a. Industrial Action by University Staff (1314P22) - David Mendoza-Wolfson, Sophia D'Angelico
David Mendoza-Wolfson, proposing, said this subject had previously been discussed at Union Council and Education Zone Committee. The current situation is that Council spends a considerable amount of time debating semantics, but doesn’t really consider the principles behind industrial action. This new policy will allow Council to have two votes in future: first on the dispute, then on any industrial action. This position will then generally be binding and won’t need to be re-visited, but there will be an ability to do so if 10 members of Council wish to do so.
There were no further speeches.
The Policy Proposal was passed (in the room, on a clear show of voting cards, and online by yes: 89, no: 44).
b. Creation of a platform to permit direct questions to Sabbatical candidates in elections (1314P20) - Giles Howard, David Gilani
Giles Howard, proposing, said that at present during elections there are no forums which allow general questions to candidates. This Proposal would cause Democracy Zone Committee to create a part of the website to allow questions to candidates. The Proposal would limit the scope of questions, and will hopefully increase engagement with elections.
Jamie Hemingway, speaking against, said that as a candidate for a sabbatical position, he had previously received a lot of “troll” questions, and didn’t think that running this system via SUSU would be appropriate, as he had been victimised last year.
Milosz Gaczkowski, speaking for, said that inappropriate questions can be screened out, and that he hoped this policy would deal with the problem of trolls, and not amplify it.
David Gilani, speaking for, said he had been part of many elections and AGMs. He believed we should allow a platform for individual questions via a controlled manner, and noted that he would have spoken against if it wasn’t for points around bringing up issues in manifestos, which will allow students to more directly hold candidates to account. He believed that this system would increase involvement by students.
Giles, summing up, said that he believed the Proposal had lots of provision for protecting students, and ultimately would be productive.
The Proposal was passed (in the room, by yes: 43, no: 4, and online by yes: 131, no:15).
c. Stop charging for debit card use in SUSU outlets (1314P14) - Emily Hughes
Josh Cox, speaking for the Proposal, said he believed it would be incredibly beneficial to students.
Marcus Burton, speaking for, said his amendment was about communicating clearly to students the potential impact of the policy, and to clearly advertise increases at the point of sale.
There were no further speeches.
The Amendment was passed (in the room, by a clear show of hands, and online by yes: 41, no: 7).
Gabriela Discenza, speaking for, said that although removing charges does sound like a good idea, she believed the full repercussions hadn’t been made clear, so this amendment would ensure we are honest to students.
There were no further speeches.
The amendment was passed (in the room, by a clear show of hands, and online by yes: 33, no: 16).
Speaking against the main motion, Milosz said that he didn’t see anything unfair about the charge, as cash machines are available, and the fee only applies to transactions under £5. He didn’t believe it was necessary to tax SUSU’s finances to accommodate lazy people.
David Gilani, speaking for, said that there were unknown implications to this Proposal, and that the choice that had been presented was a false dichotomy, and this could cost SUSU a lot of money. He therefore proposed that the Proposal be taken to Trustee Board so they can call a referendum, noting that this could cost between £13,000 and £17,000 per year, and that removing the charges had caused an increased queue in University outlets. Milosz, speaking against, said he believed that the same outcome would come for a referendum, and that members should vote against it today. The Procedural Motion was passed on a counted vote in the room (yes: 35, no: 3).
d. New seats for the Cube (1314P15) - Sophie Isherwood, Jade Head
Soph Isherwood, speaking for, said that the Cube seats were now 12 years old and had problems with their functionality, and were extremely uncomfortable. Malfunctioning had meant the Cube was not able to be used on several occasions this year which was problematic. This would benefit Union Films , societies and others who use the Cube.
Emily Shepherd, speaking for, said this was just a small change to make one of the sections a mandate instead of a resolve.
There were no further speeches.
The Amendment was passed (in the room, by a clear show of hands, and online by yes: 48, no: 8).
There were no further speeches on the Proposal.
