Union Council (9th June 2014)

Questions to candidates in the by-election for the position of Vice President Student Communities preceded the meeting of Union Council.

Members in attendance:

• Samuel Bailey  (Equality and Diversity Officer - elect)
• Soph Isherwood (Union Films Cinema Manager - elect)
• Steven Osborn (Union Councillor - elect)
• Chris McGeehan (Student Groups Officer - elect)
• Ben Morton (Chair of Union Council - elect)
• Ellie Cawthera (VP Engagement - elect)
• Matthew Burton
• Tom Foley
• Harry Warwick
• Edmund Baird
• Charlotte Hallahan
• Shivani Sidapra
• Serena Chana
• Anjali Parshotam
• Thomas Coole
• Aaron Mulford
• Jennifer Clough
• Shaun harvey
• James Lee
• Marcus Burton
• David Heard
• Jade Head

Katy O'Brien (Chair of Council) welcomed everyone to the final Union Council meeting of the academic year 2013/2014. She announced that the following four Union Councillors had resigned from their position on Council - Jenny Bortoluzzi, Jessica Lobo, Benjamin Franklin and Grace Cameron, therefore making quoracy for this meeting 42 members. However, with 34 members in attendance, the meeting was not quorate. There were 24 apologies received (see above for details).

The minutes of the meeting held on 1st May 2014 were approved on a counted vote (Yes: 29, No: 2, Abstentions: 0).

There were no matters arising from the previous meeting.

a). Appointment of Honorary Life Members

David Gilani introduced this paper and explained that traditionally, the nominations for Honorary Life Membership are announced at the ETAs (held this year on 9th May). He asked council to approve these appointments.

This request was approved by a clear show of voting cards.

 

b). Appointment of Honorary Vice-President

David Gilani asked that Jaki Booth be appointed Honorary Vice-President for the five years she has been Chief Executive of SUSU. During this time, she has ensured that SUSU is not only offering the best experiences to students, in terms of services and activities, but also that students are leading the show and being fully involved in planning the direction of SUSU.      

This request was approved on a counted vote (Yes: 24, No: 4, Abstentions: 2)

 

c). Appointment of an External Trustee

David Gilani introduced this paper and explained the background of it. SUSU has four positions available for External Trustees; currently there are three including Nigel Coopey. Their terms as External Trustees are three years, after which they are allowed to request a renewal which is the case with Nigel Coopey as his term ends on 1st July 2014.

They sit on the Trustee Board and on each Trustee Sub Committee. David explained that Nigel Coopey has experience in working in the Technology Industry and has previously worked for other chairtable organisations, for example the National Trust. David asked council approve Nigel's appointment as an External Trustee for a second term commencing on 1st July 2014. 

This request was approved on a counted vote (Yes: 27, No: 1, Abstentions: 2)

David Gilani introduced this paper and explained that four projects have been developed for this summer; he outlined each project one at a time and, where necessary, Coucil voted on each seperately.

a. Activities Room - for Council to take note
As mandated at the AGM 2013, the Activities Room will be refurbished and improved with the aim of creating a more usuable space, better suited to the growing number of student groups SUSU currently has.

 

b. Storage - for Council to consider

David Gilani explained that the cost of this project is below minimum required to bring this project to Union Council for approval. However, due to the implications of such a project going ahead, he has decided to bring it to todays meeting and ask for Council's approval, and to make clear what the Union's political stance on this matter is. He explained that there have been issues with storage space for a long time now, and that we cannot rely on the University to help with situtation. In order to go forward, it is necessary for the Union to create a solution to this problem. In comparison to other rooms that student groups use, the Snooker Room is utilised the least and, in effect, only serves one student group.

• Gabriela Discenza moved Procedural motion A and asked to extend the speakers time by one minute; the procedural motion passed. 

The Snooker Room has an external door which would allow 24 hour access to the room which would benefit groups who require access to storage space outside of normal working hours. David informed Council that he spoke to the Snooker Club before this meeting and apologised to them, adding that he understands that this is not good for the Club but there does not seem to be an alternative. He explained that there have been talks of moving snooker tables to halls of residence in order to give the Club space elsewhere.     

