Minutes

Name of Committee Union Council
Date and time 8th December 2014, 18:00
Place The Senate Room, Building 37
Present Members
(voting)
Chair of Council Ben Morton
President David Mendoza-Wolfson
Physical Sciences & Engineering Faculty Officer Giles Howard
Vice President Democracy and Creative Industries Megan Downing
Vice President Education Sophia D'Angelico
Humanities Faculty Officer William Cable
Vice President Student Communities Anjit Aulakh
Wessex Scene Editor Tahlie Cooper
Surge Radio Station Manager Hannah Mylrea Hemmings
Union Councillor Steven Osborn
Post-Graduate (Taught) Students Officer Ed Baird
Post-Graduate Officer (Research) Ioan Alexandru Barbu
Engineering and Environment Faculty Officer Shruti Verma
RAG Officer Jenny Bortoluzzi
SUSUtv Station Manager Joanna Sheldon
Intramural Officer Jamie Wilson
Clubs and Societies Officer Chris McGeehan
National Oceanography Centre Officer David Allwright
Ethical and Environmental Officer Lydia Butler
Vice President Welfare Beckie Thomas
The Edge Editor Rebecca James
Performing Arts Officer Anna Kent - Muller
Vice President Sport Development Katie Lightowler
Nickola Moore
Business and Law Faculty Officer Stephanie Kritikou
Equality & Diversity Officer Sam Bailey
Union Councillor Alexander Howard
Social and Human Sciences Faculty Officer Rhys Thomas
Union Councillor Catriona Philip
Vice President Engagement Ellie Cawthera
Union Councillor Frazer Delves
Scott Mccarthy
Union Councillor Xiaofan Shao
Absent with Apologies Student Enterprise Officer Catherine Williams
Union Councillor David Wikramaratna
Union Films Cinema Manager Sophie Isherwood
Wellbeing Officer Holley Barclay
Union Councillor Megan Webster
Absent without Apologies Union Councillor Indrajit Naskar
Union Councillor Vansha Sethi
International Students' Officer Shailesh Agarwal
Halls Officer Frankie Mouat
Southampton General Hospital Officer Leo McCormick Matthews
Union Councillor Umang Rajdev
Sports Participation Officer Christie Matthews
Medicine Faculty Officer Bobby Bullingham
Union Councillor Daniel Browning
Union Councillor Rachel Winter
6pm Policy Ideas
1. Ideas Discussion session

Members in attendance:

  • Jade Head (Student Trustee)
  • William Yeong (Student Trustee)
  • Leon Rea (Student Trustee)
  • Darren Richardson
  • Mert Chavushoglu
  • Filipe Da Cruz Soares
  • Miriam Animashaun
  • Kieran Reals
  • Maniseng Sarrazy-Weston
  • David Lawrence
  • Courtney Cameron
7pm Formal Business (quoracy: 39)
2. Welcome and apologies

Ben Morton (Chair of Council) welcomed members to the second meeting of this academic year. Quorum was 39, and 33 members of Council were present. This meeting was inquorate. The actions and decisions of the meeting were approved electroncially by Council following the meeting.

3. Minutes of the last meeting
4. Matters arising from the previous meeting

No matters were arising.

MEMBERSHIP AND FINANCIAL
5. Membership matters

5a. Athletic Union Officer by-election

There was one candidate, David Lawrence, and the facility to re-open nominations was also provided. There were 32 votes cast and the Total Valid Vote was 32. David Lawrence received 30 votes and RON received 2.

  • David Lawrence was elected as Athletic Union Officer for the remainder of the academic year.

5b. Appointment of Returning Officer

On a clear show of voting cards vote, Council approved the request to appoint Lorna Reavley as Returning Officer for the 2014-15 academic year.

5c. Spring Elections Working Group

The Chair explained the procedure for opting in to the Working Group.

5d. Sabbatical Officer Term Limits Working Group

Neutral

Frazer Delves was the only nominee for the “neutral” position and so was elected uncontested.

For

Round 1

  • Alex Hovden: 10
  • William Cable: 9
  • Rebecca Lake: 11

Rebecca Lake was elected.

