a. Rebrand Student Consultation (1415P24)
Proposed: Frazer Delves, Union Councillor; Seconded: Jenny Bortoluzzi, RAG Officer
Frazer, speaking for, said that the idea had been discussed at the April meeting of Council, and as a major decision, there should be considerable student consultation.
There were no further speeches.
- The Proposal was passed, on a clear show of voting cards.
b. Rebrand Referendum (1415P25)
Proposed: Jenny Bortoluzzi, RAG Officer; Seconded: Giles Howard, Physical Sciences and Engineering Faculty Offcer
- This Proposal was not moved, as it had been referred to the Union President to bring to Trustee Board, following the Ideas Discussion session at the start of the meeting.
c. Accessible events (1415P26)
Proposed: Edmund Baird, Postgraduate Students' Officer (Taught); Seconded: Samuel Bailey, Equality and Diversity Officer
Speaking for, Sam said that it was important that our events were inclusive, and this touched upon some issues raised at the Accesibility Forum with disabled students in November.
Speaking for the amendment, David noted that it was sometimes not physically possible to provide access, and that the proposers supported this amendment.
There were no further speeches.
- The amendment was passed, on a clear show of voting cards.
There were no further speeches on the Proposal, as amended.
- The Proposal was passed, on a clear show of voting cards.
d. Securing Night-time Student Safety (1415P27)
Proposed: Beckie Thomas (Chair), on behalf of Student Life Zone Committee
Speaking for, Beckie stressed that this Proposal was not about cutting the safety bus, depsite reports in student media. There were a number of issues with the current service, and this would allow next year's Student Life Zone to decide how to reform this service.
There were no further speeches.
- The Proposal was passed, on a clear show of voting cards.
e. Spaces in SUSU (1415P28)
Proposed: Chris McGeehan, Student Groups Officer
Speaking for, Chris said that this subject has been generally discussed at length in various forums. This proposal would be a basis for working on space discussions, and we could have individual discussions based on this.
There were no further speeches.
- The Proposal was passed, on a clear show of voting cards.
f. Improving student engagement in our events (1415P29)
Proposed: David Mendoza-Wolfson, Union President; Seconded: Ben Franklin, Union President-elect
Speaking for, Ben said that he believed the Policy was simple, and spoke for itself in encouraging more student involvement in Grad Ball planning in future.
There were no further speeches.
- The Proposal was passed, on a clear show of voting cards.
g. Socially Responsible Investment (1415P30)
Proposed: Lydia Butler, Ethical and Environmental Officer; Seconded: Beckie Thomas, VP Welfare
Speaking for, Lydia said that she thought the timing of this Proposal was important. She believed that this reflected a more positive approach, and that there were campaigns coming up that could target the university negatively. She did not think that that was the right way forward, but that this approach would help us engage with the community.
There were no further speeches.
- The Proposal was passed, on a clear show of voting cards.
h. Amendments to the Complaints Procedure (Rule 8) (1415R3)
Proposed: Megan Downing (Chair), on behalf of Democracy Zone Committee
Megan briefly sumamrised the proposed changes.
There were no further speeches.
- The Proposal was passed, on a clear show of voting cards.
i. Notice and papers for Zone Committees (1415R4)
Proposed: Megan Downing (Chair), on behalf of Democracy Zone Committee
Megan noted that these amendments reflect current practice, but that it was good to put them into the Rules.
There were no further speeches.
- The Proposal was passed, on a clear show of voting cards.
j. Renaming the RAG Officer (1415R5)
Proposed: Megan Downing (Chair), on behalf of Democracy Zone Committee
Megan noted that the current title didn't adequately reflect the role.
There were no further speeches.
- The Proposal was passed, on a clear show of voting cards.
k. Returning & Deputy Returning Officers (1415R6)
Proposed: Megan Downing (Chair), on behalf of Democracy Zone Committee
Megan noted that this would formalise the current process for appointing ROs and DROs.
There were no further speeches.
- The Proposal was passed, on a clear show of voting cards.
l. Emergency Policy Proposal - Securing the old Union Films office for use by Student Groups (1415P31)
Proposed: Steven Osborn, Union Councillor
- Jade Head (Chair of Council-elect) took the Chair.
Speaking for, Steven said that he had noticed a related proposal in the papers for Item 6a (Approval of Capital Planning). He believed that as the office was designed as a space for student groups, it should be kept as such. He said that it could be used as storage in the short term, and then for the use of student groups.
- David Mendoza-Wolfson moved Procedural Motion C (to refer the question to another person or body), namely to refer the question to Trustee Board.