• The Chair invited the representative of the Snooker Club to speak.

Matthew Burton introduced himself as the President of the Snooker Club. He explained that the Snooker Room is not a Club-owned room and so he was at the meeting as a representative of not only the Snooker Club, but all members of the Union who use that room. He asked members to vote against this project for three reasons: closure of the Snooker room will diminish the Union, there is inaccurate costing outlined in the project plan and finally, there has been a lack of consideration of other areas that could be utilised. Externally locating the snooker tables in Halls will reduce membership of the club and decrease activity in the Union generally, as well as  increase the likelihood of tables being damaged. He added that the Snooker Room in the union is a unique selling point for prospective students. He said that the project plan did not take into account the cost of relocating the snooker tables, installing appropriate lighting and ensuring that the new location was accessible 24 hours a day.

• Leon Rea moved Procedural motion A and asked to extend the speakers time by one minute; the procedural motion passed.

Matthew concluded, explaining that the plan has not outlined the costs involved in converting rooms in Halls into Snooker Rooms, which could cost up to £10,000. In regards to sourcing out different rooms to use, he said it was misleading to say that the Snooker Room is bigger than alternatives and therefore a viable option; the volume of the room should be considered and not just the area size, adding that the height of the room is very low. He asked Council to vote against this project.

•   The Chair explained that she would allow rounds of debate due to the contentious nature of this topic.

 Laura Mason, introduced herself as the Nightline Officer. Speaking for the project, she explained that she sympathised with the Snooker Club as Nightline was once located on Highfield but was subsequently moved off campus. She added that she was unaware that there was a Snooker Room on campus and that it may be really beneficial for the Club to be based at Halls as they will become more visible. She concluded that many student groups travel off campus for their activities, but it is important for the central storage area to be based on Highfield campus.

•  David Mendoza-Wolfson asked the Chair for clarification on what was being discussed. The Chair explained that financial matters were being dicussed; each of the four projects were being individually discussed. Two of the proposals required council approval and two did not. As Project 2 (Storage Space) is such a contentious issue, David Gilani is seeking approval from Council to ensure that this is the best option going forward.

Ellie Cawthera, speaking against this project, said she knows many people who use the Snooker Room who otherwise do not get involved with SUSU. Closing down the Snooker Room will alienate these groups, which will lead to less engagement with SUSU.

The Chair decided that, to ensure fairness, she would close the round of debates. Oli Coles asked to moved Procedural motion G to challenge Chair's ruling and continue with one more for and against debate, and the Chair accepted this request.

Evan Whyte, speaking for this project, informed Council that this matter had arisen in a recent Sports Development Zone meeting and it was approved by the members of that committee. He asked Council to keep this in mind when voting.

Leon Rea, speaking against this project, said he felt that Council have not been given all the information necessary to make an informed decision on this matter, as more financial matters have come to light within this meeting. He encouraged members to either abstain or vote against this project, but he added that he was in favour of finding a solution to the storage issue. POI - Marcus Burton informed Council that the Trustee Board have approved this project and are satisfied with the costing involved in this project. Leon Rea responded saying they do not take into account the cost of relocating the Snooker Room.

The Chair indicated that she wished to move to the vote.

• David Martin moved Procedural Motion G; the Chair accordingly stood down and Ben Morton, as Chair of Council-elect, took the Chair.

Ben invited David Martin to speak for the procedural motion; he felt that more people had thoughts on this matter that they wished to share with Council. Katy O'Brien, speaking against the procedural motion, said that the representatives from the Snooker Club have not been informed about the procedure at Union Council and so it is unfair to expect them to argue their point when they have perhaps not prepared for many rounds of debates. On a clear show of voting cards, this motion did not pass.   

Katy O'Brien resumed the Chair. 

• David Mendoza-Wolfson moved Procedural Motion E as he felt the Snooker Club representatives would like to speak again on this issue; this procedural motion passed by a clear show of voting cards.

INFORMAL DISCUSSION

David Martin explained that there are now 310 Student Groups in SUSU and current storage spaces cannot accomodate all these groups. Some Groups resort to storing equipment in their own homes which is not a safe and sustainable way for groups to work. Alternatives have been looked into, and although it is not ideal, the Snooker Room is the best options. The University has failed to provide an alternative and so it has been left to the Union to find a solution.

