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)
