Student Council Minutes Sunday 11 September 2011 at 13.30 at Bowles Activity Centre The meeting did not reach quorum (the minimum number of members required for a meeting to take place) therefore the meeting and votes were held unofficially to only inform the Union’s activities.
Mile End Officers present (9): Ben Richardson (Student Representative) Caz Parra (Secretary) Dominic Todd (Sports Officer) Donald McKinnon (LGBT Officer) Eleanor Hallam (Chair)
Michael Gilbert (Postgraduate Officer) Ozzy Amir (Campaigns Officer) Shaun Ramanah (Students with Disabilities’ Officer) Wilson Wong (Societies’ Officer)
Mile End Officer apologies (9) Ciara Squires (Student Representative) Ellen Kiely (RAG Officer) Chris Smith (Student Representative) Tom Voice (Ethical and Environmental Officer) Darcie Tyler-Henley (Volunteering Officer)
Edoardo Palmombo (Welfare Officer) Wanda Canton (Women’s Officer) Nabil Najjar (Student Representative) Velyana Borisova (International Officer)
Whitechapel Officers present (5): Adnam Aslam (Dental Representative) Robert Zabihi (Dental Representative) Andrew Smith (Student Representative)
Nicolas Blondel (Campaigns Officer) Micheal Samy (Communications Officer)
Whitechapel Officers apologies (13): Jon Cramphorn (Vice-President Barts) Jeeves Wijesuriya (Vice-President London) Amy Coulden (Entertainments Officer) Salem Al-Sawaf (Entertainments Officer) Timothy Foster (Clubs and Societies’ Officer) Ramey Assaf (External Affairs Officer) Eva Pathmananthan (Dental President)
Mandi Pal (Secretary) Benjamin Hughes (Technical Officer) Richard Donovan (SSLC Rep) Hannah Downer (Treasurer) Aran Ali (RAG Captain) Sam Chequer (Welfare Officer)
Sabbatical Officers in attendance: Sophie Richardson (President) George Ryan (Vice-President Association) Sam Creighton (Vice-President Communications)
Dominic Bell (Vice-President Activities) Oscar Williamson (Vice-President Education and Welfare)
Union Staff in attendance: Philip Gilks (Student Voice and Development Manager) Tom Sutton (Representation and Democracy Co-ordinator)
1.0
Apologies Apologies were noted and accepted.
2.0
Chair’s Welcome Chair welcomed members to the first meeting of the new academic year.
3.0
Articles of Association Sophie Richardson spoke in favour of the adoption of a new Articles of Association to replace the Union’s current constitution that will allow the Union to become an incorporated charity. Student Council voted in favour of the motion: - 11 votes in favour - 0 votes against - 1 abstention
4.0
Election Regulations Sophie Richardson spoke in favour of changes to the Union’s Election Regulations. The proposal was the outcome of a review conducted after this year’s main elections. The review clarified definitions of terms, adapted the role of student media and clearly defined the appeals and complaints procedure.
4.1
Amendment to the Election Regulations - Caz Parra spoke in favour of the amendment to increase the period between the close of nominations and polling from at least three to at least four working days. She argued three days was not sufficient time to allow candidates to sufficiently prepare their campaigns. - Sophie Richardson spoke against the amendment. She argued that although at least three days was specified in the Articles the period in question was almost guaranteed to be longer when possible. - Ozzy Amir spoke in favour of the amendment. He argued that the amendment was to guarantee the period in question was at least a day longer. - Andy Smith spoke against the amendment. He argued that the elections process was too long, especially for candidates on professional courses and supported a reduction of the period in question. - Wilson Wong asked for clarification on how long this period was in previous elections. - Philip Gilks replied with five to seven days. - Caz Parra spoke in favour of the amendment. She argued changes to regulations had already been proposed at a General Meeting. - Sophie Richardson spoke against the amendment. She argued that the wording of the amendment did not fit with the new regulations – the regulations no longer differentiate between the main elections and a by-election. - Student Council voted against the amendment: - 4 votes in favour - 8 votes against - 1 abstention
4.0
Caz Parra spoke against the proposal. She argued certain sections of the regulations required more development such as clauses referring to new and social media. - Dominic Bell agreed that the sabbatical officers and Union staff would rewrite the regulations to encompass all new and social media ahead of the next Student Council Meeting. Student Council voted in favour of the motion: - 7 votes in favour - 0 votes against - 5 abstentions
5.0
Sabbatical Officer Roles
Dominic Bell spoke in favour of changes to the Union’s Sabbatical Officer structure. The proposal was developed along the principle that all officers should be representatives, campaigners or advocates and their responsibilities should not include tasks that are better fulfilled by a staff member or volunteer recruited on the basis of skill and ability. He summarised the changes: - Vice-President Education and Welfare is replaced with a ‘Vice-President Education’ and a ‘Vice-President Welfare’. - Vice-President Student Activities will be removed and current responsibilities distributed to Union staff and Part-time Officers. - Vice-President Communications will also be removed and current responsibilities distributed to Union staff and student editors. -
-
Shaun Ramanah asked for clarification if the membership and balance of between Student Trustees, External Trustees and Sabbatical Trustees on the Union’s Trustee Board will change as a consequence of these changes. Dominic Bell replied that the balance and membership of the Trustee Board (currently five Student Trustees, five External Trustees and five Sabbatical trustees) will be adjusted to four of each.