Round 2

  • Alex Hovden: 15
  • William Cable: 17

William Cable was elected.

Against

Leon Rea and Giles Howard were the only nominees for the “against” positions and so were elected uncontested.

6. Financial matters

6a. Student Enterprise Project

David Mendoza-Wolfson explained that our students are very enterprising but not many go into business. This project would allocate £100,000 from reserves to be used on supporting the Student Enterprise Project. He noted that allocating this money from the reserves meant it would not reduce the amount of Student Groups funding, for example. The startup fund would be controlled by a panel of 5: 3 trustees and 2 alumni.  He believed would have a huge positive impact on student body, and would show that SUSU is serious about helping our members and wanting to support students. He noted that Trustee Board and Financial Sub-Committee had voted in favour unanimously; and had also extended the life of the project to ensure the fund had a minimum of £25k per year for the first 3 years.

David Allwright asked what the proportion of the figure is to the total reserves. David Mendoza-Wolfson replied that SUSU currently has reserves in excess of £1million, and we are very well-off.

David Allwright asked how will we ensure this will be made available to all. Sophia d'Angelico said she has worked closely with the International Office and visas can often be a problem, but that SUSU was going to work with the University on this. Anjit Aulakh noted that the Tier 4 visa restricts students to working only 20 hours a week, so this may be very restrictive.

Chris McGeehan said he believed the plans were good as long as the funds are repaid. However, he was concerned about the intended use of the Student Groups Room. David Mendoza-Wolfson said he would be happy to talk further about it, but that that room had been included just as an example, and they would ensure that whatever space was used would still be bookable. Megan Downing noted that the new space above the Shop will have dedicated space for student enterprise.

David Allwright asked if applicant companies will need to operate within a specific geographic areas? David Mendoza-Wolfson said he didn't believe there was any need to limit applications; the main thing thepanel would be looking for is a social enterprise that can work. he expected things to start in Southampton but may well expand. Beckie Thomas noted that all applications will also be scrutinised from an Ethical and Environmental point of view.

  • On a clear show of hands, Council approved the proposed expenditure.
POLICY
7. Feedback from today's ideas session

Megan Downing noted that a good discussion has been had about the Student Leader Review and that she had been pleased to hear thanks at the end. There had been more dicussion on the penalty guidance, and she would be going away to look at some of the points raised.

Beckie noted that a policy was shortly coming up re: Equality Impact Assessments.

8. Action from previous ideas session

Student Leader Review: Megan noted that the discussion last time had been the starting point, and since then we had done the consultation, a survey and were now finished.

Union Plan: David Mendoza-Wolfson noted the work that had been done since the last meeting, and that this was now going out to consultation with the wider student body. he hoped the Plan would be ready around February.

Pro-Choice Policy: Beckie noted that the outcome for Orla to pursue as policy, nothing happened yet.

Gender balancing: Beckie noted that there has been a good discussion at the previous meeting but no specific actions had arisen.

9. Policy proposals

a. Equality Impact Assessments (1415P2)

Proposed: Beckie Thomas (Vice-President Welfare) Seconded: Sam Bailey (Equality and Diversity Officer)

Beckie highlighted the key points of the policy, including its student-focused nature. She said that best practice will be shared across what we learn.

There were no further speeches.

  • The Proposal passed on a clear show of voting cards.

b. Student Leader Review (1415P3)

Proposed: Megan Downing, on behalf of Democracy Zone Committee

Megan clarified that Council was essentially voting on Rule amendments contained within this item, and that the changes would come into effect for the Spring Elections only, and then fully next year.

There were no further speeches.

  • The Proposal passed on a clear show of voting cards.

c. Industrial action (1415P4)

Proposed: Sophia d'Angelico (Vice-President Education)

Sophia, speaking for the Proposal, summarised the previous actions of Education Zone, namely to vote against supporting, but only as an interim decision. The action was currently suspended until January 15th,  and it was unknown what the effect might be. She was proposing not to support the dispute as it could have a severe impact on academic life.

