The Chair explained that the motion on stike action had been placed under "any other business" on the agenda in accordance with previous practice. David Mendoza-Wolfson asked for it to be moved to the policy discussion, which the Chair accepted.
a. Union Films
David Martin proposed the Policy on behalf of the Creative Industries Zone Committee.
He said that the current Policy is outdated and references defunct departments. This Policy would recognise the independent status of UF. He said be believed it was important to maintain the presence of UF, and that this would ensure UF will be consulted on any changes in facilities provision. the policy would ensure that UF is not subsumed into the commercial operations of the Union, and that it was important to preserve it as a fantastic student-led service.
David Gilani, speaking against the Policy, said he loved UF but it should be the case that everyone knows of the importance of UF. He said he believed it was a shame that we have to write this down rather than just note the status quo, giving SUSUtv as an example. he believed if we could save writing it down, it would be better to note that we currently "live it".
Catherine Darcy, speaking for the Policy, said that the Union had hired people (other than SUSUtv) to film things without informing them, so she could understand where UF were coming from. She gave the present meeting as an example, where filming was occuring for the Annual Review.
On a Point of Information, Claire Gilbert said that SUSUtv would have been informed about the Annual Review work broadly.
There were no further speeches against the Policy.
Nick Tinsley, speaking for the Policy, said it was not the case that UF were worried about their status at the moment, but more that this was an update to existing policy. He agreed that it shouldn’t be necessary, but believed that it was better to have it in place, as it provides a guarantee that UF will remain student-led.
Summing up, David Martin said be believed the Policy was important as it would keep things student-led and separate from commercial outlets.
- On a counted vote, the Policy Proposal was passed (Yes: 35, No: 3, Abstain: 3)
b. Tackling Sexual Harrasement
Claire Gilbert, proposing the Policy, said she hoped that members had read it before the meeting. She mentioned that 68% of people students report having been victims of sexual harrasement, and that this didn't include witnesses, and that up to 1 in 4 students had had unwanted sexual contact. She explained that this subject had been brought to an Ideas Discussion at the previous meeting of Council, and has since been to Equality and Diversity Committee, Student Life Zone Committee, the Seniort Leadership team and volunteers behind the campaign. She said that as a Union, we’re here for our members, and we need to do more on sexual harrasment. She believed it was important to include everyone regardless of gender, and that this Policy was about education, training, conversation and making changes happen.
There were no further speeches.
Summing up, Claire said that if anyone wants to get involved in the campaign to let her now, and they could join in the group.
- On a counted vote, the Policy Proposal was passed (Yes: 41, No: 1, Abstain: 0)
c. SUSU Job Shop
Proposing the Policy on behalf of the Student Life Zone Committee, Beckie Thomas explained that the motivation behind the move was that the university, which currently provides the service, was better placed to focus on graduate employability. She explained that the proposed Job Shop will be both online and have a physical prescence.
There were no further speeches.
Summing up, Beckie exhorted members to vote for the Policy.
- On a counted vote, the Policy Proposal was passed (Yes: 41, No: 0, Abstain: 1)
d. Increasing Access to Bursaries
Proposing the Policy on behalf of the Student Life Zone Committee, Beckie Thomas explained that this one was more complex. SUSU can have an impact on the Access Agreement for the University, and this year we’ve achieved £2.4 million more on bursaries for students. We believe these are better than fee waivers, as 40% of students will not pay back their student loans in full, so don't benefit from waivers. This Policy would cause us to lobby the University to cut fee waivers and provide more bursaries, to increase the threshold at which they are paid, and to increase by inflation the amount paid. It would also include national lobbying for inflation-based increases in student grants.
David Mendoza-Wolfson, speaking against, said that although he will vote for the Policy, he believed that there was a long term benefit to fee waivers, but that this was outweighed by an increase in bursaries.