Student Council voted in favour of the motion: - 10 votes in favour - 0 votes against - 3 abstentions 6.0
Part-time Officer Roles Oscar Williamson spoke in favour of changes to the Union’s Part-time Officer structure and membership of Student Council. The aim of the changes was to ensure all members of Student Council were representatives, to support and guide the education and welfare representation work of the Union and to make the Officer structure in Mile End and Whitechapel more reflective. George Ryan on behalf of the Union’s Dental Representatives spoke against the motion. He argued that in the new structure Dental student representation was reduced from three members of Student Council. Oscar Williamson spoke in favour of the motion. He argued that Dental students were still represented through all representatives including two new faculty representatives representing Barts and The London. Shaun Ramanah spoke against the motion. He argued the motion, that proposed giving Sabbatical Officer the vote on Student Council, could dilute the power of Part-time Officers. Sophie Richardson spoke in favour of the motion. She argued a vote does not increase the influence of Sabbatical Officers on Student Council. Sabbatical Officers are lead representatives of the Union and were often elected by more students than Part-time Officers so should have a vote of the Union’s main governing body. Donald McKinnon spoke against the motion. He argued giving Sabbatical Officers a vote on Council would effectively give them a vote on the body that scrutinises their performance. Sophie Richardson spoke for the motion. She argued that Student Council’s remit was wider than scrutiny and included setting policy and determining the strategy and direction of the Union and that Sabbatical Officers should have a vote when these areas were considered. She added that Student Council was responsible for keeping all Student Councillors to account not just the Sabbatical Officers, so effectively all Student Councillors currently have a vote on a body that scrutinises their performance. - Nicolas Blondel asked for clarification whether student Councillors could take part in votes of no confidence against themselves. - Dominic Bell replied that rules on conflict of interest would mean a Student Councillor subject to a vote of no confidence could not take part in the vote.
Ozzy Amir spoke against the motion. He argued that giving Sabbatical Officers votes contradicted the Sabbatical Officers aims to empower more students. Sophie Richardson gave the summation in favour of the motion summarising the arguments made in favour of the motion. Student Council voted in favour of the motion: - 3 votes in favour - 1 votes against - 9 abstentions 7.0
Clubs, Societies and Student Groups Regulations Dominic Bell spoke in favour of a review of the Union’s Clubs, Societies and Student Groups Regulations. The proposal created new ‘student groups’ for volunteering, campaigning and support activities. Among other changes the review included a change to the definition of an active group. Wilson Wong spoke against the changes. He argued against the removal of the requirement to have at least twenty members to be considered an active society. He argued it was an effective measure and twenty members justified Union funding. Michael Gilbert argued in favour of the changes. He argued that groups such as the Metal and Rock Society though it has less than twenty members. -
Caz Parra asked for clarification if the regulations will be amended, replacing the VicePresident Student Activities, if the sabbatical officers proposals were successful. Dominic Bell replied that he expected the regulations will be changed and adapted annually.
Wilson Wong spoke against the changes. He argued that Union funding for clubs and societies should be focused on groups with the biggest impact on the Union’s members and the absent twenty member requirement ensured this. Donald McKinnon spoke in favour of the changes. He argued some societies such as the LGBT society needed to exist whatever the level of activity to support students so supported the removal of the twenty member requirement. Sean Ramanah spoke against the changes. He argued that the Union couldn’t maintain societies that had so few members as there was nothing to support. Oscar Williamson spoke in favour of the changes. He argued that societies should not lose their progress as a consequence of a year’s lull in activity. Wilson Wong spoke against the changes. He argued that rather than funding small clubs and societies the Union should focus on supporting them to grow. Dominic Bell gave the summation in favour of the changes summarising the arguments made in favour of the changes. Student Council voted in favour of the motion: - 10 votes in favour - 0 votes against - 3 abstentions 8.0
Any other Business Because the meeting had failed to reach the numbers required for a meeting to take place another meeting will need to be called to discuss the urgent items on the agenda.