Union Council (1st May 2014)

The meeting discussed the ideas submitted for consideration at the Annual General Meeting.

Katy O'Brien (Chair of Council) welcome members to the meeting. She noted that 19 apologies has been recieved on time and 2 had been recieved late, but that late apologies would no longer be accepted. There were currently 34 members present, and the minutes would therefore be ratified at a later date.  She mentioned that nominations for Council Chair were now open.

Members in attendance:

• Samuel Bailey - Equality and Diversity Officer-elect
• Steven Osborn - Union Councillor-elect
• Jade Head
• David Heard
• Marcus Burton

The minutes of the meeting of 27th March 2014 were approved on a counted vote (Yes: 30, No: 2, Abstentions: 0).

There were no matters arising.

There were no membershp matters arising.

David Gilani introduced the request for approval and explained the background to the process. He explained that this will see SUSU change contract for draught drinks provider, as we've now reached the end of a three-year cycle. They had asked four different companies to provide information about their services, and there were lots of factors considered. The highest-scoring provider was Greene King, which the Commercial Services Sub-Committee was now proposing to Union Council for approval.

Tom Feather asked what difference the deal would make in terms of the customer experience. David Gilani said it would not make a huge difference in pricing, but if sales dropped, he wouldn't expect it to hit us in future. he also noted that Greene King have a wider range of products than the current provider.

David Gunns asked if the change will it affect prices across the range? David Gilani said that there was similar pricing between Greene King and Heineken, and the only way to increase profit would be to reduce the lines available

David Gunns asked whether it might be possible to introduce low-alcohol lines? David Gilani said he wasn't sure, but that Greene King offered a greater range of products, there was more chance.

On a counted vote, the contract was approved (Yes: 28, No: 1, Abstain: 3)

The Chair asked for feedback on how the ideas session had run. The consensus was that although it wasn't ideal, there was no other way of having so many discussions, but that other options would be looked into for the future.

Beckie Thomas: The Trans Inclusion Policy would be going to the AGM.

David Mendoza-Wolfson: The Industrial Action Policy had been to the Education Zone, and would now be going to the AGM.

Jade Head: A discussion about sabbatical term limits had gone to Democracy Zone, and would also be going to the AGM as an idea.

Claire Gilbert: The feedback from the ideas session about communications had been input into the Communications departmental plan, and the Comms crew have implemented a number of the suggestions made.

David Martin explained that this has been trialled at previous meetings of Union Council. They would provide more transparency and provided more certainty around the order of debate. David Mendoza-Wolfson raised concerns with sections 2.2 and 5.1, but it was not possible to amend them at that point.

Marcus Burton asked why this matter had been brought here. David Martin explaied that it was as this concerns Council it is right that Council should approve the By-law.

On a counted vote, Council approved the Debating By-law (Yes: 18, No: 9, Abstain: 3).

a.  Monthly instalments for Halls Fees (1314P10) 

Oli Coles, speaking for the policy, explained that this was in accordance with the policy review decision to re-write the policy about halls fees. The effect of this policy would be to cause SUSU to lobby to allow students to pay as they see fit.

Josh Cox moved procedural motion E (to mvoe to an informal discussion), whch was passed by clear show of voting cards.

Laura Mason asked if, for students who get their loan termly, and aren't good with finances, would this be an opt in? Oli confirmed that it would. Josh Cox asked if this would only be for students without a student loan? Oli confirmed that it was available to all students. Tom Feather asked if it would be available on demand? Oli confirmed that it would.

• On a counted vote, the policy was passed unanimously (Yes: 30 No: 0 Abstain: 0)

b. Accommodation for ERASMUS and Exchange Students (1314P11)

Oli Coles, speaking for the policy, stated that it would seek to ensure fairness for ERASMUS and international students, and SUSU would lobby the University to ensure that students here for one year or less are guaranteed space in halls.

 There were no further speeches.

• On a counted vote, the Policy Proposal was passed (Yes: 25, No: 0, Abstain :1)

 c. Sabbaticals on Satellite Campuses (1314P12) 

Oli Coles, speaking for, outlined the history to the policy and explaind it's effect.

• Amendment (Josh Cox): For Resolves 3, substitute: "3. The the VP Student Communities will visit each Satellite Campus at least once a fortnight."

Josh Cox, speaking for the amendment, said he believed that “where appropriate” wasn't good enough as it would allow leeway.

Oli Coles, speaking against, explained that that phrase was designed to cover holidays, when the sites are closed and no students are present.

• Josh Cox moved procedural motion E (to move to an informal discussion), which was passed by a clear show of voting cards.

