The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Lauren Baugh (Student Trustee), Alex Hovden (Union President-elect and Student Trustee) Anthony Kenny, Cameron Meldrum (Vice-President Democracy and Creative Industries-elect), Liibaan Mohamed, Michael Oliver, Darren Richardson, George Seabrook and Dan Varley (Vice-President Engagement-elect) were also in attendance.

The minutes of the meeting of 1 February 2016 were approved.

a. Election of Open Place Union Councillors

George Seabrook, Anthony Kenny and Louise Bellamy nominated themselves for the Open Place Union Councillors.

Louise Bellamy and Anthony Kenny were elected.

 b. Election of Union Council representatives on Zone Committees

Sports Development Zone: There was one position available, and one candidate, and Arun Aggarwal was elected.

There were no financial matters arising.

Media Review: Jamie Wilson (Vice-President Sports Development) reported that they had discussed what currently happens, what other Unions do and the implications of an umbrella media brand. Council referred this idea to Creative Industries Zone.

Supporting improvements to mental health services across the city of Southampton: Ben Franklin (Union President) reported that they had discussed what happens at the moment as well as things that could be improved. Sometimes there is confusion about what service is the most appropriate and more could be done to promote what is available. Council referred this idea to Student Life Zone.

Democracy Review: There was no feedback due to everyone being present when the idea was discussed. Council approved the idea to be considered in the same meeting.

• Supporting the Junior Doctor National Action Week: Shruti Verma (Vice-President Education) reported that the week had happened and whilst there hadn’t been progress made on the policy, they had made other steps to support the campaign and medical students.
• How SUSU can encourage under-represented groups to participate in the Spring Elections: Kerry Sclater (Vice President Democracy and Creative Industries) reported that they are looking to conduct a piece of research to look at lots of factors.
• The importance of the principle of Freedom of Information: Alex Hovden (Student Trustee) reported that they had met with relevant people to discuss what they could do. Ben is going to speak to the Vice-Chancellor about his stance on the issue and they have submitted an FOI request, so will report back when they receive a response.
• Proposed changes to Nurse Education: Shruti reported that she had tried to get in contact with the Health Sciences Faculty Officer but had received no response and that the discussion couldn’t take place without relevant people.
• Staff Student Partnership Agreement review: Ben reported that at the last meeting of the panel they had discussed different scenarios that could arise and in the next meeting they will start looking at improvements that could be recommended before going for approval to Trustee Board.
• Policy on Placement Hours: Shruti reported that she had tried to get in contact with the Health Sciences Faculty Officer but had received no response and that the discussion couldn’t take place without relevant people.
• Education Zone Profile: Shruti reported that she is working on making Education Zone more outward facing, particularly on the business as usual issues.
• EU Referendum: Ben stated that a policy on the issue was being brought later in the meeting.

 

Ideas from other sessions

• Brand review

Ben Franklin presented the three potential options.

Trini Philip (Student Groups Officer) said that she preferred the third option, because using the U in the other designs made it seem like text speak.

Lauren Baugh (Student Trustee) agreed and liked the personalisation potential with the “Us.” brand.

Flora Noble (Halls Officer) said that “Us.” option was good and actually means something.

Cameron Meldrum, Frazer Delves (Humanities Faculty Officer) and Alex Hovden (Student Trustee) also said that the third option would be their preferred choice.

Mike Allwright (Postgraduate (Research) Students Officer) highlighted a potential issue with the removal of the word ‘student’.

Darren Richardson said the first two brands wouldn’t distinguish this Union from other unions.

Kieran Reals (RAG President) said that he was concerned that some of the options might be not appropriate for use with certain groups.

Yousra Hikal (Natural & Environmental Sciences Faculty Officer) said that the first option might cause some confusion because of its similarity to the Open University logo.

George Seabrook asked about whether the “Us.” brand would increase confusion with the University. Mike said that utilising and personalising the full stop would help distinguish it from the University as well as avoiding similar colour schemes.