Speaking against the Proposal, Darren Richardson noted there were two issues – the dispute, and any industrial action. He did not support industrial action, as he thought it was unfair to students, but believed that Council should be considering the dispute. NUS and several other institutions did support the dispute. David Mendoza-Wolfson, on a point of information, said that it was some professors, and not institutions who supported the dispute. Darren said that he appreciated that there was a deficeit in the Scheme and that changes needed to be made, but that lecturers and academics were very worried that changes will be made that are not in their best interests. He reiterated that he supported the dispute but not industrial action.

There were no further speeches.

Frazer Delves moved PM E (to move to an informal discussion). He believed that these were really important issue that could affect a large number of students. It was important to consider them properly and to be able to put questions to Sophia.

There were no speeches against.

  • The Procedural Motion passed on a clear show of voting cards.

David Allwright asked what impact will our support or otherwise would have? Sophia said that it would be largely irrelevant unless we actually take action either way, and that previously, little action has been taken. She noted that the University can’t change the proposals by USS. David asked if we oppose action, would that have any impact? Sophia responded that it was difficult to say, but it may mean the assesment boycott lasts for shorter period of time.

Leon Rea said that he thought the wording was confusing, and asked if we only vote once? David Mendoza-Wolfson responded that this was correct, and that the decision then lasts for the duration of dispute, unless it is requested to come back.

Giles Howard noted that SUSU had only been contacted by the local UCU branch two days prior to the previous vote. This dispute related to the local UCU chapter, as they failed to work with us on this. If we support this, this means we support the local UCU branch in this matter, and they have been very difficult.

Will Yeong agreed that Council should vote twice. The Chair clarified that a second vote, if it happened, would not happen now. Rhys Thomas wanted to clarify that Council was voting on the dispute and not an action.

David Allwright said that he felt uninformed. He noted that it had been hard to get the local UCU involved and didn't feel like we had enough information to take a decision. David Mendoza-Wolfson said that the local UCU had only told us about us they’d be taking action 2 days before the vote. He believed that we had been treated in contempt by UCU. Darren Richardson pointed out that the UCU members only had that much notice as well – it was not a hostile act, just badly organised.

Shruti Verma suggested that UCU has incorrectly said we supported the action. David Mendoza-Wolfson said that the dispute had started before notice was given as to proposed changes. UCU had balloted whilst negotiations ongoing and held students in contempt. He believed this was childish and an attempt to force our hand. Darren Richardson suggested that indistrial action was by definition an attempt to force people's hands. For people at end of careers, this could represent 20% of the money they have to retire on. There are better options.

Sophia said that she didn't think Council's opinion should be based on how much contact we've had with UCU.

Chris McGeehan asked how long USS and UCU had been in negotiations before balloting? David responded that USS had been notified in September. Two meetings had happened before the ballot was held. Another meeting, the week before last, led to UCU suspending their action.

Jenny Bortoluzzi asked for clarification on the options available to Council, and the Chair provided this. 

Jenny said that she believed that regardless of what the unions or USS have done, we should consider our lecturers, and that we needed to look at the bigger picture. David said that the dispute is about what UCU are saying. Jenny noted that lots of people are referring to how UCU have communicated, but that that is not what's at issue here.

Leon Rea said he disagreed with what David has implied. Voting against the Proposal didn't mean voting to support dispute. The Chair clarified that if Council voted against the Proposal, we would hopefully come back with a different Proposal and take a vote on that.

Giles noted that if Council doesn't take a stance, the previous stance will stay.

David Allwright said that he felt it would be inappropriate to vote wither way. Council did not have the information, and he believed that you can't judge your stance unless you understand the background.

The informal discussion ended.

Speaking for the Proposal, David Mendoza-Wolfson said that he believed he had made his position clear. We shouldn't be supporting a dispute when the dispute is over an undecided issue. As background, he explained that the USS was a very generous scheme, and one of very few final-salary schemes. USS believe the scheme is overvalued, and doesn't have enough money to pay people all of their pensions. These changes were therefore necessary to ensure everyone can receive money. The final decisions not yet agreed, so he believed it was premature of UCU to take action.

Speaking against, Ellie Cawthera said she believed that having such a huge amount of money being taken away at such a late stage wasn’t fair and lecturers have a right to be angry. We should support lecturers so they feel motivated. If we fail to support, they will feel demotivated. She understood that the stance will still be against, but believed we shouldn’t make an absolute decision today.