The Proposal was passed (in the room, by a clear show of hands, and online by yes: 163, no: 33).
e. Delivering for our Student Groups with a Bank of SUSU (1314P16) - Marcus Burton, Megan Downing
Speaking for, Marcus Burton said that as the president of a society, he had encountered considerable difficulties with managing accounts at high street banks. SUSU has the capability to provide a banking service, and can do lawfully. Other SUs already provide this service, and now SUSU will be able to do so as well. This will provide support and services for student groups for the future.
Jamie Hemingway, speaking for, said that as Student Groups Officer, this would be the perfect solution for our student groups, and he noted that many have been asking for it.
There were no further speeches.
The Proposal was passed (in the room, by a clear show of hands, and online by yes: 116, no: 49).
f. Preventing censorship in SUSU (1314P17) - Jade Head, Henry Pearson
Jade Head, speaking for the Proposal, said that in her experience there had been incidents of censorship. She believed that it was a very reasonable policy, and that she had talked to students and media departments about the idea. It will ensure the system we have is upheld, and will reinforce the importance of our media and of free debate.
Henry Pearson, speaking for, said that a lot of work had been put into this Proposal. This will ensure that the way we question our officers will be clear and transparent.
Jade Head, speaking for, said that she didn’t think that removing this line would take away from the Proposal, as everything it would achieve is already present there. She believed that the line didn’t add anything, and was too ambiguous. She believed it was better for clarity to remove it, and that it didn’t affect the policy at all.
Speaking against, Milosz asked why, if this doesn’t change spirit of the motion, the line should be taken out? He believed that it does change the meaning of the policy, and that having it explicitly in the policy was a good thing.
Speaking for, David Mendoza-Wolfson, said that as Vice-President Education, he had literally hundreds of Voluntary Officers. He noted that instructions between levels of officer could be defined as censorship, but that this would mean the representation structure would be impossible to manage.
Speaking against, Emily Shepherd said that the proposer had said removing this line would mean no changes, but that now we have a speech that says it would. She believed that there would be changes, and disagreed with David saying that the system shouldn’t allow one officer to tell another what to say.
Alex Hovden, speaking for, said the debate on the amendment had become tied up in wording, and that we should vote on the amendment now. The Procedural Motion passed (in the room, by: yes: 20 no: 18; online yes: 0 no: 1).
The Amendment passed (in the room: yes 31, no: 4; online yes: 38 no: 9).
Speaking against the Policy Proposal, Emily said she believed that the provisions of resolves 5 make the situation worse, by giving the president the power to interpret the policy. On a Point of Information, Marcus Burton highlighted the complaints procedure in the case of dissatisfaction with the President’s ruling. On a Point of Information, Jade Head noted that the Policy does require that there would be a procedure before it reaches the President.
Speaking for, Henry Pearson noted that the Proposal requires that there be a proper procedure, and that having the President act as the final source of interpretation is in keeping with current procedure for disputes arising from the Rules or Articles.
Summing up, Jade Head said that the Proposal is the start of a lot of work to develop a proper system.
The Proposal passed (in the room, by a clear show of hands, and online by yes: 131, no: 33).
g. Reforming the EVAs (1314P18) - Gabriela Discenza, Jade Head
Gabriela Discenza, speaking for, said that there had been several problems, with releasing tickets before the shortlist was announced, duplicating nominees, and a fall in overall nominations from 426 to 353. This Proposal will mandate a review by next year’s VP Engagement of the nominations, judging and night itself. It would also look to introduce new awards such as one for Student Groups, and will bring a more concrete policy to Union Council next year.
Speaking against, David Mendoza-Wolfson said that he didn’t think we should pass policy to have a review, and that there were other routes of achieving this, which we’re already keen to do. The EVAs had been great this year and he didn’t think this Policy was necessary, either now or at all.
Speaking for, Tom Feather said the problem was that this year’s Awards caused a public outcry, which is why he thought it was now important to have a Policy.
Speaking against, Claire Gilbert said this should do more than just look at one event, because there were lots more things we can do around recognising volunteering. She thought the Proposal didn’t go far enough, and this work would be part of the work we’re doing generally.