Nick Tinsley asked the Snooker Club if they had been consulted beforehand as he was concerned that the project plan has not allocated funds towards relocating the snooker tables. Tom Foley responded saying the first time they had met with SUSU to discuss this was the day before this meeting; they had not been consulted before then. He added that he amount of storage requried is unknown, therefore how can the Union justify choosing the Snooker room if they do not know how much room they will require.

Catherine Darcy expressed concern for the media departments of SUSU who have dedicated rooms for their work (e.g. SURGE, SUSUtv). If the union decided to close the Snooker room down, in future could this also happen to these specialised rooms too. David Gilani responded saying that the actual project plan details the costs of transforming a room to provide more storage; this proposal does not say the Union is closing down the Snooker Room. He explained that it was his responsibility to bring this proposal to Council to help mitigate the damage that could be caused by Snooker having to move. He noted that everyone here has acknowledged that there is a storage issue and he is open to any other suggestions, however he feels that this is the best option.

Jamie Hemingway explained that during his term as Student Groups Officer, he has been looking into solutions to the storage issue. He explained that given the arguments for this project, the Snooker Room does appear to be the best solution. However, if an alternative is found it would be much better than removing a student groups space.

Emily Shepherd said it was unfair to say the Snooker Club had not been consulted as it is public knowledge that David Gilani had contacted them about this issue. She added that the height of the Snooker Room should not be an issue; taller rooms may create an unsafe environment where students are climbing high to utilise all the space available. Finally, she said the room in Connaught Halls looks like a suitable alternative due to its size and location; it would help the club engage the JCR.

Leon Rea clarified his stance on this issue, explaining that he is for finding more storage space. However, he said the way this project plan has been set out badly. Only one stage of the project has been costed and thought through; if the Snooker Room is to be moved, Council need to see the costing of the relocation.  

Jade Head explained that SUSU really needs this storage space. It is unfair that student groups have to improperly store their equipment at home where they can be damaged; SUSU funds these groups, they should be able to provide a safe storage option for them. If nothing is done this summer, it will remain an ongoing problem for next year.

Ellie Cawthera asked why the spaces that are planning on being used for the snooker tables be used for storage instead. David Gilani responded that the aim was to create more social spaces in the Halls and having snooker tables there would promote this.

Josh Cox reiterated the general feeling amongst council that student groups need space to store their equipment. The majority of Halls of residence are within walking distance of Highfield campus and so relocating the snooker tables to Halls is a good compromise. The Union understands that this is a difficult decision to make and they are trying to rectify the situation.

• Catherine Darcy moved a Procedural Motion D (that the vote now be held). Speaking for, she said that the same arguments were being repeated. Matthew Burton, speaking against the procedural motion, said there was more to say on this issue. The procedural motion did not pass.

Matthew Burton explained that the proposed move of the snooker tables is not a like-for-like switch; moving them to halls will bring them under the control of the University and, previously, snooker tables in halls have been damaged and often not looked after. Having the tables in the Union means that the Snooker Club is able to maintain the tables themselves and keep them in good condition.

Chris McGeehan expressed concern that Council are being asked to vote on a finanical expenditure that will lead to one of our Student Rroups being negatively affected. He believed that Council should be looking at specifically the financial implications of this project.

Oli Coles informed Council that he has been in talks with estates and facilities at the University, as well as Halls Managers who are all behind the idea of bringing snooker tables to common rooms. As of this summer, the Union have taken control over snooker tables that are in Halls and so they will be under management of SUSU.

Tom Foley to provide a brief summation. He used the example of Cardiff University Students' Union who were BUCS champions and owned five snooker tables; they turned the snooker area into a communal study space reducing the number of tables to two. Their membership has dropped from 80 to 25 and they are no longer in the top tier of their competition; their snooker community has been damaged by this move.

David Gilani provided a brief summation. The Sports Development Zone have approved this move and there really is no alternative; there is money left in the budget that can pay for any additional costs that arise. It was a difficult decision to make but we have found a space that we can develop, we need to make this move. He added that if council does not approve this project, it will be taken back to Trustee Board.  