Summing up, Sophia discussed briefly the arguments. She understood that people might not feel comfortable making a decision. Would encourage to support this, as she didn't believe the damage to students was justified.

Rhys moved Procedural Motion C (to refer the question to another person or body, namely Education Zone Committee (EZC)). Speaking for, he said that he felt that a lot of people were undecided or uninformed, and that EZC is representative of students and will be better informed to make the decision. He was suggesting this because he felt people should be able to decide whether they want to vote or not.

Speaking against, Shruti noted that EZC was a smaller group, and is not more representative. EZC was also not going to sit until the next Union Council. An emergency EZC could not be held between now and the end of exams as it would be inquorate, so there was no point.

  • On a clear show of voting cards, the Procedural Motion did not pass.
Giles, on a point of information, noted that abstentions are not counted so are essentially wasted.
  • On a counted vote, the Proposal did not pass (Yes: 12, No: 15, Abstain: 2)
ACCOUNTABILITY
10. Zone reports and updates

The Zone Reports for October were recieved.

11. Disciplinary & Appeals Committees reports

a. Connaught Football Club

The papers relating to a disciplinary case brought against Connaught Football Club were recieved (the original hearing (heard by Disciplinary Committee), and an appeal (heard by Appeals Committee)).

12. Officer Reports and questions

a. Attendance

There was no attendance to report at this stage in the year.

b.Officer Reports

The Officer Reports were recieved by Council.

 c. Questions to Officers (see also Late questions)

1. Ellie responded that this would be very exciting, and she was looking forward to working with students to do this.

2. David Mendoza-Wolfson said that Bubble Tea wasn’t removed, they choose to leave of their own accord. David Allwright asked if there were alternative companies who provide a similar service? David Mendoza-Wolfson responded that we generally don’t look for people, but wait for them to come to us.

3. David said that nothing had yet been decided and that this will be discussed at Trustee Board. Jenny noted that there was a lack of storage space, and asked if this room be considered for this? David responded that all our space is considered for all options. The location of this room suggested that this would be perfect for commercial activity, so it was more likely to be this, but reiterated that we do look for storage space wherever possible. Katie noted that this will be looked into as part of the audit process.

4. Chris McGeehan, instead of asking his question, clarified that he has since learned that emails and AU promotion had happened, although he believed that some clarifications to Rule 7 are needed. David felt CMG has clarified well. DMW encouraged students to come and speak to sabbs/email, as will usually be faster.

5. Katie said that she has asked for them, but only actually received them yesterday, and did not have them on her computer as previously suggested.

6. Megan said she was looking into this and will ask what Councillors think.

7. Jenny said that she has had feedback since  asking her question. She wondered if more detail could be added to system so students and groups can better understand it? David agreed that it was not a perfect system and suggested creating a how-to on the Groups Hub. Chris said that he believed one already existed. David said that if so, we need to make it easier to find.

8. David noted that we had done lots of work over summer to improve the toilet. Unfortunately, the supplied lift had been deemed structurally unsound, and needed replacing. The Union was waiting for the money to come from the University to replace this.

OTHER BUSINESS
13. Union Council Stars

Jade Head was awarded the Union Council Star for her work on the Student Leader Review.

14. Any other business

Leon Rea joked that despite his youthful complexion, he was a mature student. Mature students makeup at least 17% of our student population, but they are rarely visible within SUSU, its clubs and societies, and events, and that much of this also applied to student parents. These cohorts generally don’t tend to come to evening events. Last year, he had help set up the Mature Students and Student Parents Network, but it was still hard to get the word out. He asked Council that, if you know mature students, to tell them to get in touch. he recognised that a lot of students who come in, go to their lectures, and go straight home. He believed that your student experience was not dependent on age, but that it was important for everyone to get involved. 

15. Date and time of the next meeting

The next meeting is to be held on 3rd February 2015, at 6pm in the Senate Room (Building 37).

The meeting closed at 8:57pm.

Key: P (Papers Provided), PF (Papers to Follow)