Union Senate (7th December 2017)

Cecile welcomed everyone to the first meeting of Union Senate for the current academic year. All those present introduced themselves and Cecile confirmed that apologies had been received from one of our Senators.

The minutes of the previous meeting, which was held on 7th June 2017 can be found here: https://www.susu.org/representation/minutes/1216

These were approved by those present.

 

Sam Dedman was able to confirm that December Graduation ceremonies are now happening and so the Action Plan for this has been closed.

Flora Noble updated the group on the actions that were taken after the previous discussion at Union Senate about the potential industrial action. Flora confirmed that the Union and Unison both released a statement in support of strikes but that the issues was resolved last term and now the new team have settled.

Evie updated Union Senate on the progress that was made this term on updating the Open Senate and AGM format. The Making Change Summit which was held on November 29 was a success and has been adopted as the new format with room for minor improvements to increase engagement. The day will now be split into debates, each led by a full-time officer on a specific area of the Union's work for the year. Students will then be invited to participate in those debates, provide suggestions and ask questions of the full-time officers.

The attached proposal to update the rules around the election of the Disciplinary Chair was approved.

No Action Plans were presented to Union Senate at this meeting.

The attached document was accepted as an update on You Make Change. It was also noted that the portal has now broken 700 submissions since it was made live.

 

Cecile introduced the discussion on the election of Union Senators as it is often late in the term before the first meeting takes place due to electing Senators in Autumn and needing to train them.

Arun Aggarwal started the discussion by reminding the group that Union Senators may not be around over the summer to hold the full-time officers to account, even if they are elected in the summer many students travel, work or go back home over the summer break.

Evie provided some further context on the topic by explaining that the Union is reviewing the Union Senate as a whole and that the election is only a part of this.

Cecile stated that the election of the Chair of Senate should be held in the summer to allow there to be a handover between the new and incoming chair.

Evie explained that the roles themselves would also need to be reviewed, in particular the characteristics for successful election such as being a postgraduate or international officer. Evie proposed that we should have year reps among the roles.

Arun expressed concern that this would be too restrictive and that the role of Senator should be open to more students.

Giles agreed that the Chair of Senate should be elected in the summer for a handover period but proposed that if year reps were introduced they should be elected half before and half after the summer to allow for year 1 and masters students to have the opportunity to run as well.

Steve stated that the roles should be reviewed within the Democracy zone as this is part of their portfolio of work.

Giles countered this by stating that the way Union Senate is current being run was decided by one full-time officer who worked on the project alone. Any future changes should be by a working group with a cross-section of full-time officers and senators to ensure all those involved have a say.

Cecile asked for those interested in being in a working group to raise their hand and it was put to Action that a working group should be created.

Sam Dedman delivered the attached powerpoint presentation that provides all the information that the Union has been given so far by the University on the restructure. Sam confirmed that the purpose of this discussion is to work out what stance the Union should be taking in order to best support our students who will be effected.

Giles proposed that a wide discussion in the Union Senate meeting would not be very productive and only has a very small proportion of students present in the room. Giles suggested that the restructure be sent to an All Student Vote so that the Union can work out what the overall student population would like us to do.

Evie confirmed that the petition that was hosted on the Union website and created by one of our students has now reached the 250 minimum number of signatures. This means that it will now be moved on to the next stage which the creators of the petition have agreed will be an All Student Vote.

Cecile asked Evie if this would be set up before Christmas, Evie confirmed that it would.

Question from the room; what will an All Student Vote do?

Flora took this question and confirmed that the Union is not able to change the University's mind about the restructure. However, the vote will put numbers against what the students are feeling around campus about the proposal and that these numbers can be presented to the University. The Union would then hope that the University would listen.

Steve questioned whether the Vice-Chancellors pay would be included in the All Student Vote or whether it would be kept separate.

Evie explained that the wording of the All Student Vote would be discussed with the creator of the petition and confirmed with them before being put to students.

