Annual General Meeting (17th October 2014)

Although categorised under "Annual General Meeting" on the website due to technical limitations, this was a General Meeting.

The meeting opened at 6:15pm. The Chair (Ben Morton) welcomed members to the meeting.

This was a reconvened General Meeting held under article 12.3 of the Articles of Association of the Union, following the earlier meeting of 17^th October 2014 which was inquorate. As no quorum was present at the reconvened meeting within 15 minutes of the time specified for the start of the meeting, the members present in person or by proxy at that time (6:15pm) constituted the quorum for that meeting.

There were 25 members present in the room at 6:15pm, making quoracy for the meeting 25.

Emily Shepherd moved that the meeting do adjourn (article 12.5.1). She said that she believed that there had been a lack of publicity for the meeting, and that it would be better to postpone it as the proposed resolution was very vague. She also believed that spending this money would be unfair on student groups who had not received funding.

Speaking against, David Mendoza-Wolfson stated that funding for student groups is allocated according to agreed criteria, rather than the amount of funds available. He said that he thought there were a good number of people present for the circumstances, including non-members of Union Council. There was a need to take the decision now and not two weeks down the line, and that although he agreed that he would have liked to have seen the meeting better publicised, it was more important that the decision be taken.

Speaking for, Alex Hovden said that he had spoken to many students who were unaware that the meeting was happening, and said that students should vote for the adjournment to ensure that more people were present at a future meeting.

Speaking against, Megan Downing referred to the previous publicity that had included an all-student email, and a blog she had recently written. She said that she thought it was better to go ahead now than to wait.

Speaking for, Jade Head said that there had been publicity for the previous General Meeting but more could have been done. She acknowledged that it was a challenge to get people to attend, but suggested that the Union look into doing proxy voting, as she believed that there were lots of people who would want a say.

Speaking against, Ellie Cawthera said that she was confused and saddened by the proposed adjournment. She believed that the project was great, and wanted to get started on it as soon as possible.

In summation, Emily said that the debate had proved that this matter was more contested than had been previously thought. She reiterated that she was not against the project, but just wanted more information.

• On a counted vote, the motion was not passed (Yes: 14, No: 16).

 

• Resolution on political expenditure
• Background paper on Resolution on political expenditure

David Mendoza-Wolfson, speaking for, gave an assurance that the money would be spent fairly and that it will make sure that our students are at the centre of the political debate.

Speaking against, Milosz Gaczkowski said that he believed that the resolution was not specific enough, and might allow SUSU to support political parties. On a point of clarification, David stated that that would be illegal. Milosz disagreed, and suggested that if so, it might be done secretly. He continued, saying that the resolution does not state what the money would be spent on.

• David moved Procedural Motion E (to move to an informal discussion). The Procedural Motion was passed on a clear show of voting cards.

Megan Downing said that she believed any speculation about the Union making donations to political parties was ridiculous, as it would be illegal to do so. The project was about improving political engagement amongst students, and she said that she could not believe the antagonism that was being faced.

Leon Rea said he felt there was a lack of information on what was being proposed to be spent.

At the invitation of the Chair, and with the leave of the meeting, the Democracy Coordinator briefly outlined the scope of the project.

Alex Hovden said he believed that there was lots of apathy amongst students, that the marketing proposal was excessive, and that if students care about this information they will seek it out.

Sammi Standly said that at the last General Election she had had no idea who to vote for, and thought the marketing campaign was a good idea. She thought the project would make politicians care about students, and believed that we need to improve political education generally.

David noted that turnout amongst 18-35s is the lowest of the age groups, and that too often political debate was framed around pensioners. Students needed to show that they were relevant.

Emily listed a number of student groups who had their funding requests refused.

Leon said that the money would be spent on getting students more involved in politics. He referred to what John Denham had said at the previous meeting in respect of there being a “catch-22” situation, whereby students don’t vote so politicians don’t do anything for them.

Returning to the basket debate, Giles Howard, speaking for the motion, said that he believed that there had been a lot of misinformation during the debate. He said that the £20,000 had not yet been allocated by Trustee Board, and the allocation of funds to student groups was a different issue. He acknowledged the lack of people at the meeting but said that this was symptomatic of a wider issue. He believed that some people had taken the debate in a random direction, and that the meeting should vote now and stop derailing the issue.

Speaking against, Emily said that funding meetings had not been informed of the project, and that although saying no would not mean more money to spend on student groups, it would not make sense to say yes. She believed that the project could be good, but that it needed more thought.

Sammi, speaking for, said that she did not see the point in delaying the debate any more. She noted that it had been clarified that it was not proposed to spend £20,000 on this project, but that this was to safeguard the Union against breaking the law.

Mayan Al-Shakarchy, speaking against, said that she thought the meeting was very aggressive. She thought that it was great that people were voting and discussing these issues. She agreed that information was important, but said that she thought the money involved could be allocated in better ways.

• Jade Head moved Procedural Motion E (to move to an informal discussion). She said that she was conflicted, and wanted to be better informed before voting. There were no speeches against. The Procedural Motion was passed on a clear show of voting cards.

Jade asked if the project would involve the political societies. David assured her that it would.

• Megan Downing moved Procedural Motion D (to move to the vote). She said that the previous procedural motion had been moved simply to ask a question, and that the meeting should now vote on the matter. Speaking against the Procedural Motion, Milosz said that students still had questions, and that they needed to have educated votes. The Procedural Motion was passed on a clear show of voting cards.

On a counted vote, the resolution was passed (Yes: 18, No: 5, Abstentions: 7).

 There being no further business, the meeting closed at 7:35.