Speaking for the Procedural Motion, David said that he believed that the allocation of space within the Union Building should be a matter for Trustee Board. He stated that the proposer of the Proposal supported this amendment.
There were no further speeches.
- The Procedural Motion was passed, on a clear show of voting cards. The Proposal was therefore referred to Trustee Board.
- Ben Morton resumed the Chair.
m. Emergency Policy Proposal - Condemning the NUS for supporting BDS (1415P32)
Proposed: David Mendoza-Wolfson, Union President
Speaking for, David explained the background to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. He noted that BDS was condemned by people from both sides of the Israel-Palestine debate, and that the effect was that BDS would either boycott Israeli Palestinians, or just Jewish Israelis – and that that would be anti-Semitic.
He stated that BDS was not just about the economy of Israel, but also affected academics and cultural performers, and noted that academics were often the most active in supporting a two-state solution in the region.
- Frazer Delves moved Procedural Motion E (to move to an informal discussion).
He said that he agreed with the Proposal, but that he had questions, and would also like to hear the letter from Juliette Bijoux again. There were no further speeches.
- The Procedural Motion passed, on a clear show of voting cards.
On Frazer’s request, the Chair read the letter from Juliette again. Frazer said he believed that Council should take her comments into consideration.
Frazer asked David if there was any evidence of increased tensions as a result of BDS being passed at other students' unions? David said that the Union of Jewish Students and the Anti-Defamation League said that they had found that this happened at the University of Sussex.
Frazer asked what form a condemnation of the National Union of Students would take? David said that no money would be spent doing so, but that he would put out a statement. He noted that Universities UK has also put out a statement of condemnation.
Steven Osborn said that his main concern was that Israel-Palestine was a big debate, and that he was not sure whether we should take a firm stance, as it relates to that wider issue. David said that he believed that to condemn an organisation for anti-Semitism was an ok thing to do, and that although he would also support a two-state Proposal, this was about something very specific.
Alex Hovden asked what we could do to persuade NUS to overturn their decision? David said that he believed this was a good way to go about it, and noted that the Union of Jewish Student has already strongly condemned the decision by NUS.
Lydia Butler said that she supported the Proposal, and asked whether, considering the recent proposed conference on Israel-Palestine at the University, we should take any stance, as that had aroused considerable debate and discussion. David said that it was neither here nor there, as the conference did not relate to a proposed boycott. Lydia noted that it had drawn media attention and prompted student awareness? David said that if we get media attention, this is a good thing.
- Megan Downing moved Procedural Motion D (to move to the vote).
Megan said that she believed Council should now move onto other items on the agenda. There were no further speeches.
- On an electronic vote, the votes were tied (Yes: 8, No: 8, Abstain: 4). The Chair used his casting vote to vote against the Procedural Motion, and so it accordingly was not passed.
Jamie Wilson asked if Council could see any statement before it goes out? David said that he would be happy to send it around before it was published.
Ellie Cawthera said that she agreed that the decision by NUS had been bad, but said that as a relatively uninformed student she didn’t know enough to understand why they would have voted that way. David said that, in his opinion, the argument for BDS was that the quickest way to get justice was to stop Israeli people from living their ordinary lives.
Darren Richardson noted that Council had just passed a Policy saying we don’t support divestment as a strategy, and that BDS was very similar to this.
Shruti Verma said that, whilst she was opposed to anti-Semitism, she believed that the issue of BDS presented the same problems as the debate around the industrial action by University staff earlier in the year. She did not believe that Council would be informed enough to make a fair judgement on the issue, and that it was not an issue that we should be getting involved in as a students’ union– [Interruption].
Sam Bailey said it was important to note that we did not take stance against divestment as a tactic, just that it’s use as part of a fossil-free campaign would not be good for the University.
- Frazer Delves moved Procedural Motion J (that a particular person be excluded from the remainder of the meeting), that David Mendoza-Wolfson be excluded.
Speaking for, Frazer said that he believed the way that David had just spoken to an elected representative was nothing short of disgrace, and that he should be removed from the rest of the meeting.
Speaking against, Chris McGeehan said that this was clearly an emotive issue, and that David had clearly removed himself from the meeting, and should be allowed to continue with the rest of the meeting if and when he returned.
- On an electronic vote, the votes were tied (Yes: 8, No: 8, Abstain: 7). The Chair used his casting vote to vote against the Procedural Motion, and so it accordingly was not passed.
- The meeting was suspended for five minutes.
On resuming, David apologised to Council, and explained that this was a very emotive subject for him.
There were no further speeches.
- On an electronic vote, the Proposal was not passed (Yes: 10, No: 12, Abstain: 4)