Speaking for, Jade Head said she thought the EVAs were very good. She though this kind of policy wasn’t bad – what other ways are there of ensuring officers do things?
- Procedural Motion (C): To refer the question to the Vice-President Engagement.
David Mendoza-Wolfson, speaking for, said that he thought a review should be done, but through a process that makes more sense and doesn’t create a lasting policy. There were no further speeches. The Procedural Motion passed (in the room, by a clear show of hands, and online by yes: 1, no: 0).
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1:50pm and resumed at 2:19pm.
- Procedural Motion (G): To challenge the Chair’s ruling to not move 1314P28 to be debated now.
Speaking for, Milosz said he wanted to speak on this Proposal, but had a meeting later which he had to attend and so would not be able to do so. Speaking against, Katy O’Brien noted that this Proposal had been accepted to the agenda late, and had not been ranked by students, and should therefore not be moved up ahead of Proposals which had been. On a counted vote in the room, the Procedural Motion was not passed (Yes: 16 No: 25).
h. Sabbatical term limits (1314P19) - Gabriela Discenza, Will Cable
Speaking for, Gabriela Discenza said that, nationally, incumbent candidates have a 4:1 chance of winning, and that the number of incumbents re-running at Southampton has increased, with no evidence of re-runners having ever lost here. This suggests significant advantage, as they have a high level of publicity, they have access to information which others don’t, and their running may put other candidates off. Sabbatical officers can also take “time off”, which others aren’t able to do.
- Procedural Motion (A): To extend the time available to the speaker by one minute.
Moved by Jade Head. The Procedural Motion passed on a clear show of voting cards.
Gabriela asked how elections can be free and fair when candidates not given same level of publicity. Some argue that allowing sabbatical officers to re-run means they bring experience, but if we allocate roles based on experience, this would be a meritocracy and this would mean interviews.
- Procedural Motion (A): To extend the time available to the speaker by one minute.
Speaking for, Mayan Al-Shakarchy said she thought this subject was very important and there wasn’t much more to hear. Speaking against, Josh Cox said the three minute time limit is well known, and this meeting has gone on for long enough already. The Procedural Motion passed by a clear show of voting cards.
Gabriela continued, saying that in politics it is generally agreed that incumbents have considerable electoral advantages.
Speaking for, Marcus said the amendment was about ensuring the procedure which will be followed is correct.
There were no further speeches.
The Amendment passed (in the room, by a clear show of hands, and online by yes: 37, no: 6).
Speaking against the Proposal, Emily said there was a national rule that limits sabbatical officers to 2 year terms, which she thought was fair. Some other students’ unions do this, but correlation doesn’t equal causation. Re-runners do have some insight, but we are a transparent Union so there’s no real disadvantage to non-incumbents, as current officers will always be happy to talk about the current situation.
Speaking for, Jade Head said this had only become a recent problem. She is doing her dissertation on this topic, and had done a literature review already. One national study found that re-runners were 15 times more likely to win, and another study found that without this advantage, we could have a majority Conservative government nationally. Often, students don’t know how good of a job a sabbatical officer has done when they come to vote. She didn’t think that re-running sabbatical was a bad idea, just that they do have a huge advantage.
Speaking against, Shruti Verma said that she didn’t think that national politics has strong correlation to Union politics. She drew attention to the lesser advantages that Student Leaders have. On the point of the knowledge that students have, she noted that students can always find this from available minutes.
Speaking for, William Cable said that Student Leaders weren’t included in this Proposal, as that was a separate piece of work. He noted that most people don’t look to find how sabbatical officers have done, and a lot of sabbatical officers have been re-runners.
Speaking against, Josh Cox said that he had lost to a re-runner but was still opposed to the Proposal. He believed that there was a massive potential to lose the best person for job, and if this had been in force previously, we wouldn’t have David Gilani as President. He believed that a ban would make assumptions as to why people have voted the way they have.