Giles provided background to the employment of the Vice-Chancellor at Southampton University. The person who previously held the role pushed too many students through enrolment leading to a very bad student experience and classes that were over-subscribed. This has led to a very rating for the University and a drop in it's ranking that the new Vice-Chancellor is trying to counteract.

Question from the room; is there a way that we could halt the proceedings as modules need to be decided after Christmas?

Giles also confirmed that to the best of the Union's knowledge the staff who are facing severance are not meeting their targets already.

Sam confirmed that the restructure had already been decided by the University Senate. Flora corroborated by saying that it is very unlikely that the process will be slowed down as a result of student feedback but that the Union is under the impression that module choices will not be effected.

Question from the room; what plan does the Union have after the All Student Vote has taken place? What will we be able to do?

Flora confirmed that plans had not been settle yet but that we would definitely be presenting a report to the University with the results of the vote and feedback from students.

Sam added to this that the Union would also take the report to UCU (University and College Union) to present the students feeling on cuts.

Arun reflected the question to the room and asked what the students present would like the Union to do on their behalf.

Suggestion from the room; the Union needs to get more information from the University. The announcement was on the 13 November, which was about a month ago. The student expressed that it must be frustrating to not have been given warning or clear information before now.

Sam agreed and confirmed that the Union was pushing to get more information released as soon as possible. He also revealed that the Vice-Chancellors address that had been available on publically had now been removed and was only available to staff. The Union are working hard to ensure this is re-released to the public so that students have access to it.

Flora also stated that the Union would be meeting with the Vice-Chancellor to get further clarity on their proposed rep structure. The University has suggested having a UG and PG rep on their committees; however, the Union believes that there should be a UG, PGT and PGR on those committees who are looked after by the Union for better representation.

Question from the room; what does cuts mean? It can't only be underachieving staff, if the faculties are being merged wouldn't this result in fewer staff members?

Giles confirmed that the student offices in faculties wouldn't just be closed although the Union hasn't seen any definite plans as yet. The Union is under the impression that the offices will be kept open until at least August but we are also aware that departments have been asked to make cuts.

Suggestion from the room; the Union could take a strong stance alongside the campaign by Lord Adonis' and his investigation into high paid University leaders. This could make a big impact, the Union needs to step up and defend students on this topic.

Flora took this suggestion and confirmed that the Union has not stood up to the University on a topic of this scale for a long time and so we have to be careful to do it right. Flora said that she would be making contact with Bath in order to try and get tips on how they stood up to their Vice-Chancellor on pay.

Giles also explained that officers elected through the Union are mandated to represent their fellow students and so they will be questioning the process and protecting student's interests.

Cecile asked if would be worth the Union contacting the Union at Surrey where the Vice-Chancellor used to work to ask how the restructure went there?

Flora said that this would be good and agreed to take this as an action to contact the Chief Executive there.

Statement from the room on Surrey; I had a friend at Surrey who was studying there during the restructure, although the University went up in the tables afterwards they dropped again as soon as the Vice-Chancellor left. They also said that they student experience was really negatively effected after the restructure and I am worried this will happen here if the restructure is just a quick fix.

Statement from the room on the petition; although we know that he Vice-Chancellors pay will not solve the whole problem and will not fill the hole in the budget, we do feel that it is very damaging for the moral of staff if the cuts don't at least partially come from the Vice-Chancellors pay. We feel it shows leadership to take some of the hit first before staff lose their jobs.

Evie agreed that the two topics are linked but that the questions should be separated so that the Union can take a stance on both topics.

Sam suggested that there should actually be three questions and one of these should be on transparency as very little information or consultation has taken place.

This was put to action by Cecile and Evie confirmed that she would meet with the creator of the petition.

Cecile asked all the sabbatical officers to provide a short summary of their plans for the year and their senate reports. Cecile then asked if the senators and students in the audience had any questions for each sabbatical.

Cecile led the group so that sabb plans and officer reports were discussed together for each sabb in turn.