The expenditure was not approved on a counted vote (Yes: 13, No: 15, Abstentions: 3)           

 

c. Office Enhancement - for Council to vote on

There has recently been an increase in the number of staff SUSU employs (for example, each Zone has now been appointed a Zone Coordinator) and this project reflects the need for a more improved work space for these staff members.

This expenditure was approved on a counted vote (Yes: 25, No; 3, Abstentions: 3)

 

d. Enhancements to Bar Level 3 - for Council to vote on

Currently, the large kitchen on Level 3 is not being used to its full potential. With the addition of a new dining area in this space, SUSU will be able to offer a greater variety of cuisine. If this goes ahead, there may also be the possibility of Union Films using this space for commercial purposes as well.

This expenditure was approved on a counted vote (Yes: 25, No; 4, Abstentions: 2)

There is none, as there was no ideas session at this meeting.

The previous ideas session discussed the ideas for the Annual General Meeting.

a). Improved Leadership and Representation Policy (1314P28) - Emily Shepherd, Union Councillor

Emily Shepherd introduced this policy proposal. She clarified that this policy is about the gender quotas that currently exist in Union Council, and not about removing or adding gender quotas to the system. This policy will change the way that these quotas  are done with the aim of making the system more trans-inclusive. It will do this by ensuring that at least 50% of the open councillor positions are held by a self-identifying woman, and the remaining 50% of places remain open to any full member of the Union. The open positions will allow any person who, for example, does not want to specify their gender, or who does not identify as male or female, to run for a position.  

• David Gunns moved Procedural Motion B, to take the proposal in parts and remove Resolves 4 and 5. Speaking for this motion, David spoke of the AGM in May where 69% of students voted against discussing the extension of the original Leadership and Representation policy (1213P16) and 83% voted in favour of discussing over turning that policy. He explained that the policy, with resolves 4 and 5 included, is a step back from equality but the rest of the policy is a positive move forward. Claire Gilbert, speaking against this motion, said that at the AGM, members voted in favour of a policy regarding trans-inclusion and therefore voting for the removal of these resolves would be going against that policy. She added that previously, Union membership has not been as accepting as it should have been and this is the perfect way to rectify that and ensure equality for all. On a counted vote, this motion was tied (Yes: 15, No:15, Abstentions: 2), the Chair cast the deciding vote and the motion did not pass.

David Gunns, speaking against this policy, explained that this proposal was taken to AGM as an emergency motion; it was not voted on by any students beforehand like the other proposals that were brought to the AGM. POI from David Gilani, there were seven proposals that went to AGM that had not been voted on by the students. David Gunns continued, saying that this policy discriminates against those who identify as male and patronises women. He concluded saying it is a backwards step for our Union and a manipulation of SUSUs commitment to equality. 

David Gilani, speaking for this policy, explained that this is about making the Union more trans-inclusive to our members. If you are against this policy, then you are against direct democracy; the only way Council could have more than five women in these positions, is if six or more were voted for over male candidates. 

Jamie Hemingway, speaking against this policy, asked David Gilani if six men were given more votes than women, would the sixth man be given a place on council. David Gilani responded saying that it is the same as what would happen before, the quota of men (50%) would have been filled by the five men. Jamie Hemingway continued, saying that he was generally in favour of this policy, despite speaking against but the only reason a student was forced to identify as male or female publicly during the election of open Union Councillors in February, was because there are quotas. POI from Claire Gilbert; she reminded him that discussion is not about gender quotas. He acknowledged this and added if there were no quotas, there would be no need for members to self-identify anyway.   

• David Martin moved a Procedural Motion D, to move to the vote. Speaking for this motion, David Martin said that despite this not being about gender quotas, it has turned into a debate over whether quotas should exist in Council. Speaking against this motion, Emily Shepherd explained that if members felt they understood what they were voting on, then they should vote in favour of this motion; if not, then they should continue with the debate. On a counted vote, the procedural motion passed (Yes: 27, No: 2, Abstentions: 2).

