Office allocation procedures well underway
03 September 2010 by Stephanie Calleja
Student organisations which filed an application for office allocation last July are one step closer towards obtaining their office space as KSU has published the result sheet compiled by the Student Organisations Classification Board.
The Student Organisations Classification Board, which has been appointed by the Social Policy Commission (KPS), is composed of the KSU Secretary General and two other members proposed by KSU itself.
Of the 29 student organisations eligible for an office, SDM ranked first with a total of 328 marks, followed by Pulse with 296 marks, and Graffitti, who gained 263 marks. Insite dropped from 4th place (in 2009) to 7th place (in 2010), scoring 174 marks.
Points are awarded to organisations for having satisfied several criteria such as the provision of subcommittee reports, the planning and holding of debates and campaigns, number of attendances to international conferences, as well as the amount of media coverage gotten and produced throughout the previous academic year.
Due to lack of space in students’ house, student organisations which have reached the quota of marks but still ranked low may either have to share office space or might not be given a room at all.
Both the ICT Students’ Association (ICTSA) and the University Student Teachers’ Association (USTA) are not entitled to an office this year, since neither of these organisations submitted an application in the first place.
Following the Board’s reviewing of reports, the final marks will be published on September 9th during the next KPS meeting. This definitive classification will determine the allocation of offices, the allotment of noticeboards, as well as the organisations’ choice of stands for Freshers’ Week.



September 5th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
I have never participated in the Room Allocation Report in previous years but this year I’ve submitted the report on behalf of Greenhouse and we are all over all satisfied with the result though questions with regards to the marking did arise. But, overall we didn’t feel the need to appeal the mark given to us.
What certainly I look forward to is to see if the Annex G (collection of activities and the marks allocated for each) will be publically available to see how a number of organisations got their marks from.