Alex asked about whether any change would be needed to the Articles of Association. Ben said that there wouldn’t be any changes, but he’s been giving updates at University Council so that the University know that a rebrand is happening.

Kieran asked about the cost of the rebrand. Ben said that the changes would be done over a number of years to minimise costs.  The initial changes, such as signage would be under £10,000 and they would be looking to implement the bigger changes alongside the refurbishment happening over the next few years.

Kieran also asked whether a rebrand would guarantee increased engagement with the Union. Ben said that whilst that was difficult to gauge, they had seen the positive impact that Manchester Metropolitan University Students’ Union’s rebrand had achieved.

Yousra asked about the website URL. Ben said that they had pre-emptively bought a range of URLs to make a URL name change easy.

David Allwright (NOC Officer) said the only downside for him was the loss of the word ‘student’ in the name. Ben noted that the current name ‘SUSU’ doesn’t have the word student in at the moment so there wouldn’t be much change.

Darren asked about the accessibility of the font. Ben said that it would be cheap and easily installed on all computers.

Kieran asked about the timeframe for Union Groups to rebrand. Ben said that they would encourage all Union Groups to rebrand but would be leave it up to the separate groups to decide how and when they wanted to do it.

Mike asked about brands such as The Stag’s and The Bridge. Ben said that there would be room for separate brands to stay, but also it is useful to remember that students are only here for a limited amount of time and so brands are fairly easy to change.

On a show of hands, Council unanimously voted to support the third option.

•  Volunteering Project

Kerry presented the action plan for the project highlighting the updates to the opportunity profiles and the work being done on improving the induction process for the new Student Leaders.

•  Supporting a Living Wage for those under the age of 25

Sam Bailey (Vice-President Welfare) said that this had been discussed at the Trustee Board Sub-Committee, and it had been decided that implementing the Living Wage for those under the age of 25 at the Union would be financially unsustainable, and would result in employing fewer student support staff members.

Darren asked whether not being able to provide a Living Wage for those under 25 means that we cannot support the campaign itself. Sam said that it might look hypocritical, but would be up to Council to decide. Ben added that Council could definitely still support the campaign, particularly to support those who are under 25 and are not in full time education. Frazer asked about the next steps for the project and Ben said that he would be willing to write a policy proposal.

a. Students are stronger in Europe (1516P13)

Speaking for the Proposal, Ben Franklin spoke about the previous discussion as to whether the Union should remain neutral on the issue and ultimately said the Union should be taking a stance on issues that will have an impact on the Students’ Union and its members. Whilst the Proposal will result in the Union actively supporting the ‘Remain’ campaign, a platform would be provided for a ‘Leave’ campaign if there is the demand.

The Chair noted that there had been a drafting error and that the Resolves 1 should read ”That in light of Union Notes 5, the Union will provide balanced presentation of the facts around the European Union”.

There were no speeches against.

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

b. Democracy Review (1516P14) (See also the Decision Paper)

Speaking for the Proposal, Kerry Sclater said that further to the discussion in the ideas session this Proposal sets out the overview of the structure whilst still allowing time for feedback and input from anyone who had questions.

There were no speeches against.

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

c. Emergency motion: Ensuring fairness and parity for the 2016 Excellence in Volunteering Awards (EVAs) (1516P15)

Speaking for the Proposal, Frazer Delves spoke about the great work that had been done to improve the awards this year, but there is more that could be done to make them fairer. In particular, Democracy Zone is absent from the award categories and those volunteers are missing out on being recognised and that recognising the volunteers from Democracy Zone wouldn’t take away anything from the other Zones. In order to make the EVAs fair and consistent, the Proposal also looks to keep the price of tickets the same as last year and to not provide free tickets.

Speaking against the Proposal, Kerry said that there are various award categories that are not Zone-specific that someone from Democracy could be nominated for. Kerry also questioned what projects could be recognised by an award for Democracy Zone that wouldn’t be covered by one of the existing awards.

