a) SUSU and Payday lenders
Laura Mason spoke for Josh Cox, who sent his apologies. She explained that the issues of payday lending to students had grown as more lenders target students. The policy has come from an ideas session at the last Union Council, and has been through Student Life Zone. She said that the main aim of the policy is to prevent advertising.
- Amendment (Claire Gilbert)
In "Union Believes", for section 2, omit: "2. Payday lenders are inherently immoral" and substitute: "2. Payday lenders are against our values as a Students' Union." The amendment was accepted by the proposer.
No-one spoke against the proposal.
On an electronic vote, the Proposal was passed (Yes: 40 No: 2 Abstain: 1)
b) Creation of a new Intra Mural Officer Student Leader position
David Martin introduced this Proposal on behalf of Democracy Zone Committee as chair of that Committee. He explained that it originated from the Sports Development Zone. The core theme was that intra-mural sport needed a greater focus, and this change would complement the Zone strategy to that effect. Creating a student leader position for intra-mural sport would give intra-mural sport the full and proper attention it deserves. Democracy Zone has made relevant provisions required in the Rules.
William Cable spoke against the Proposal. He said that intra-mural sport was too specific an area to merit a student leader of its own, and suggested that this should be a matter for Student Groups. He said it set a precedent of taking a specific area and giving too much priority.
Evan Whyte spoke for the Proposal, saying that between1,500-2000 students are involved in intra-mural sport. Last year there was a backlash against poor provision for the system, and that creating a student leader position would promote intra-mural sport, and in the long term ensure it was run well, and that student voices were represented in the organisation of intra-mural sport.
David Martin summarised, saying that intra-mural sport is one of the five main areas of work of the Sports Development Zone, and that this new position will complement the zone and its work.
On an electronic vote, the Proposal was passed (Yes: 35 No: 6 Abstain: 3)
c) Creation of new Media Officer Student Leader position
David Martin introduced this Proposal on behalf of Democracy Zone Committee as chair of that Committee. He explained that it originated from the Creative Industries Zone, and had been approved by Creative Industries Zone, Democracy Zone and then Creative Industries Zone again. There has been changed at each stage and additional consultation. He said that the Policy Proposal would be beneficial for the Union as a whole.
He said that the media groups have discussed this at Creative Industries Zone, and that the Proposal was brought again to CI and again passed. He believed there were countless benefits: improved communication, co-ordinator and collaboration. He said the Proposal would allow media heads to focus on the day-to-day running of their organisations, and would reduce involvement between media and sabbatical officers, and that media will still have support of sabbatical officers where relevant. Democracy Zone has made relevant provisions required in the Rules.
Sam Everard said thathe, and all editorial staff and writers of the Wessex Scene never supported this motion. He expressed his belief that this additional media officer position will not benefit the four media departments and that it would represent a step back from SUSU; as a result of this, the quality of information and content from the media departments will suffer. He stressed that the four media departments are not the same, nor are they similar to the student groups that the Performing Arts Officer represents. The media departments publish information on a daily and national basis; as such he stated that the media groups are departments not societies and should not be forced to unite under the same banner. He believed that attempting to do so would be a misguided exercise, as shown by the introduction of a news coordinator during last year’s spring elections. Sam also explained the difficulty in finding an individual qualified enough to represent all media departments. He said it would be “near impossible” to find someone with prior knowledge of how each media group operates.
- Procedural Motion A (Jack Kanani)
To extend the time available to the current speaker by two minutes. Passed by clear show of hands.
Sam continued, and explained that it is true that the new position would mean more time for the heads of departments to work in their respective area, but that this should not be an issue as they knew what was being asked of them when they ran for the position last year. Sam was also dubious as to whether the media officer will encourage collaboration due to the differences between all four media groups, and adding that there has been collaboration between media groups already and therefore a media officer is unnecessary. He concluded that, after discussion with media and writer groups, it has been decided that this motion will not benefit any of the departments and instead, will only hinder the ability of future committees to run their respective departments. He asked the Council to listen to those who will be directly affected by the motion.
