of Leeds
________________________________________
From: ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org [ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org] On
Behalf Of Joss Winn [joss at josswinn.org]
Sent: 27 February 2011 12:19
To: ssc at lists.aktivix.org
Subject: [SSC] Membership types and contributions
One of the things we discussed for some time in the pub after the
meeting on Thursday is the need to decide what types of membership there
will be at the SSC and how much we hope/expect people to contribute.
Let's use this discussion thread to work that out. One question that I
think Mike raised was that we might first ask what do we need the money
for?
As for membership types, these might be academic, student, general
supporter, etc. or we might not distinguish between these at all.
As for the amount of contribution, Mike (a Professor), thought it
reasonable to ask that other Profs. contribute between ?300-?500/year or
roughly ?30+ /month.
I think the general agreement at the pub (outside of the formal meeting
when some people were no longer present) was that people should
self-assess their income and pay a fee that was matched to an income
category roughly in line with what Profs. Snr. Lecturers and Lecturers
(and possibly one more level) are earning. Low wage and unemployed would
pay nothing.
So, what do you think about all of this? Please send your ideas to this
thread so we can come to a decision on this.
Thanks very much
Joss
_______________________________________________
SSC mailing list
SSC at lists.aktivix.org
https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
SSC mailing list
SSC at lists.aktivix.org
https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
End of SSC Digest, Vol 2, Issue 13
**********************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20110228/bcce1a9e/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the SSC
mailing list