Speaking for, Mayan said that although you may lose the best candidate if you have this rule, you might also lose the best candidate if you do allow re-runners. The fact that Union Council decided not to bring this as a Policy but it did well in the ideas ranking shows that Union Council is out of touch. On a Point of Information, Josh Cox noted that Council didn’t vote against bringing it, but did want further discussion. Mayan noted that many people don’t know who Student Leaders are. On a Point of Information, Josh Cox noted that publicity had been improved. On a Point of Information, Henry Pearson noted that they don’t have blogs.
Speaking for, David Gunns suggested that the meeting should move straight to vote. Speaking against, David Mendoza-Wolfson said he thought it would be obtuse to move to the vote on a topic that’s so important, and believed this should be discussed further, maybe going to a referendum. On a counted vote, the Procedural Motion was not passed (in the room yes: 15, no: 29; online yes: 0 no: 1)
- Procedural Motion (C): To refer the question to union Council with a view to holding a referendum.
David Wikramaratna, speaking for, said he believed that this would be the best way to make the decision, and that it needed a longer debate. Speaking against, Jade said that the issue has already been discussed by Council, and that she believed that this was too political for a referendum, and it would be like the NUS referendum. On a counted vote, the Procedural Motion was not passed (in the room yes: 15, no: 22; online yes: 0, no: 2)
- Procedural Motion (C): To refer the question to the Union President and Democracy Zone Committee.
Jamie Hemingway, speaking for, said he believed the Policy needed more evidence to back it, and there was not enough at the moment. Speaking against, Henry Pearson said he didn’t think the Meeting could find stronger information from a survey. He believed that the facts were clear, and that the Meeting should continue the debate and make a decision. On a counted vote, the Procedural Motion was passed (in the room yes: 22, no: 19, online yes: 0, no: 1)
i. Improving Trans Inclusion (1314P21) - Tom Gleeson, Beckie Thomas
Tom Gleeson, speaking for the proposal, noted that a survey has shown that SUSU’s provision for trans* students was not currently adequate, and therefore a range of changes are proposed to be made.
- Procedural Motion (B): To take Resolves 3 separately.
Henry Pearson, speaking for, said he agreed with the spirit of the Proposal and the majority of what it said. However, he questioned the cost implication of having sanitary bins in all male toilets in the SUSU building? He believed that it was very expensive to run these, and that not every toilet needed to have one, as it would be too expensive. Emma White, speaking against, said she didn’t think we should put a cost on that service, which she believed was very basic. She said that it was not a nice experience, and that this is very important, and the money will be found. The Procedural Motion was not passed, on a clear show of voting cards.
Speaking against the Proposal, Tom Feather said that he supported the intention of the policy, but he believed that there are some people who wouldn’t be comfortable with having sanitary bins in men’s toilets.
Jake Fritz, speaking for, said that he believed that the meeting should have some compassion, and that people have to suffer from society. He believed that we should show compassion.
There were no further speeches against.
Speaking for, Jenny Bortoluzzi said that she thought this was ridiculous. It was only a question of placing bins in cubicles, and that the money can be found. She believed that it was a choice between discriminating or spending the money.
There were no further speeches.
Summing up, Tom Gleeson thanked members for not voting for the Procedural Motion, and called on members to improve things for all SUSU’s trans* students.
The Policy Proposal was passed (in the room, by a clear show of voting cards; online by yes: 125, no: 31).
j. Sabbaticals on Satellite Campuses (1314P23) - Oli Coles, Beckie Thomas
Speaking for, Oli Coles noted that various amendments have been made since the last meeting of Union Council. He noted that this Proposal will make sure that all Sabbatical Officer spend time at campuses, and will mandate all Sabbatical Officers, apart from the VP Student Communities, to spend 1 equivalent working day across campuses once a month (the VP Student Communities would be required to do so once a fortnight). He noted that this would now exclude closure periods.
There were no speeches against.
Speaking for, Henry Pearson said that as NOC Site Officer, he believed that this Proposal was very important.