• Ben moved Procedural Motion E (to move to an informal discussion).

Speaking for the Procedural Motion, Ben said that Kerry had raised a lot of issues and asked some questions that needed to be discussed.

• On a clear show of voting cards, the Procedural Motion was passed.

Kerry questioned what would be a good title for the award and what projects and work could go into a Democracy Zone award that wouldn’t be covered by another award.

David Allwright asked Frazer about other Zones that didn’t get recognition. Frazer said that both Democracy and Student Life Zone weren’t recognised. Kerry said that when discussing the awards, their intention was never to divide it by Zone and that had now been changed. Sam added that the categories that appear Zone specific could be won by someone outside of that Zone.

Alex Hovden said that Democracy covers a lot of things such as accountability and transparency and it is important to recognise those officers who attend meetings and hold officers to account. Ben responded by saying that those students are recognised by the Union Council Star and that it’s difficult to go above and beyond with that sort of work. Kerry added that she saw the EVAs as recognising work that reaches outside of SUSU.

Kieran Reals said that in a previous External Engagement Zone Committee they had discussed what a volunteer and defined it as anyone who gives their time for something that they care about, but that adding a Democracy Zone award would turn the EVAs into the Union Awards.

David said that it wouldn’t be right to add more awards for people who are already involved and engaged with SUSU. Kerry agreed, and noted that those people could win the Union Council Star.

Frazer said that in future the categories for the EVAs should be held at a Zone level to get input from volunteers.

Ben explained the process around choosing the categories, and said that there had been a miscommunication, and that the categories for each Zone were to ensure that they had a wide spread of categories. The intention had not been to display them on the website in that manner.

George Seabrook said that people who do exceptional work in democracy can be recognised at Union Council.

Mike Allwright said that he liked the wide spread of the awards and that any democracy award might be more suited as an engagement award.

In response to George, Frazer Delves made the point that it is very rare to see Union Councillors winning the Union Council Star.

Shruti said that the Zones are an internal structure and that they need to move away from rigidly following the structure and agreed that anyone could win any of the awards.

Alex said that there are examples of democracy outside of SUSU, for example when a society runs an AGM. Kerry responded by saying that this is a basic expectation of all student groups.

Giles Howard (Physical Sciences and Engineering Faculty Officer) made the point that the Union Council Star award doesn’t have the same recognition that the EVAs and also that a Course Rep doing a good job could be recognised by both the academic awards and the EVAs.

• Frazer moved Procedural Motion C (to refer the question to another body or person).

Speaking for, Frazer proposed to refer the issue to External Engagement Zone to look at what had been discussed to develop for future years.

Speaking against, Kieran said that a special Zone Committee would have to be called at very short notice to discuss the issue and realistically couldn’t be done in time for the end of nominations.

• On an electronic vote, the Procedural Motion was not passed.

David said that all the other award categories are areas that can impact on all students, and that a Democracy Zone award would be rewarding students for getting involved in the internal process.

• Yousra Hikal moved Procedural Motion D (to move to the vote).

Speaking for, Yousra said that it seemed people had made up their minds and knew which side they were on.

Speaking against, Mike said that they hadn’t discussed the free ticket issue yet.

• On an electronic vote, the Procedural Motion was not passed.

Jamie Wilson said that they were still deciding what sort of event the EVAs would be and it was therefore unreasonable to set the price in a policy.

• Mike moved Procedural Motion B (to take the proposal in specific parts).

Speaking for, Mike proposed removing Notes 8 and 9 and Resolves 3 because the details of the event had not been decided yet.

There were no speeches against.

• On an electronic vote, the Procedural Motion was passed.

Continuing the informal discussion, Alex said that we’re here to represent students which should be recognised and that democracy isn’t just something that happens in SUSU’s internal processes.

• Kerry moved Procedural Motion D (to move to the vote).

Speaking for the Procedural Motion, Kerry said that they had now discussed the ticket prices issue so could move to the vote.

• On an electronic vote, the Procedural Motion was passed.

