31 July 2006

PSANA EXCO Meeting
Monday 31 July 2006
FABI Square Auditorium

Disclaimer: Please note: the matters discussed herein are the personal views and opinions of the members present at the meeting. They are therefore not the views or policies of PSANA or the University of Pretoria and PSANA and the University of Pretoria therefore do not accept liability for any damages or implications arising from the correctness of the facts stated in these minutes, unless specifically stated.

Present:

• Werner Barnard
• Corlia Hayward
• James Mehl (Chairperson)
• Inger Plaskitt
• Stanley Gololo (University of Limpopo)
• Tebogo Mamahlodi (University of Limpopo)
• Themba Mdaka (University of Limpopo)

Apologies:

• Marelize van Wyk
• Nadina Vasileva

Absent:

• David Kock

1. Approval of Previous Minutes (James)
- The committee asked that the minutes of the previous meeting be sent out with the agenda of subsequent meetings.
- The minutes of the previous meeting were approved (James and Werner)

2. Progress of Postgraduate Student Survey and Some Key Issues Emerging So Far (James)
- The surveys are in the process of being evaluated and a final report is being set up. The report should be out by 7 August and will include a presentation that Werner and James will see on 14 August. We will push to have it distributed to all the students.
- A number of issues emerging so far were discussed.
- A focus group meeting was held last week to allow for an open discussion of the issues arising so far. A few students were invited to this. It was decided a follow-up session was not needed as the information brought up was sufficient and agreed with the results from the survey.
- The students of the Faculty were amongst the majority of respondents + 30%.
- The survey should become a yearly evaluation and not just a once-off in preparation for the HEQC Audit.
- PSANA will spearhead the third phase of the survey, this one being aimed at only the Faculty later this year. The Faculty will serve as a test run for the evaluation of other faculties next year.

3. Final Year Symposium (James)
- Planned for Tuesday 19 September at 13h30 in the Sanlam Auditorium.
- We have set up a proposal that requests Tuks Alumni to sponsor the food.
- Each member must reach his/her school in this regard. Posters will be put up and each third year class must be informed – either by a short 5 minute talk or by using a transparency at the beginning of the class and informing the lecturer concerned.
- A letter will be sent to each Head of Department, Centre and Institute. Each department will have the opportunity to talk to the assembled students for 5 minutes. All departments, centres and institutes will be able to exhibit using the stalls.
- Other sponsors are planned. In the past PPS, Merck and Inqaba Biotech agreed to assist in sponsorship. We will approach them with a proposal (modifying the one already set up for Tuks Alumni). We will also approach Sigma-Aldrich and SASS (Werner).

4. Transparency of PSANA (proposed constitutional amendment) (James)
- On the web the link to the minutes of PSANA meeting just displays the title. We would like to make the minutes available to all interested.
- A disclaimer will be included to absolve PSANA and the University of Pretoria from any implications which may arise.
- Also, anyone who would like to raise an issue may sit in on a PSANA meeting provided the issue is brought to our attention at the commencement of the meeting. PSANA may ban a troublemaker if necessary (someone who just attends to raise issues just because they can). - A link to the minutes will be sent out on biolpost.
- James will email the committee the final draft of the amendment for approval.

5. Proposed PSANA Meeting Attendance Spilt (also a Constitutional Amendment) (James)
- Basically to set up which committee members sit on which meetings of the Faculty.
- Accepted by the committee. The Departmental Liaison Officer (Corlia) will attend the HOD meetings (every 3 or 4 months) as well as the Programme Coordinators meetings (every 1 or 2 months) from now on. James will sit in for the time being too to facilitate the change.

6. Nathouse Feedback (Nadina)
- Nadina was not present so this could not be discussed.
- James will ask her for a report so we can see how they are doing.
- There was a braai last week. We will ask whether they were involved.

7. Webpage Feedback (David)
- David wasn’t present.
- We are changing the layout of the webpage. Currently the front page is based around the different departments. This will be changed so that the emphasis is now on the Schools and the departments in each School. Each school (with a photograph or two) will be highlighted amongst 4 columns with links underneath to each department.
- Marketing of the Faculty suggests a green and white colour change background. We will see if this is possible to include as a background.

8. General

NRF Postgraduate Indaba Presentation (James)
- Inger to draft a presentation for the end of the year for the NRF at UNISA to bring up the issues of the students at the University.
- It was suggested David do the actual presentation. In view of his recent resignation, this will have to be considered.
- The NRF is changing it’s Director so hopefully this will result in attention to the problems we highlight.

ASC Student Input (Werner)
- Werner wrote a letter to question his role at the Appointment Selection Committee Meetings. He may not ask the candidate any questions or vote. The meetings are very long (8 hours) and thus he feels he cannot input sufficiently and it is also a waste of time.
- He is still waiting for a response. In the interim, the Dean confided that the proposal was accepted by the vice-principals so it is on its way to the Chair of the ASC.

Quality Criteria (Werner)
- Werner is currently comparing the Higher Education Quality Committee’s criteria to that of the University’s. This will assist the University in setting up a document that will serve as a mutual agreement between supervisors and students so that each party knows what to expect of each other.
- The documentation of the university is however difficult to come by. This is in itself an issue. It should be easily obtainable by a student.
- He will make a summary and send it to the Quality Assurance Unit. The Dean has also asked for a copy.

SRC (James and Werner)
- There is a Faculty Parliament consisting of 2 members of each faculty which works as a subcommittee of the SRC. We know nothing about them, including what they do or who their members are (including the ones from our Faculty). We should know about them.
- We are also not aware of what the SRC is doing or who the students are from the Faculty that serve on the SRC. We would like to set an example hence the constitutional ammendment above - increasing transparency.

Student Life Committee (James)
- This had been set up by the university to help the quality of life of the postgraduate students.

Tuks Alumni (James)
- Tuks Alumni are willing to help us with social events we plan.