On a counted vote, the Policy Proposal was passed (Yes: 27, No: 2, Abstentions: 2)

 

b). Sport for all (1314P25) - Evan Whyte, VP Sports Development

Evan Whyte introduced this paper and explained that this policy would give all members of SUSU the opportunity to trial for an AU club and compete in non-BUCS run events.

On a clear show of voting cards, the Policy Proposal was passed.

 

c). Return of the Cat Statue (1314P29) - Katy O'Brien, Chair of Union Council

David Martin called for a Procedural motion F - to withdraw this motion. The Chair accepted this and the motion was withdrawn.

The Chair decided to move the emergency Policy Proposal up the agenda so all Proposals are discussed in the same section.

 

d). Union Snooker Room (1314P30) - Tom Foley, Snooker Club Representative

Tom Foley explained that the best way to make an informed decision is to learn from past mistakes. He used Cardiff University Students' Union as an example; in this case, the snooker tables had been placed in an easily accessible area, available to all students. The University then decided to replace the snooker area with revision space until eventually, they deemed the snooker area a waste of space and relegated them to a small room at the back of the Union with just two tables. Tom added that Cardiff Snooker club used to have over 80 members, and nowadays they struggle to get 25. In his opinion, relocating the tables would be detrimental to the club.

Gabriela Discenza, speaking against this policy, explained that this proposal does not allow for compromise. There are over 300 Student Groups at this Union and we have to work together as a community.

• Laura Mason moved Procedural Motion D, to move to the vote. Speaking against this motion, David Martin explained that this policy has long term ramifications and that there are many things to consider before Council should vote. On a counted vote, this motion passed (Yes: 16, No: 12, Abstentions: 3)

On a counted vote, the Policy Proposal did not pass (Yes: 8, No: 20, Abstentions: 2).

 

 

a) Zone Reports

The Zone Reports for April 2014 were received.

b) Updates

Marcus Burton introduced this paper and explained that they outline the final decisions from the Policy Review group. He asked members to approve these decisions. On a clear show of cards, the final decisions of the Policy Review Group were approved.

a) Attendance
The attendance list was received by council.

b) Officer Reports

Oli Coles took this opportunity to say thank you to Union Council. He outlined what he would be doing in his last three weeks as VP Student Communities; establishing the SUSU identity at Winchester Campus, as well as working at the NOC and SGH. He will also be working alot with Halls and making sure SUSU has a present there too, hopefully by 30th june in time for when the pre-sessionals arrive. He informed Council that he is working with Alex Barbu, the PGR Officer, on establishing the Post Graduate Association, which has been supported by many Faculty members too. Finally, he thanked all his Student leaders for their work and support throughout the year.

Beckie Thomas informed council on what she would be doing over the next three weeks. She will be writing the Wellbeing Survey, releasing the 'Vent about your Rent' results, working on how to hold Letting Agencies to account regarding the pledges they have made and finally hiring a researcher who will look into student employability. She thanked her Student leaders and the rest of the Sabbatical Team for their support during her recovery from her accident at the start of the year.

Claire Gilbert gave an emotional speech, thanking all of the members for being so passionate and supportive. She added that for those councillors who read her report, there is a treat in the Sabbatical Office for them.

David Martin informed Council that the by-election for VP Student Communities is underway; he encouraged members to vote and spread the word amongst their peers. He is currently coordinating the Sabbatical handover as well as finalising the Facilities webpage for Student Groups; this will hopefully go live soon. He thanked his Student Leaders and the Sabbatical team for their support thorughout the year.

David Mendoza-Wolfson took this opportunity to thank all of his Faculty Officers and the staff involved in the Education Zone, particularly Carla Jardim. He added that he was looking forward to next year and coming back again.

Evan Whyte thanked all the students who have joined in with SUSU over the year. He informed council of some of the acheivements the zone has achieved during his term in office, for example Intra-Mural Sports in SUSU; he added that he is currently working toward a sports handbook for students with disabilities. He thanked his Student Leaders and the Sabbatical team for their support thorughout the year.  