David Martin pointed out that it was not possible to reword the policy in the meeting. Josh suggested that the meeting reject it, as he believed that it needed rewording, as it was not clear enough and left too much room for interpretation. David Gilani suggested that if the intention of Oli is clear in the meeting, and this is minuted, that could suffice. Evan Whyte said be believed the wording should be "will”. Alex Hovden pointed out that during holidays there are still people on campus. Emily Shepherd noted that the Chair can accept amendments during the meeting.

David Mendoza-Wolfson said that the semantics were important, and wanted to clarify what the "each" referred to. Oli stated that it meant each of the three, not one of three three.

The Chair clarified that she would accept amendments only before start of meeting, and not during.

Alex Robinson pointed out that this Policy might be being used in 10 years time, and that students then would not remember "random things" that are said during the debate.

Mayan Al-Shakarchy asked, if the Policy was changed, how it would be enforced, and what the punishment would be for non-compliance? David Martin explained that it would be enforced by the Student Communities Zone Committee, via councillors on that Zone. He also noted that it was down to Union Councillors to ensure officers follow the Policy, as with any Policy. Oli noted that there was a mandate to create a public timetable.

Oli Coles moved procedural motion F, that the question (on the main motion) be withdrawn. Speaking against, Evan Whyte said that Council needed clarity on the wording before it was taken away. On a card vote, the procedural motion clearly passed and the question on the main motion was withdrawn.

d. Officer Transparency (1314P13)

Davd Martin, speaking for, explained this that has come from the Policy Review, and is a renovated version of an old policy. It will ensure that manifestos are publicly accessible after elections, allow questions online throughout the year, and make improved provision for plans. It also makes some rule changes, so plans will clearly be approved by Council.

There were no further speeches.

• The Proposal was passed by a clear show of voting cards.

e. Minor amendments to the Rules (1314R1)

David Martin, speaking for the Rule change, expalined that it cleared up very minor things.

•  Amendment A (David Martin)

David, speaking for, explained that this would facilitate proxy voting on amendments before the meeting.

There were no further speeches.

• The amendment was passed by a clear show of cards.

There were no further speeches on the main motion.

Summarising, David exhorted members to keep on with the great work in the Democracy Zone.

• The Rule change passed by clear show of voting cards.

f. Reducing the intervals for Policy lapse (1314R2)

David Martin explained that this Rule change was another product of the policy review. This will reduce the policy cycle review period from 4 to 3 for new Policy, and from 4 to 2 for previously-ratified Policies. It would also introduce a new clear process for review.

• Amendment B (David Martin)

David Martin explained that this clarifies the adaption to the new cycle.

Marcus Burton summarised the amendment.

• The amendment was passed by a clear show of voting cards.

 

• Amendment C (Marcus Burton)

Marcus Burton, speaking for, said that the amendment clarifies what the cycle will be in the future.

Emily Shepherd moved procedural motion E (to move to an informal debate), which passed by a clear show of voting cards.

Emily wanted to double check that both amendments say same thing, and Marcus clarified that they do, meaning there will be no policy review next year.

David Martin clarified that the reason this is proposed to be changed is so it fits with cycles, otherwise all policies would have been up for review. This will save that for one year, so Policy passed next year will be back in the normal cycle, and that the Vice-President for Democracy and Creative Industries-elect was happy to skip the policy review.

• The amendment was passed by a clear show of voting cards.

There were no speeches against the main motion

Marcus Burton, speaking for, expressed his thanks to Council for their patience and said he hoped that this was the last time he would be speaking on the Policy Review.

David Martin, summarising, said that this was the last step on the review. He noted that we have said goodbye to around 100 policies now, and that this should make the review clearer and easier in the future.

• The Rule change was passed by a clear show of voting cards.

g. Role and status of the Chair of Council (1314R3)

The Chair asked if the meeting were happy for her to continue in the chair for this Policy Proposal. There were no objections.

David Martin, speaking for the Proposal, explained that it built on old policy from 11-12. The position of Chair of Council has been something of an anomaly in SUSU, but it was important that the Chair remained neutral and that there was a clearer role definition for them. This Proposal would implement previous policy that hadn't yet been implemented, and would make the role much clearer in future.

Alex Hovden moved procedural motion E (to move to an informal debate), which was passed by a clear show of voting cards.

Alex noted that the Proposal lists the things the Chair will do, but wondered if that was an exhaustive list?

David replied that it wasn't, it merely clarified the core role, as with Student Leaders. 

Alex asked if their role was limited to those items?

David clarified that it wasn't, but that they will definitely do those things.

There were no further speeches.