Katy O’Brien noted a correction to the Proposal: in Resolves 3(c), for “reduce by one” it should instead read “reduces by three”.
Insert two new sections in "Mandates", as follows:
"2. The Vice-President for Democracy and Creative Industries to establish a Media Committee as a subcommittee of the Creative Industries Zone Committee, by July 2014.
3. The Vice-President for Democracy and Creative Industries to look into the issue of the Creative Industries Zone's funding process, and bring a discussion to a future meeting of Creative Industries Zone Committee."
The amendment was accepted by the proposer.
Laura-Mary Ellis, speaking for, said that she had spoken to all four Media heads before the motion was brought forward and that, essentially they were all for this motion. On a point of information, Sam Everard then said that he personally was never for the motion and that this was a misleading statement. Laura continued saying that this motion was less about collaboration between media groups, and more about gaining fair representation of Media on the Creative Industries Zone committee and Union Council. She added that the media heads should not see this as a step back.
- Procedural motion A (Oli Coles)
To extend the time availble to the current speaker by one minute. Passed by clear show of hands.
Laura continued, saying it is possible to represent many students, as she does as Performing Arts Officer. Under her remit, she alone represents 1400 members whereas the Media groups combined have 750 members represented by four individuals. Laura concluded by reiterating that this motion is about promoting fair and equal representation across committee.
Jamie Barker, speaking against the Proposal,began by reiterating what was said by Sam Everard previously about the forced collaboration during spring elections last year and how unsuccessful this was. He explained that the media departments’ successes are due to the ability of the student leaders in charge of these areas being able to interact directly with the students, and that this will all go with the introduction of a media officer.
- Procedural motion A (unknown)
To extend the time available to the current speaker by one minute. Passed by clear show of hands.
Jamie concluded that the new position is not necessary and that it makes no sense to change something that is working so successfully, especially if it will reduce student input and interaction with students which Jamie believes will happen if this motion is passed. He suggested that a new way to promote fair representation on the Creative Industries Zone should be found.
Speaking for: Jamie Hemingway
- Procedural motion D (Unknown).
To move to a vote. Failed by clear show of hands.
The Chair chastised members for speaking when others were.
Jamie Hemingway, speaking for, said that as chair of Student Groups Committee, he expects there to be a representative from the media groups sitting on the committee, however this is not the case and could potentially be solved by this motion being passed. He added that, as a member of the Creative Industries Zone Committee, he can clearly see how ‘media heavy’ the meetings are and therefore more attention is upon media activity when it should be spread across the committee. He believes this is unfair on the Performing Arts Officer who represents hundreds of groups and it would be better to delegate media issues to a media committee.
- Procedural motion A (David Martin)
To extend the time available to the current speaker by one minute. Passed by clear show of hands.
Jamie reiterated what he explained before, stressing that it is unfair to have such a media-focussed committee and that it should be better balanced.
- Procedural motion E (Alex Hovden)
To move to an informal discussion. Failed by clear show of hands.
David Gunns, speaking against, mentioned the history with JCRs. Three years ago, there were ten JCR Presidents on Union Council, and now that has been reduced to just him as JCRs Officer, and he is therefore supposed to represent 4,500 students but he does not have enough time. He envisaged a similar problem occurring with a media officer position. Individual JCRs struggle to get involved they don’t have a platform to do so. This will also create an additional layer of bureaucracy. Media heads engage with students on an everyday basis, and that is what Union Council should be about. All these student leaders are engaged with students on a regular basis, so why would we want to vote them out.
- Procedural motion D (David Martin)
To move to a vote. Passed by clear show of hands.
On an electronic vote, the Proposal was rejected (Yes: 9 No: 33 Abstain: 3)
v At 8:00pm, the meeting adjourned for an access break, and continued at 8:05pm.