There were concerns raised that the meeting would overrun and another group had booked the space out after Union Senate. Cecile asked the sabbatical officers to shorten their summary and limited questions to only three.

Statement from the room; Union Senate is meant to be a space for the sabbatical officer to be held to account. We need to have more time to ask questions, how will this be addressed outside of the meeting?

It was suggested that questions could be asked by email and the answers can be written into the minutes at a later stage. However, concerns were raised that the media teams would not be able to live report on these answers and that questions from Senators and students should be a priority at the meeting.

Given the pressing need to discuss the Restructure at the University, it was actioned that an appropriate alternative would be put together so that further question could be ask in an open forum after the meeting had ended.

Flora gave a summary of her plan and report. The following questions and answers were provided:

1. Why are there empty gaps on your plan for the year?

Flora explained that a template is provided to each sabbatical at the beginning of their term which has three lines under each category. Sabbs are then able to choose how many actions they have for the year, Flora confirmed that she had decided to have two goals to allow her to focus her energy through the year and to give her time to support and lead the whole team. The empty lines had not been deleted but they do not have to be filled.

2. What has happened so far this year about the NSS?

Flora explained that she had been working closely with the Director of Advice and Representation at the Union to meet with all staff members and collect their feedback. This feedback will be collated and put directly towards improving the Union's offering.

The University is building a centralised feedback portal for sussed where students can send their ideas, suggestions and concerns. The Union is also working with the University to make sure that submissions sent via the Union's You Make Change portal are answered by staff at the University within agreed timescales.

Flora's sabb plan was approved by those present.

Steve provided a summary of his plan and report. The following questions and answers were provided:

1. In relation to the Athletic Union Awards that will now be included on degree transcripts, will they be added to transcripts that have already been given out?

Steve confirmed that this will not be possible for student that have already graduated from University as the degree transcripts have been agreed and distributed. However, for current students we will be looking to include achievements from previous years.

   2. How will the Union be holding clubs to account for discrimination?

Steve explained that the Union has asked clubs to complete and sign pledge cards. He also referred the question to Sam Higman as this relates to her plan for the year.

Steve's sabb plan was approved by those present.

Arun provided a summary of his plan and report. No questions were asked and so Arun's plan for the year was approved by those present.

Evie provided a summary of her plan and report. The following questions and answers were provided:

1. What is currently in place to check up on societies to make sure they using money appropriately?

Evie explained that unfortunately, there aren’t any checks in place at the moment and so we aren’t able to monitor society spending after each funding round. Evie confirmed that this is something she will be working on this year with the team. Evie added that currently, the Union will ask societies to evidence that they have researched the items they want to buy and have chosen the cheapest option or given adequate reasons for needing to buy more expensive items, such as the need for better quality.

2. How are the Union Groups budget lines decided?

Flora took this question to explain that the budget lines are part of a bigger conversation that happens each year. They are reviewed and decided at the beginning of the academic year.

Dan clarified that the question was asked specifically because the RAG (Raise and Give) Union Group budget had been reduced by a large amount for the current year. Flora confirmed that this would need to be looked at outside of the meeting and that she would meet with RAG.

Evie's sabb plan was approved by those present.

Sam Higman provided a summary of her sabb plan and report. The following questions and answers were given:

1. We have had questions from LGBTQ+ members on the new neutral toilets, where will these be located?

Sam confirmed that these will be located in Building 40 and can be found on level 4, next to the cinema in Bar 3 and there will hopefully be two on level two by the Sabb office.

   2. What will be done to counteract the potential backlash against the neutral toilets?

Sam confirmed that there would be specific campaigns put together during LGBT month to introduce students to the neutral toilets and to encourage students to be more understanding of why they are needed.

Sam's sabb plan was approved by those present.

Dan gave a summary of his sabb plan and report. No questions were asked, his plan was approved by those present.

Sam Dedman gave a summary of his plan and report. No question were asked, his plan was approved by those present.

 

 

There were no further points raised in the meeting.