David Gilani informed Council that four Chief Executive candidates have been short listed for final interviews later this week. Hopefully by the Friday, we will know who the next Cheif Executive is. The University is now looking over the proposal to allow international students to list the University as housing guarantors; he is hoping to hear back from them soon. He visited Cardiff University last week and saw their IT ship where students can have their computers repaired and buy discounted IT equipment; he is in conversations with iSolutions about possibly starting up a similar project. He concluded by thanking all of the members of Council and his Sabbatical team.

 

*Following on from the meeting, below are the answers supplied by the relevant Officers. The numbers refer to the numbers in this document.

1. David Gilani: The Bridge menu is reviewed bi-annually and the next menu, introduced mid way through the autumn term this year, will take into account the feedback from students on vegetarian options. We are also looking over the summer into the possibility of introducing an improved salad bar in the café. Union Council has also approved spend for a redevelopment to bar level 3, which gives us more opportunities to develop vegetarian food options. Beckie Thomas: I have spoken to the relevant SLT member about vegetarian options is SUSU outlets and will be continuing further discussions with the aim to get more vegetarian options onto the menu in the Bridge. Any suggestions anyone has for vegetarian meals, please email me at vpwelfare@susu.org and I can voice these at our next meeting!

2. David Mendoza-Wolfson: The whole restructure is very much in the idea stage, I’m hoping to write a draft paper for the end of the month and hoping Sophia will take that forward and go through consultation stages at the beginning of the process I invited every FO and AP to come to an event where they wrote down what they see their roles, rewards and responsibilities as being, and what they thought they should be we compiled all that and I’ve used that to come up with some ideas as to how I’d like to see the system rejigged but it’s very much ideas still. When it’s more concrete it’s going to go into a paper and then I’m going to encourage Sophia to take that to the 2 day training we have with FOs in September and will go from there to hopefully clear through UC & Senate in December.

3. David Gilani: The people who receive free grad ball tickets are: Student leaders, the Union Council chair, Trustees, Sabbatical Officers (current, elect and from recent years), EVA Volunteer winners, core SUSU staff, some University colleagues and key suppliers for SUSU. We invite these people to a celebratory reception and the point of this is to thank some of the people who help make SUSU what it is. I personally think that it’s really important to thank people for all the hard work that they put into helping students – so I like the current system where the first hour of grad ball is a chance to bring all these people together and thank them… but a new year, brings new ideas – so I guess you could ask DMW.

4. David Mendoza-Wolfson: If you take a look at the full sabb plan (the version on the reports is a cut version because our full plans are larger documents with budget lines and explanations etc) the 24 hour library actually says that the specific aim is to have a trial for a 24 hour library, now I’ve not only secured that but also funding for the library to do it for the next 2 years also, and it’s looking likely that it will become a permanent fixture, if just during the exam season. Regarding the big question, I appreciate this one hasn’t been as well publicised and because of that  I’m hoping that next year we’ll be able to actually also get them pushed by marketing, not just the reps however it has been up and running since a few weeks after the beginning of the semester. The URL is tinyurl.com/bigquestion2.

5. David Gilani: Oli and I have chatted about this question, and we felt that since I’ve already made a clear statement about this matter through my blog on the subject, it would be best for Oli to answer this question himself, so he has added some words below. Oli Coles: It was my decision, and mine alone, as to whether I stepped down or not. Although I have thoroughly enjoyed my time as a Sabbatical Officer this year and proud of the work that I have achieved and I felt it was the right decision to make for me. I feel that it is right that SUSU has a VP Student Communities who is passionate about the role and has the drive to make great impact for students over the next year, and I look forward to see who will be elected into the position tomorrow!

6. David Gilani: Since Union Council, I’ve chatted with the submitter of the question. My view is that the current rules on holding appeals are unnecessarily distinct from that of a disciplinary commitee, which is why we interpreted the procedure as being different. It is my recommendation going forward that 1) we should have the quorum of an appeals committee be 5 (with 5-10 students drawn to sit on it, 2) for there to be a note in the rules that gives a sensible recommendation to consider the diversity of the panel, 3) for the rules to recognise the role of the disciplinary committee chair in defending the original decision of that committee to the appeals panel.

