1. Innovation in Education (Giles Howard, Sophia D’Angelico)
Speaking for, Giles summarised the Proposal, highlighting the four main points.
There were no further speeches.
The Proposal was passed (Yes: 101, No: 8)
[vote_111]
2. Submission of dissertations and final year projects should be free (Jade Head, Claudia Ashken)
Jade Head said that the idea for this Proposal had came from discussions with course mates. Students spend months on their dissertations, and they can be very expensive to print, and students shouldn’t have to pay for this. The Proposal would allow online submission instead of printing. She said that it was not a huge idea but it had ranked first out of all the submissions, and that it was important to have Policies that required us to lobby the University as sometimes we are very internally-focused.
There were no speeches against.
The Proposal was passed (Yes: 165, No: 5).
[vote_99]
3. Change machines in halls of residence (Frazer Delves, Jade Head)
Frazer said this would be more convenient for students, as the washing machines don’t give change and require the correct money, and halls receptions won’t give change. He said this was something that was important to students on regular basis, and that there are alternative, simpler ways to pay, so the Proposal would encourage the University to look at this as well.
There were no speeches against.
The Proposal was passed (Yes: 136, No: 14).
[vote_100]
4. Longer opening hours for SUSU during the holidays (Frazer Delves, Fiona Davey, Will Cable)
Frazer said there were thousands of students who stay over the holidays who might want to use facilities, and also pre-sessional students. He said that sometimes providing these services will come at a cost, but the Proposal would explore the financial viability of doing so.
There were no speeches against.
The Proposal was passed (Yes: 111, No: 38).
[vote_101]
5. Make SUSU less corporate, and more student-run (Nick Tinsley, Steven Osborn)
Nick Tinsley, speaking for, said that he believed that there was a problem with the culture in the Union around commercial and operational areas. He said that he felt like they avoided consultation. He said that this was not anyone’s fault, but had evolved over time. He gave as an example Grad Ball, where a lot of people were upset over the lack of consultation, which he believed was understandable.
He said that there was a lot of student talent, and that we should use this where we can. He acknowledged that decisions may need to be made in closed meetings, but said that the results of the decisions should be published. He said that this Proposal wouldn’t solve the problems in a stroke, but will make the situation better.
There were no speeches against.
The Proposal was passed (Yes: 132, No: 20).
[vote_102]
6. Student groups should get priority over external companies (Jade Head, Frazer Delves)
Frazer said that student groups are the lifeblood of the Union, and were the very core of what the Union is and does. He noted that they ran a wide range of events throughout year and believed that they should have priority over external companies. He acknowledged that sometimes we enter contracts which will need to be upheld, and noted that the finer details will be brought to Council for agreement.
There were no speeches against.
The Proposal was passed (Yes: 139, No: 7).
[vote_103]
7. Ensuring better provisions for students working in 24-hour study areas (Frazer Delves, Beckie Thomas)
Frazer summarised the Proposal, giving the example of the Murray building, where there was no access to water fountains when the cafe locked, and noted that in the Hartley library, when the café was closed, there was nowhere to get substantial food. The Proposal would mandate us to lobby the University and encourage them to take action.
There were no speeches against.
The Proposal was passed (Yes: 139, No: 9).
The meeting was adjourned for a break and restarted at 1:28pm.
[vote_104]
8. Supporting our societies through funding for events (Steven Osborn, Chris McGeehan)
Steven noted that there was no specific pot for event funding and suggested that one be created.
Steven Osborn said that after submitting the Proposal, he had become aware that there was work in the pipeline to make the system more flexible, and that the amendment would reflect that work.
There were no speeches against the Amendment.
The Amendment was passed (Yes: 70, No: 11).
[vote_113]
There were no speeches against the Proposal.
The Proposal was passed (Yes: 137, No: 5).
[vote_105]
9. SUSU should improve its communication (Jade Head, Rebecca Lake)
Speaking for the Proposal, Jade said that the Union has a bit of a communications problem, and it should do better to explain what it does, the services it offers and its successes and achievements – it does a lot and does it well, but many are not aware of our offers. She noted that you often hear communications being blamed for failings, and that we should now something about it. The Proposal would require an Action Plan to be drawn up to ensure progress. The VP Engagement would decide the details of the plan, and it will be informed by student consultations.
Speaking against, Sophia d’Angelico said that she was concerned with the detail. The Proposal states that the problem is consultation, but that we would solve this by consulting further. Otherwise, she believed that it made sense and completely supported it.
- Procedural Motion B (to take the Proposal in parts) was moved, to take Resolves 3 in parts.
There were no speeches against, and the Procedural Motion was passed (Yes: 11 No: 8).
Speaking to remove the parts, Sophia said we needed to think more about what the action plan would look like, and she would like more detail on what this would look like.
Speaking to keep the parts, Leon said that he believed that this was the exact thing we should be doing.
The parts were kept (Remove: 9, Keep: 13).
Summing up the Proposal, David Mendoza-Wolfson said that he believed that this was a good Proposal, and that members should vote for it.
The Proposal was passed (Yes: 126, No: 10).
[vote_106]
10. Trialling a 24 hour gym (Chester Chandler, Flynn Faithfull)
This Proposal was not discussed as neither the proposer nor seconder were present.
- Procedural Motion G (to challenge the Chair’s ruling) was moved, to require the Proposal to be discussed.
Ben Franklin took the Chair, and clarified that the Debating By-law prevents moving Proposals if the proposers are not present, so there was no ruling to challenge.
11. More emphasis on the importance of Masters courses and support of these students (Katherine Cassels)
David Mendoza-Wolfson, speaking for, said that the Union needs to do more for Masters students and that he believed that it was important to have this in writing.
Speaking against, Sophia d’Angelico said that she felt that the Proposal was not specific, and that she was not sure what it would mean. She said that she didn’t think the careers service needed to be improved, and thought that a more specific support structure would be better than a vague motion. She would prefer the Proposal to go to Education Zone, and for the postgraduate officers to work on it.
- Procedural Motion C (to refer the question to another body or person) was moved, to refer the question to Education Zone.
Speaking for the Procedural Motion, Sophia said there was work going on at the moment on this, so refer it to Education Zone so it can be added to the ongoing work.
There were no speeches against.
The Procedural Motion was passed (Yes: 22, No: 4) and the question on the Proposal was referred to Education Zone.
12. Staff Student Partnership Agreement Review (Alex Hovden)
Alex, speaking for, said that his Proposal does not propose amendments to the existing SSPA, but requires a review process to take place. If passed, it will ensure that students and staff are consulted throughout, with view to bringing a final proposal to next year’s AGM.
Speaking for the amendment, Alex summarised the amendment.
There were no speeches against.
The Amendment was passed (Yes: 71, No: 4)
[vote_116]
There were no further speeches on the Proposal.
The Proposal was passed (Yes: 80, No: 5).
[vote_109]
13. It’s time to re-think how we do democracy – reforming the Union’s democratic structures (Ben Franklin, David Mendoza-Wolfson)
Ben said that, like most students, he thinks in terms of ideas rather than Policy structure. He believed that Council doesn’t serve disengaged students. He wasn’t intending to criticise Council, but rather to look for ways to improve the decision-making processes of the Union. He also believed that there were ways to better include uninvolved members.
There were no speeches against.
The Proposal was passed (Yes: 99, No: 16).
[vote_110]
