Student Life Zone (30th October 2014)

David Mendoza-Wolfson (DMW) opened meeting.

Beckie is ill so received with apologies. Anjit is running late but noted as present.

DMW noted minutes from last meeting (4th March) to be circulated via email for approval.

DMW reads report in Holley's absence. Papers included in agenda.
- Notes key points: Safety Bus Tracking, Sexpression Workshops, and Well-being Wednesdays.

Emily queried whether the report is a report as it reads more like a plan.

DMW confirmed that it was submitted as a report but will seek clarification from Holley.

David queried about what Sexpression is.

Sonia details what Sexpression is. A workshop to empower students to make informed decisions about their sexual and reproductive health.

DMW asks committee to research into Sexpression.

Emily reads out report noting specific points. Report held in agenda.
- details of the advertising improvements (better pens and key rings)

- there have been more sign-ups than last year

- Nightline has had to put off one training session because of limited capacity. Seen as a positive but will seek options to improve capacity for the future.

- There were more shifts than last year. They started the year with low numbers so noted commendations to the committee.

- Improvement in the level of detail of calls received. 7 hours.

- Changes to the social secretary which was noted in council minutes.

Emily reads out Nightline plan. 3 distinct sections: Caller engagement, Voluntary engagement, and General plans for the group.
- Caller engagement: detail about how caller can engage, there needs to be a breakdown of the stigma, name the bear.

- Volunteer engagement: more social events, negative enforcement included, launching of a mentor scheme, strike system in place.

- General group plans: open for more shifts, by-law creation, provide greater list of information for volunteer guidance.

David asked how many shifts the Nightline runs.

Emily stated that they ran every night (apart from 1 day) over 3 periods which included Fresher's. Last year they operated a lot less.

David - there is a stigma of Nightline as a suicidal helpline

Emily - there is an element of confusion with our services compared to the work that the Samaritans do. There remains a stigma but Nightline are attempting to break that down and are doing so with sweets over bun fight if you put the number in your phone.

David - is there confusion with Nightline and the University services?

Emily - The differences are that Nightline doesn't follow up on conversations whereas the First Support may.

DMW - could the bear not be named by all students?

Emily - committee decision not to.

DMW goes through introductions from the committee and attendees.

Emily goes through the by-law.

DMW queries 2.4C - agree to member listing but the aspect 'have an interest in joining' is recommended for removal.

Emily - this covers the limbo period between sign up and training session.

David - suggestion to change details to training session

Action for Emily to change 'training session details'

DMW on 2.5 – trouble with those who haven’t signed by-law and are subsequently included in the confidentiality clause.

Emily – this is so that the confidentiality is maintained.

DMW – it needs some change

David – agrees in principle but sees it as quite a formal complaint process.

DMW – suggestion for there to be a change from ‘shall’ to ‘could’

Emily – agreed

*action for Emily to change from ‘shall’ to ‘could’

David queried confidentiality process regarding the above point. Past Nightline member as the main issues.

Emily – issues raised have been changed: error in spellings, committee restrictions, pedantic points as majority, affiliation process matter.

*Action to change AGM to SUSU AGM

Vote on By-law

In favour – 5

Against – 0

Abstention – 0

Charlie explained by-law

Emily queried of the inclusion of 2 non-portfolio details of responsibilities.

Action for Charlie to make suggested amendments (creation of an (h) section).

Vote on by-law amendment

In favour – 5

Against – 0

Abstention – 0

DMW gives committee 2 minutes to look through the paper

David - queried level 2 and the degree to which this cross overs with those in power

DMW - each level is the level before accumulated so you can go straight to level 5. But needs greater clarification.

Emily - questioned what the informal processes are and how this is included in the document.

No explanation provided.

David - the level system is a little vague and doesn't account for minor issues. If they are drunk does it make it worse?

Charlotte - actively choose to be drunk so resultant actions should be disciplined to a greater extent.

DMW - agrees with Charlotte.

David - agrees with Charlotte. However if they do the same incriminating behaviour when sober then is that worse?

Scott - disagrees with the terminology of the scale. Suggests going from small, to medium, to large disciplinary process. There should be a rank of offending behaviour and then put in the mitigating factors.

David - the ranking offences could be: violence, sexual assault, and then harassment. However harassment is not the same in all situations.

Action that there needs to be a referral back that the paper is joint and not inclusive. There needs to be a separation.

David - asked the group if we should be considering the moral fibres of the document? Group agreed.

DMW - there is a lack of clarity. Some issues are not considered and we need to use this as a reflection as it affects us. This rotates as a document on 1 axis, what it needs are 2.

Sonia - suggestion that this needs to link in with other policy documents.

Emily - suggests that this needs to become a wider discussion. Take to Union Council as a sole discussion item.

David - worried that at Union Council it could become a black/white issue. If we could come up with a general sense of our discussion and then this is bought to the floor.

DMW - suggests that this could be achieved and would run through the voice of the chair.

Sonia - suggests that every zone needs to have an open place for that conversation.

DMW - asked committee to share their collective thoughts.

Scott - no more than 3 levels of severity. No fee as it is morally wrong from a membership organisation.

David - encourage culture change.

DMW - remove individual fine 

David - harassment is rife in the evening and night time economy. Mainly linked to sports teams. Severity could be harsher for them.

Emily and Charlotte - agree with David.

DMW - decision to have this conversation outside of this meeting and to have feedback by the 14th November.

 David - suggested that it should have sports involvement.

Action for Beckie to talk to Katie regarding this topic.

 

DMW - explained the need for this role to be formally approved by Democracy. Has already been agreed in principle by the Zone.
Emily - questioned if this role was a voluntary officer.

DMW - would be now but with potential for it to become a student leader. Suggested to hold this item until next SLZ committee.

David - noted that the role would need a larger set of responsibilities if it were to become a student leader.

Zone agreed for it to come through via email for further conversation and a decision.

Agreed to also bring to the next SLZ committee if needed.

 

Item on agenda from Holley but in her absence DMW explains current progress.

- There is a new GPS System that will allow for more data and thus help inform decision making for improvement of the service.

Sonia explains the idea

- working with SUSU TV to create a set of helpful cooking programmes on healthy eating.

DMW - hold this item until the next SLZ committee meeting.

DMW - chair decision to move this item to next SLZ committee meeting.

Charlie to circulate the likely date of the next SLZ committee meeting