• On a counted vote, the Policy Proposal was passed (Yes: 25, No: 3, Abstain: 1)

 Emergency motion: EVA nominations

Jade Head speaking for the motion, explained that she had made several nominations for the EVAs, and she had made conscious decisions on where to nominate. If people fell within more than one cat, they would have been nominated accordingly. She had spend many hours on writing nominations and had believed they would be for that category - she compared the process to elections, where nominations wouldn't be transfered. Over Easter, she noticed that a nomination of hers had been moved to another category without her agreement or knowledge. This had taken away an opportunity for those who were nominated for the category. Many people has expressed their unhappiness on the Facebook group. Jade knew that the person she has nominated has been nominated into that category three times, and that she had been informed that many nominations were moved. She asked why students are encouraged to nominate into specific categories if they can then be moved? She believed that there were hundreds of students who deserved to win, but whp don’t get nominated because of the nature of the process. If someone deserved to win a particular category, then they should have been nominated for that category. 

Giles Howard, speaking against the motion, said he thought that this motion would set a bad precedent. He noted there there hadn't been any removals from categories, rather that some nominations were duplicated. It could be argued that this gave people greater oppurtunities to win, but perhaps a particular nomination fitted in another category. He noted that a similar practice occured during the judging of the ETAs, but there people were moved not duplicated. he believed that the process as a whole was impartial, noting that the local MP has even been involved. Claire Gilbert, on a Point of Information, noted that Tessa Harrison, University Registrar, had also been involved. Giles clarified that he opposed this motion on the basis that no-one has been deprieved of an oppurtunity. he believed moving nominations to suit categories was fair, and gives greater oppurtunities to nominations that might be unclear. He believed that to force nominations to be moved back at this point might set a bad precedent of "robbing" people of awards. he said that if there was a process failure, a policy might be a solution, but that it was not fair to say that awards should be removed from people this year - even if that happened.

Gabriela Di Scenza, speaking for, said that she believed that what happened violated the principle of transparency, disregarded student opinions and was undemocratic. If someone deserved to win in a particular category then they would have been nominated. This motion wouldn't "rob" people of awards, as there are plenty of others who are not nominated and deserve to win. If the system is broken, sabbs should work within it and not take action outside it. The process disregarded student opinions and the categories were subjective. 

Marcus Burton, speaking against, said that occasionally sabbs do get things wrong. , but he didn't think that this motion reflects that. he asked what this motions achieves - if it does "rob" people of awards, then that presupposes that the winners are known. This doesn't fix the system for the future by fixing the categories, it reactively tries to fix. he noted that the question of the EVAs will be going to the AGM for a fuller discussion. He believed that this was not a good motion, and would not achieve anything.

Alex Hovden, speaking for, compared the process to the Oscars, where nominations can't move categories, and said that we should try to abide by the industry standard, and not try to compensate for problems.

Shruti Verma, speaking against, asked why someone should not get recognised just because the writer of their nomination couldn't work out the correct category for it.

Vlad Novikov moved procedural motion D (to move to the vote). He said he believed that the meeting had heard both sides, and it was now the time to make a decision. Laura Mason, speaking against, said she had things she wanted to say and thought that there was more discussion to be had.

• The procedural motion did not pass, by a clear show of voting cards.

Laura Mason moved procedural motion E (to move to an informal discussion), so it would be easier to ask questions. Emily Shepherd, speaking against, said that she didn't think that it was a motion the meeting needed to ask questions on, and that it was fairly clear, and that the meeting should stick to debate.

•  The procedural motion did not pass, by a clear show of voting cards.

Tom Feather, speaking for, said that there seemed to be a lack of transparency around the process, and that in order to maintain credibility, we need to sort this out.

Emily Shepherd, speaking against, said that there may be issues with transparency, but that this motion was not about that. Regardless of the transparency, the process was fair. She believed that category switching was sensible, as sometimes nominations just don’t fit into their original categories. She believed that there was nothing malicious about the process, it just made sense.  

Jade Head, summarising, said that she did believe that the procedure was impartial. The motion will fix the problem for this year, and will make sure the right people will win, but this won't happen anymore as there will be a Policy going to the AGM. She hadn't been aware that switches had been made during the ETAs. She believed that if someone was nominated into a category three times, then that shows consensus that they should be in that category.

• On a counted vote, the motion did not pass (Yes: 10, No: 18, Abstain:0)

The Zone Reports were recieved.

David Martin introduced the report. Emily Shepherd asked for clarification on the timings of the count. David explained that it had continued into the early hours of the next day.

a. Officer attendance

The Chair notified members that she had had a complaint about the attendance of Roberto Gregoratti. Roberto said that his abscences/apologies had all been on days when he was not in Southampton. He believed that he had forgotten to apologise once, but the Chair believed it was twice. The Chair stated that the reasoning given had been due to his workload, and that this would be referred to under the officer disciplinary procedure under Rule 11.

The Chair noted that Roberto and Helen Demlew had not attended any meetings of the Student Communities Zone Committee, and explained the important of Union Councillors being on Zone Committees.  

David Martin noted that the other "red flags" had been addressed at previous meetings. David Mendoza-Wolfson noted that Katy Elliot had sent so many apologies as she was on placement and therefore not able to attend meetings, but that she has always contributed electronically.