The Policy Proposal was passed (in the room by a clear show of hands; online by yes: 111, no: 26).
k. Commitment to elections (1314P24) - Claire Gilbert, David Gilani
Speaking for, Claire Gilbert noted that this Proposal will mandate the VP Engagement to work on outside elections, which she believed were very important.
There were no further speeches.
Speaking for, David Gilani broadly endorsed the Proposal and praised Claire for the work so far.
The Proposal was passed (in the room, by a clear show of hands, and online by yes: 133, no: 11).
l. Sport for All (1314P25) - Evan Whyte, Adam Proudley
This Proposal was not moved.
m. Ethics and Environment Policy (1314P26) - Beckie Thomas, David Gilani
Charlotte Hollands, speaking for, said that they had worked through many old policies, and this Proposal would bring together various historic policies.
There were no further speeches.
The Proposal was passed (in the room, by a clear show of hands, and online by yes: 124, no: 18).
n. Swimming session for women only (1314P27) - Khairiah Turahim, Sarah ‘Afifah Abdullah Sani
Khairiah Turahim, speaking for, summarised the proposal. She said she had swum in the Jubilee pool before, but had been very uncomfortable, and knew that other female students have felt uncomfortable.
- Procedural Motion (C): To refer the question to the Sports Development Zone.
Marcus Burton, speaking for, said that he believed this question should be referred to the Sports Development Zone, as students had voted not to discuss this online. Alice North, speaking against, said she believed that this was clearly an important issue, and that the online vote would not be proportionate to the number of people who support this. On a counted vote, the Procedural Motion was passed (yes: 19, no: 17).
o. Emergency Policy - Improved Leadership and Representation Policy (1314P28) - Emily Shepherd, David Gilani
Emily Shepherd, speaking for, summarised the Proposal.
Oli Coles explained that his amendment would change the survey to research, and the responsibility would be that of the VP Student Communities, not the VP Engagement.
The Amendment passed (in the room by a clear show of voting cards, and online by yes: 6, no: 2).
Speaking for, Oli said that the effect of the amendment would be that 50% of places would be reserved for women, and 50% for non-women.
Speaking against, Emily Shepherd said that this would mean there was essentially a women vs everyone else box, rather than open system with quotas.
The Amendment was not passed (in the room by a clear show of voting cards, and online by yes: 2, no: 3)
Speaking for, Henry Pearson said he agreed with the spirit of this motion, and he fully supported the other Resolves. However, he disagreed in a strong way with other arguments. He did not believe that quotas fitted in with a fair and inclusive society, and said we could end up with a situation where there are no men in the Open Councillor positions. He agreed that SUSU should be supporting women and other under-represented groups, but he didn’t think Resolves 4 and 5 did that in progressive, supportive or inclusive way.
Speaking against, Tom Gleeson said that he agreed with the principle of what Henry was saying. However, he noted that if the meeting removed these Resolves, SUSU would have no quotas as the original policy would be lapsed. He believed that Union Council was supposed to be reflective of its members, which is why this provision had been originally introduced.
Speaking for, Hannah Mylrea said that as a woman, she believed that quotas were unequal, and did not allow for equality. She said she found them patronising, but believed that in a progressive society we should be encouraging everyone to run. She ran for her Student Leader position as the best person, not as a woman. She did not believe that the Policy stood for equality, but believed that the amendment did. On a Point of Information, Marcus Burton noted that the policy would apply to Union Councillors only, and not to Student Leaders.
Speaking against, Claire Gilbert noted that she was also a woman, and noted that she had previously spoken in support of quotas. She asked what else members would do. She said that she believed that there was a difference between diversity and equality, and that sometimes, some groups need more support than others. When she stood as a Student Leader, she didn’t think it was about being a woman either.
Marcus Burton proposed. Speaking against, Jack Fritz said the meeting knew what she saying. The Procedural Motion passed on a clear show of voting cards.
Continuing, Claire said that at the last meeting of Union Council, only 5 women ran, but 12 men ran. She believed that this demonstrated that we are not there yet. On a Point of Information, David Gunns noted that we currently have five female Sabbaticals Officers. Claire said she thought that this was good, but noted that these are different to Union Councillors, as they are reflective.