Summing up the main Proposal, Frazer said that volunteers who do democratic work miss out on recognition and that an award wouldn’t be self-congratulatory but instead would give democracy the recognition it deserves.

• On an electronic vote, the Proposal was not passed.

a. Union Council Star

• Rebecca Lake was highly commended for her commitment in supporting the societies in the Student Communities Zone and supporting the junior doctors.
• Bryony Mann was awarded the Union Council Star for her work organising Student Volunteering Week.

b. Union Council Student Groups Star

• The LGBT+ Society was highly commended for their events during LGBT History Month.
• SUSUtv were awarded the Union Council Student Groups Star for their work during the Spring Elections.

a. Attendance of Union Council Members and Student Trustees

The Chair announced that Mark Goh (Business, Law and Art Faculty Officer) had resigned.

The Chair also individually asked each Sabbatical Officer to account for their officers with a mark on their attendance record. Sam, Shruti and Kerry said that they would look into the issue and report back.

b. Officer Reports

Sam Bailey reported that alongside his Sabb report, he has been working on employability for volunteers, helping people to recognise the skills that they have developed.

Kerry Sclater spoke about the Spring Elections, which had a really high number of Student Leaders nominations and they are now looking at doing analysis for where improvements could be made. There have also been lots of nominations for the media groups at national student media awards as well as the media review and looking at financial support for student groups.

Shruti Verma spoke about SolidariTea, a campaign to support junior doctors and medics have now created an action list. A report has been written on recorded lectures, with the results of the survey particularly that 95% of participants were in favour of implementing it.

Anjit Aulakh reported that outside of his report, they are holding by-elections for the remaining Winchester Committee positions and start looking at volunteers for freshers’ next year as well as planning the culture festival in April.

Jamie Wilson spoke about the rainbow laces campaign and that they had sold over 1000 already and also Varsity had happened and that they had won with a record score.

Ben Franklin reported that his next projects include implementing the rebrand, working to improve the relationship with the University and conducting research into Student Leaders’ expectations going into their roles.

c. Questions to Officers

1. Student Leader Forum: Kerry said that they were looking at holding one in the first week back after Easter to collect experience and input from outgoing positions.

2. Student Engagement: Ben said that a lot of the work he does is either often collaboration with other officers or projects that get blogged about through other SUSU channels as well as smaller issues dealt with through You Make Change. In the future, there will be more blogs as well as videos explaining key frequently asked questions about SUSU.

3. Award categories for the EVAs: This question was not asked as the issue had been discussed as a Policy Proposal.

David Allwright asked Kerry about the Spring Elections, particularly the uncontested Sabbatical positions and the lack of female representation. Kerry said that they are looking at conducting an in depth piece of research looking into what makes people run as well as looking at embedding opportunities throughout the year and not just from November onwards.

Giles Howard asked Ben about the Vice-Chancellor’s address. Ben said that the University Council away day was an excellent opportunity to speak to the Vice-Chancellor at the planning stage of the address and have since discussed the impact and feedback of his address and it seems really positive.

Kieran Reals asked Ben about holding Sabbatical Officers to account, specifically with a concern with about the Vice-President Engagement’s involvement with their student groups. Ben said that raising the issue at a meeting was a good starting point and they can now look at improving the situation and finding out what could have been done better for the future.

Alex Hovden asked Ben about the timeline for Grad Ball. Ben said that there have been a few issues with securing a venue and the Grad Ball Committee is meeting this week and will hopefully confirm all the details, after which a date will be released.

Darren Richardson asked Kerry about the some of the issues with Union Films, particularly the perception that SUSU has intervened with how they operate. Kerry explained the financial situation of Union Films and that it was necessary to lower Union Films’ target in the recent budget review, and hopefully the issue will be resolved soon after a meeting with them later this week.

There were no updates.

There had been no hearings of Disciplinary or Appeals Committee since the last meeting.

There was no other business.

The next meeting will be on Thursday 28^th April at 6:00pm.