Present: AK (President), SM (Communications Officer), KW (LGBT+ Rep), EM (VP), MW (JSU Rep), EuM (JSU Rep), JF (JSU Rep), CG (JSU Rep)
Setting: The conference room before Outreach Bingo. SM has brought home-made millionaire shortbread because she is a star.
1 ) Minute Approval of Last meeting
2 ) Feedback on Last SU Assembly
A. Procedural Motion
B. Student Groups Constitution and Head of Terms
C. Tyne and Wear Citizens
3 ) Update on what’s been happing with SU Rep Committee
– Housing Issues for Finalists
– Discussed NUS
– University Challenge
– Lloyds international ID Policy
– Liver- in voter registration
– Ensuring Summary of motions
4) Items for Discussion
A. AUCU – Anti-Casualisation Policy
B. Elections Expenses Policy
C. Support of the Associations Policy
1) Minute Approval of Last meeting
2) Feedback on Last SU Assembly
a. Procedural Motion
b. Student Groups Constitution and Head of Terms
c. Tyne and Wear Citizens
a) The first motion which procedural went through fine.
b) Then the student groups constitution was the controversial one. CW kept tying to meet up with me to convince me to vote for it even though we are against as he didn’t consult student groups. In assembly it got heated. It got voted downs so now they are consulting with student groups, editing it and it will be coming up in the meeting after next.
c) The Tyne and Wear thing – we agreed to affiliate.
3 ) Update on what’s been happing with SU Rep Committee
b) Housing Issues for Finalists
c) Discussed NUS
d) University Challenge
e) Lloyds international ID Policy
f) Liver- in voter registration
g) Ensuring Summary of motions
a) ripped off is continuing. There is a mailbox in the SU and everything is it is going to go to the Vice Chancellor in disguise. Trying to target the VC personally.
Do we have the postcards from last year- apparently they never went anywhere?
ACTION POINT: AK will look for the postcards from last year
ACTION POINT: SM will adversities this on the fb groups
SM: there is now a ripped off time line on the website. Aiden’s also now have a ripped off society.
AK: So if (though I doubt there will be) there was enough interest in one at Cuth’s would it sit under the umbrella of the SU?
SM: No, it would be completely separate
b) SU are working on housing issues for finalists because graduation is after Tenancy Agreements run out. Their response is to contact your landlords. Graduation is 2-5 of July when Tenancy Agreements run out 1st July
AK: I brought this up at the beginning of the year with college in the hope of them being able to offer finalists accommodation in college if needed. They said they could work something out but now CF (Bursar) is saying no
SM: Trevs do it
AK: it’s because we have people doing classes here over summer
The Uni’s response has been “we have given the dates well in advance” – which is ridiculous
SM: c) NUS are very in debt. It’s in the millions. They aren’t actually bankrupt as they have property. They are going to have to do a lot of restructuring.
So, we are probably going to pay less to affiliate with them because they are going to give us less back.
JF: what do we get for them?
SM: campaign Materials. A direct line to government policy. They are the reasons we have Wednesday afternoons off, something about insurance, council tax…
SM to KW: I told you about this- what else was there?
KW: bold to assume I was listening
Everyone: chuckle chuckle chuckle
SM: there was more stuff but I didn’t write it down
They elected MB, KM, SJA and T? and C? (NUS Reps)
SM: d) University challenge- we had it in college the other week. They are getting rid of the inter collegiate competition so they just pick the best 4.
EuM: were any of the top 4 were in Cuth’s?
SM: I don’t know. the highest score was 21
Mary’s had someone 22
John’s had someone with 11
CG: that quiz was really hard. My score on the tv is 9 – but I left half way through
AK: did every college have the same questions?
SM: yes. It seems stupid because what if the top 4 all happen to be physicist or something?
EuM: Durham was offered to have it based on colleges a few years ago but for some reason we didn’t go for it
SM: we haven’t won since 2000
AK: I didn’t know you could win it. I thought it was like Eggheads. I’ve never watched either.
SM: e) the next thing they are working on is the Lloyds international policy. The issue there is that they are doing it in spoons across the country. This means they aren’t accepting international ID cards.
CG: so we are trying to change every spoons?
SM: No, just trying to get Lloyds to make an exception
AK: Apparently Lloyds have already applied for the ability to make an exception to this
SM: f) the voter registration thing was a bit of a mess because they only wanted Bailey people to sign up, and they thought there were 300 on the Bailey which there aren’t
AK: but how will we win? If we were ignoring Brooks?
EuM: this issue as come about because we had to enroll with the university before we knew where we were living so everyone was just told to put the 12 Bailey address
AK: So, college was severely understaffed thought summer. JW (Vice-Principal) was doing two different jobs over summer. PB (Former Vice-Principal) left without much guidance because he’d been doing it so long it was second nature. J? was also new. SO, it was JW, J and EA (Principal) working blind
SM: f) when assembly sent out the agenda they put in a summary of the motions which they do now and that’s nice
4) Items for Discussion
a) AUCU – Anti-Casualisation Policy
b) Elections Expenses Policy
c) Support of the Associations Policy
SM: a) most of the assembly papers are updates from the SU officers. After 50 mins we get to the motions.
Ok so the first one is by DE (PG Academic Officer). It’s pretty much trying to make the SU support postgrad teachers and mandate them to support the DUCs because these people aren’t treated well. I don’t see why we would oppose this.
SM: b) The second one says when people campaign on an SU election, at the moment they can spend 60 quid – £40 would come from the SU and the rest is paid by candidates but they want to change that so it’s all reimbursed. I don’t’ see why we would oppose this.
SM: c) NO who is the Vice President of the working class students association has put this motion forward. At the moment the trans association, working class association and women associations haven’t been ratified yet. Last assembly, she asked the chair a question and MH (Welfare & Liberation Officer) defended it because they were saying that assembly has approved them but the ratification form trustees is what they are waiting on because they want drop in hour.
My feeling is obviously they should be able to have a vote, but we’ve head why they shouldn’t be able to.
The motion is to ask the board of trustees to sort themselves out.
AK: they should be able to just get on with this? Why are we voting on it?
SM: yeah we don’t really know why it’s a motion
AK: why aren’t they getting ratification without drop in hours and they working on getting the hours later?
KW: so is this just asking them to say they need to get a shuffle on?
SM: I want to hear the SU’s side because they must have a reason for it
AK: surely if it’s just a trustee issue then SU must want it?
SM: yeah, so I’m thinking that we support it unless we hear a good reason as to why the SU is currently against it from GW (SU President).
KW: is this motion delaying the ratification process because they are asking for more stuff??
SM: I don’t think so, I think it’s just about the trustees. It’s hard to know when we’ve not heard from MH (Welfare & Liberation Officer)
EuM: there is probably a reason for the delay, but everything can be fixed. It should be cracked on with
JF: I don’t see why its not been done already
CG: so at the moment, women, trans people and working class people don’t have their own vote?
AK and SM: they don’t specifically, but they have some representation through other groups.
Final verdict: support unless there is a convincing argument not to