Roberto said that he understood the attendance requirement, but wondered how the officer disciplinary process would work if there were valid reasons for non-attendance. The Chair explained that regardless of the reasons, that was how non-attendance is handled.

Alex Hovden pointed out that Zone meetings are scheduled during the day, which is very inconvenient. The Chair noted that this should be taken up witht he Sabbatical Officer who chairs each meeting. David Martin noted that it is hard to arrange suitable times as committees often have many members, but that Doodle polls are done for many committees.

Jade Head asked the Chair to clarify the provision of the Rules under which Roberto's case would be dealt with. The Chair clarified that this was now section 3 of Rule 10 (which has recently changed from Rule 11).

b. Officer Reports

Claire Gilbert mentioned the recent hustings for the European elections which has seen seven candidates present, and good debate. She hoped that all present had registered to vote. She was planning the RAG awards with Jenny Bortoluzzi and was looking forward to having further discussiona round the EVAs at the AGM.

Beckie Thomas mentioned her work on mental health, as well as on the provision of the safety bus for the 24 hour library, time to change pledge signing at the mental health conference and food speakers. She also mentioned a mental health art installation, wellbeing week, the petting zoo and housing fayre planned for early July. The new Environment and Ethics policy would be coming to the AGM.

David Martin mentioned that it was a very busy month for Democracy, although he was disappointed by the turnout at this meeting. Preparations for the AGM were going well, and he hoped those present had registered for proxy votes - there had been 30 ideas. The Policy Review was finished. He was looking forward to the media ball later, and noted that the National Association of Student Teleivision Awards had seen the greatest number of awards yet, and similar success has been achieved at the Student Radio Awards.

The Chair noted that all Sabbatical Officer reports had been recieved on time this month.

David Mendoza-Wolfson noted that UCU had balloted to not hold marking boycott, that the ETAs were all ready and the winners selected. A researcher had been appointed to help with the Student Written Submission. The Education Zone Committee had had non-members of the committee attending recent meeting, which shows that education is an important issue for students. On his plan progress, he noted that the University policy on electronic submissions had changed so the correspondingplan percentage had gone down. He noted that it was lovely to see the mural at the back of the Senate Room uncovered again, as all those depicted are academics who died in World War One.

Evan Whyte noted the success of the recent AU tour, including winning the overall sports trophy. He was saddened at the failure to be awarded money from the Diasbility Sport grant, but noted that a local organisation had been succesful and that this presented an oppurtunity to to try and tap into. He was working on the Sport and Welbeing strategy for the University, and was looking forward to the AU Ball the next day. He noted that he had stayed same on plan percent, but hoped to be at 90% by the next meeting.

Oli Coles had been to Cardiff and seen Cardiff SU, had taken part in budget planning and had had a fantastic meeting with the University on a network for Postgraduate Research Students. There had been 578 applications for freshers reps, which was double on last year, and JCRs were reviewing them blindly. He had had a good meeting around sites, with changes identifed to take effect over summer, including a new SUSU identity at sites. He would be bringing a report on Improving Participation to the AGM.

David Gilani mentioned the first round of the Innovations Fund allocations, including a trophy cabinet for Performing Arts. Progress was being made on the creation of a Job Shop, including research behind it. He was also working on Hidden Course Costs with the Education Zone.

 c. Questions to officers

David Gilani: David Mendoza-Wolfson has been picked as President-elect, as David Gilani wouldn't be in office when they started, it seemed fair that the incoming President had a say in their appointment. They generally try and keep "acting up" to a minimum but there are some cases where the incoming officer does need to have input.

Evan Whyte, for the Intra-Mural, Athletic Union and Sports Development Zone Committee, said that the minutes and agendas exist but need to be uploaded. Emily Shepherd asked for clarification on when that would happen, and Evan said it would be as soon as possible.

Beckie Thomas, for Tom Gleeson and Charlotte Hollands, said that there had been a misunderstanding in one case and a lack of staff training in another, but that these had both been addressed, and papers would be up soon.

Claire Gilbert, for Alice Grey, said that RAG minutes are taken by a student, and they didn’t realise they had to be uploaded, but that this will be done soon, and more training would be provided next year. 

Josh Cox said that as the Wellbeing Committee is still new, and didn't have staff support, there had been some delays, but that he expected this to be sorted out from next week.

Jade Head sought clarification on whether the old Policy requiring minutes of Standing Committees to be published applied to sub-committees. The response was that this was now covered by the by-laws of each sub-committee.

Marcus Burton was awarded the Union Council Star for his work on the Policy Review.

There was no other business.

The Chair explained that the date and time of the next meeting would be circulated to members in due course.
There being no other business, the meeting closed at 9:11pm.