Speaking for the Amendment, Mayan said that as one of the five women who ran, she had felt it was patronising to be “given” her seat. She believed that a quota doesn’t solve the problem. On a Point of Information, Claire noted that studies show they do have a cumulative effect.
- Procedural Motion (A), moved by Alice North, passed by a clear show of voting cards.
Continuing, Mayan said she didn’t believe that the issues can be solved with quotas, but that it should be solved by getting more people into Union Council. She believed that Union Council was not representative for other reasons, and that when we get them in we’ll be more diverse. On a Point of Information, David Gilani noted that we already have quotas for those people in reflective places.
Speaking against the Amendment, David Gilani said that when he first got involved, there were no international students on Council and no issues about international students were being discussed. After we brought in quotas, they came to meetings, and then Council started talking about issues that affect international students. He said that he believed that unless we have a Union Council that is reflective, we won’t talk about all the issues that affect students. With quotas, in place, we’ve talked about sexual harassment for the first time.
- Procedural Motion (A), moved by Josh Cox, passed by a clear show of voting cards.
Continuing, David said that Union Council is supposed to be reflective of our students. He said he believed that the quotas had proven themselves this year, and noted that although five of the Sabbatical Officers are women, 20% more men ran, so women are less comfortable running.
Summing up the Amendment, Henry Pearson said he had shown support for trans people and had shown encouragement for women but that he believed that legislating cannot change a culture.
On a counted vote, Amendment I was not passed (in the room by yes: 15, no: 25; online by yes: 2, no: 6).
Chris McGeehan proposed referring the question (on the Proposal) to the Student Communities Zone Committee. He said that he believed this was clearly a passionate issue, and that there was some confusion about how it will work. Speaking against the Procedural Motion, Emily Shepherd noted that two AGMs have voted to support quotas, and that she believed that this should now be voted on finally, and not referred to another body, and that we would miss the next elections if we don’t vote on this now. The Procedural Motion was not passed (in the room, by a clear show of voting cards, and online by yes: 1, no: 1)
Speaking against the Proposal, David Gunns said that this wasn’t something the wider student community want, outside the “SUSU bubble”. On a Point of Information, Claire Gilbert noted that students did want this discussed. David said that the motion hasn’t been voted on by students to come here. He noted that this will mean there can be more women than men, and believed that this creates barriers for men in our union, and will disincentive them from getting involved.
Speaking for the Proposal, David Wikramaratna noted the points earlier about trans* students. He believed that it was worth spending the money to make SUSU more accessible, and that this was not about not excluding people from elections. At this point, the question is about making SUSU more accessible for trans* students, and reviewing gender balancing is another discussion for another point, but that isn’t what we’re discussing here.
Speaking against, Chris McGeehan quoted Notes 5 and 6. On a Point of Information, Marcus Burton noted Notes 5 referred to an idea about other cohorts and not gender, so that is misleading. On a Point of Information, Claire Gilbert noted that Notes 6 referred to a desire by students voted to discuss the quota, not to overturn the quota. Chris said that this Proposal doesn’t solve the problem of patronising women, and still brings gender down to a binary. On a Point of Information, Emily noted that it would create one “box”, which is women, and everyone else would be outside. Chris said that this was still two boxes.
Speaking for, Josh Cox said he believed that it was not the time to make a decision on quotas now. Voting against this policy would be against our values as a Student’s Union. He believed that it was well written and will make significant change.
Jake Fritz proposed that the question (on the Proposal) be referred to Union Council with a view to holding a referendum. He said that there were a very small number of people here, and that he believed that the Proposal should go to more students for a decision. Speaking against, Emily said that this needs to be dealt with now. She believed that we should have a more representative body decide, and that without this, women won’t have a proper say. On a Point of Information, David Wikramaratna noted that the student body at large can proxy vote, and many have done so. The Procedural Motion passed (in the room, by yes: 25, no: 17, and online by yes: 1, no: 0).