Laura Mason, speaking for the Policy, said that she believed students will still have the benefit of being able to offset bursaries against tuition fees, but that some students will never benefit from fee waivers as they won’t ever earn enough to re-pay them.
Beckie Thomas asked members to vote in favour of the Policy to support the Union at Access Agreement meetings, and to fix the problem nationally over inflation.
- On a counted vote, the Policy Proposal was passed (Yes: 36, No: 2, Abstain: 4)
e. Industrial action by lecturers
Note: With the permission of the Chair, a paper from UCU was distributed in connection with this motion. No paper was available from UCEA.
David Gilani proposed the motion was saying that he believed the Policy in it's current state is not ideal, but that he had a duty to put this motion, so that there can be a debate.
David Mendoza-Wolfson, speaking against, said that what was being debated was the severity of the impact. He said he didn't think anyone could suggest that a boycott couldn’t have this affect. Regardless of principled position. If you support action, you believe that the severe affect will force the University to do something. If you don't support action, you believe it would be too great an affect, and that it shouldn’t hit students. He sympathised with the grievance but didn't believe that students should feel brunt of disagreement. He mentioned students who wouldn't have disserations or vivas marked, and that students have spent thousands of pounds on their educations. He said he had no doubt that a marking boycott would have a severe adverse affect, and encouraged members to vote against the motion.
Louisa Smith, speaking for, said that although the boycott will have a huge impact on current students, she believed it was is better for us as an SU to minimise the severity by keeping our relationship with UCU and getting information from them to our to members. She said she did not believe that SUSU's opposition would prevent the action, so the question was how can we reduce the severity for our members?
Grace Cameron, speaking against, said that as a third year, she has worked hard for months on her dissertation, and that she saw this boycott as a massive slap in the face. She believed it was not a question of supporting the decision of the Union, but about whether it will have an affect on our students. She said she understood that it was not just about third years, but from a finalist's perspective, it would have a massive impact on marks and graduation.
Tom Gleeson, speaking for, said he thought everyone agreed that this was about reducing the impact on students. He referred to Louisa's remarks, and noted that if we don't vote to support the action it's still going to happen and is still going to have same impact, but that one way to avoid the impact is if there’s a resolution.
David Mendoza-Wolfson, on a Point of Information, said that UCU has said even if the Vice-Chancellor spoke to them and agreed with them, the marking boycott will not stop, even in Southampton.
Grace Cameron moved procedural motion E (to move to an informal discussion), which was passed by clear show of voting cards.
David Martin mentioned the wording of the motion, and clarified that the UCU will continue to hold the boycott regardless of discussions. William Cable said that if your work is not being marked, being told that isn’t going to reduce that impact. He believed education was the reason students come to university. Adam Proudley asked if UCU had shown any indication that our support would mean the affect was reduced? David Mendoza-Wolfson replied that the local branch will support the boycott regardless of what we believe.
Josh Cox said he was against the boycott, as as a third year, his dissertation and exams were integral to his progression. He did not believe that there was anything we can do to minimise the action, and believed that SUSU should make a stand and say we understand the issues, but that we believe that taking it out on students is not the right way to do it.
Louisa Smith said that the company who offered her a job told her to keep them informed on the situation, and that they would work with her on the available information they have. William Cable said it could not be guaranted that that will happen to others, and that it wasn't good enough for students to have to convince prospective employeers. Kane Hands said he believed that employers will not be obvlious to the national situation. Grace Cameron said that she accepted that some will understand this, but that postgraduate courses have particular grade requirements, and this would create too much uncertainty.
Tom Gleeson said that David Mendoza-Wolfson has convinced him; if we cannot stop the action, we should should stand against it.
Jamie Barker moved procedural motion D (to move to the vote), which was passed by a clear show of voting cards.
- On a counted vote, the motion was defeated (Yes: 6, No: 32, Abstain: 4)
On a counted vote, the Policy Proposal was passed (Yes: 36, No: 2, Abstain: 4)