This is a site designed to make it easier to take the core of large published reports and allow anyone to comment on them.
The trouble is that for many years NUS was poorly managed, producing £m deficit after deficit with a culture of waste and poor monitoring. In addition "National Executive" meetings naturally wanted to focus on motions and politics rather than the detailed monitoring of budgets and staffing issues. Finance Committee couldn't stop the rot. And when the NEC were advised by their professional internal managers, they almost always rubber stamped the advice with almost disastrous consequences.
I'm confused as to what the purpose of the NUS Board would actually be in this case. On the one hand, it's suggested that the NEC poorly managed NUS's finances. But on the other hand, it's suggesting that professional managers couldn't be trusted with the job either. If so, I don't soo how an NUS Board would solve the problem. You'd still have professional managers making the bad decisions, but students would have even less power to stop them.
Surely the best way to prevent the loss of money from the organisation is to employ impartial auditors. People who could highlight exactly where money is going and not going without any bias as to what they think NUS should be.Posted by Matt Smith on 2008-08-14 16:07:26. Link. Report abuse to firstname.lastname@example.org. Back to the main document list
Implies that there is a need for greater transparency in how the NEC and the professional internal managers work. Addressing the problems in how NEC officers are trained to deal with finances, should have been considered, especially as NUS emphasis the need for SUs to have external training for Student Officers dealing with trustees, staff and agendas.Posted by Emily Randall on 2008-08-30 15:10:42. Link. Report abuse to email@example.com. Back to the main document list