7. David Martin: When I was first made aware of this question, the minutes had already been fully released, so unfortunately I can’t help you as I’m unsure when that occurred. Any delay might be down to the fact that we had a student writing our minutes for the first time and her notes needed to be transferred to the new system.

8. Beckie Thomas: The zone meeting wasn’t held on that date, it has now been held and minutes will be uploaded shortly.

9. Evan Whyte: The missing minutes for the Sports Development Zone are missing as it was a funding meeting and the staff member who took the notes has been off work for a prolonged period of time – once they return the minutes will be uploaded. In regards to the sub-committees, I believe there have been some issues with the implementation of the new system. I will speak to the Chair of each committee and ask that they get their minutes online as the minutes have been taken (as I have had the hard copies myself).

10. David Martin: I believe that these minutes don’t come out as quickly, but I wouldn’t call this ‘delaying’ minutes. Union Council is a 3 hour meeting, with various points to discuss, including high levels of discussion (i.e policy debates). These meetings are therefore generally longer that most Zone Committees and include more agenda points. In addition, procedural motions can also be called. Although in the meeting this is normally quite a short process, it adds extensively to the time needed to create minutes. Furthermore, the AGM is also an event that only happens once a year and is focussed almost entirely on policy debate.

These particular minutes are also produced solely by the Democracy Team and there are also various other tasks and actions that need to be completed. The writing of the AGM minutes has coincided with the by-election for instance, which was never forecast.

I don’t believe a slightly longer period for these unique meetings is a bad thing. It’s important to ensure we get things right and it doesn’t mean that we are lacking transparency. I think it just requires a bit of patience.

11. David Martin: I wouldn't necessarily this constitutes a problem at all. In fact awareness of minutes means that the new system has clearly worked and is visible to more of our members. If anything we've taken more steps in the past 12 months that we have for many years to ensure that issues like our papers are more transparent and clear.  There are now very isolated examples of problems, and these have genuine reasons. There is some confusion about the ‘draft’ status of minutes on the website. Technically minutes aren’t approved until they go to the next meeting. We could therefore take steps to release drafts but make it absolutely clear that they are so which would be an easy fix. In terms of taking an active role, I have indeed done so earlier this year, ensuring that people were aware of the requirements. As I mentioned at a previous council, it is down to Chairs ultimately to ensure that the relevant individuals are swiftly publishing their minutes, and it is not my responsibility to micromanage those operations. I am sure that by the end of the year, this culture of minutes will be embedded across all zones, sabbs and staff. Staff are not just writing minutes and are helping achieve real change behind-the-scenes and support the work that Sabbaticals and students what to achieve, evidence of which can be seen in zone reports. We keep bureaucracy to a minimum to ensure that stuff gets done, and the minutes website takes substantially less time than the previous system. Of course going into next year Democracy will still chase up those that are lost, and as a Union Councillor, we appreciate you taking an active role in ensuring we are even more perfect.

12. David Martin: I’d say this would be nice but also a very subjective thing to try and achieve. There are many people who don’t attend meetings but still contribute, while the vice versa can also be said to be true! So defining this might be tricky. The key thing that we want to do is for those that have taken up a commitment and have responsibility in a defined role, is that we can also offer some privileges. This is a nice touch that hopefully shows that we always support our elected volunteers in the future, but I’m sure considerations could be made to support other members.

 

The Union Council Star Award was awarded to Katy O'Brien for her work and dedication to Union Council. She accepted this award and expressed her happiness in how Council has improved and become more positive over the year. She was proud of how council has become more like a team that works together to ensure the best for students.

• Gabriela Discenza moved Procedural Motion G, to challenge the Chair's ruling on closing the meeting. The Chair accordingly left the Chair and Ben Morton took the Chair. Speaking for this motion, Gabriela Discenza said she has put a lot of work and effort into the questions she submitted to Officers and she would like to know the answers. Speaking against the motion, Katy O'Brien said that it would be better for Council to end on a positive note. She added that the complimentary meal for Union Councillors was scheduled for 1.30pm and so it would be in everyones interest to have questions answered after the meeting via email. On a clear show of cards, this motion did not pass.

The first meeting of Union Council in the 2014-2015 academic year will be Monday 20th October 2014, in the Senate Room at 6pm.