In the conference room, with breadsticks and hummus provided by CG. Her SU comm playlist is on, featuring “It’s raining men” to match the weather outside. Many people are over 20 minutes late, and CG gets very salty.

Present: CG (Communications Officer), EG (Assistant Students
with Disabilities’ rep), RM (LGBT+ Rep), JC (Vice-President), LH (SU
rep), MT (SU rep)

Apologies: JS (Working Class Students’ Rep), EM (President),
SM (Postgraduate and Mature Student’s Chair)

Absent: EJ (SU rep)

Explain how assembly works

CG: It’s not as exciting as a JCR meeting. It’s very timetabled.

RM: They run very smoothly.

EG: What is it?

Here’s a diagram. I’m on it. CG explains. Various people vote. CG
votes on behalf of Cuth’s.

Irrelevant Things in Assembly Papers

CG: I’ve decided to vote for this person for chair because they
have more experience.

RM: I think that person is very competent.

CG: I’ll see how husts are on the day.

CG: I’m tempted to RON the candidate for open position because they’ve only written 2 sentences.

*RM declares conflict of interest for discussion of women’s open position*

RM: I stalked the opposition on facebook, they seem nice.

CG: I think I’ll vote for RM because she’s Cuth’s, and the other person only wrote 3 sentences. Also RM is more experienced.

CG: Might vote RON for pg open position because the candidate has only written 2 sentences.

CG: 3 candidates for 1st year UG open. I’ll see how it goes on the day. Someone wrote something funny.

CG: Gov and grants comm, there’s someone from Cuth’s. Let’s vote for them.

CG: Don’t disagree with president’s priorities. I love SJA’s priorities because I did half a module on this. I think it’s the best one, kudos to them if they pull it off. I feel like there’s not much new in AM’s priorities. It’s not that rad, but OK. I like JD’s priorities. We love sustainability.

Election rules motion

CG: We need to revamp SU election rules. A new set of rules was approved last meeting. There was an amendment which required officers and student trustees to remain neutral in elections. Motions suggests that this is contrary to the standing orders and likely to have a negative impact on the SU’s reputation.

CG: SU reps have discussed this a lot, and we don’t like this motion. I don’t think it’s fair to have SU officers  campaigning for people. It would seem ridiculous if we did it in Cuth’s. So I think I’m going to vote against it. It’s better to change the SU standing orders so that this is permissible. Historically, people endorsed by the incumbent normally win.

RM: I think GW campaigned for people for trustees, but they didn’t all win.

EG: I can see how it wouldn’t allow for much change of thought or progression.

CG: A really good thing about Cuth’s JCR is that people can just turn up and run for elections, and you just need to be better than other people. To run for an exec role, you do it on your own rather than by using someone else. I think it’s unfair if officers can campaign.

RM: I don’t feel strongly about it. KM has said it’s more about inconsistency in the standing orders. I don’t think they want to redact the original motion.

CG: I don’t think they should be neutral, but they shouldn’t campaign

RM: It’s hard to define campaigning because of how the election rules are written.

CG: I think going around telling people is different to responding when someone asks who you’re voting for. I just really hate the SU. I think some people do a lot, but I don’t like that they have to work in a really rigid framework.

RM: It’s because all SU members have fundamental rights.

CG: I still think I’ll vote against it. I’ll speak to other SU reps. As someone that’s used to the JCR, officer neutrality seems sensible.

RM: I don’t think anyone will mind whichever way you vote.

Association elections that work for all

CG: I don’t hate this.

RM: Association elections have been moved online, some were happy with this and some weren’t.

EG: It seems more accessible to have it online.

RM: Some associations have been accused of cliqueness surrounding their elections which is why they’ve been moved online. I think it’s a good thing.

CG: Me too.

EG: I think there are more unfair aspects of voting in the room.

CG: There might be some people who don’t want to out themselves by coming to a meeting.

RM: Proposal is that only president is voted for online and the rest aren’t. I don’t like that

CG: Me neither.

RM: There’s also an issue with the “annual basis” related to re-running elections when positions aren’t filled.

CG: I really think that for anonymity it’s important for people to be able to vote online.

RM: I think the original motion is too rigid, I like online elections but it needs more flexibility. But president and vice-president should definitely be online. It leads to a massively different voter demographic.

CG: I’m going to vote against it. If anyone has a problem with that, bite me then email on

CG: Dipping lollies in prosecco is the best hobby.

The environment: core position

CG: There last motion didn’t pass so it’s been split in two.

CG: Motion just says that SU doesn’t want the planet to burn.

*LH arrives (1 hour late)*

CG: I think the environment is important, so I’ll vote for this.

*Unanimous agreement*

Declaring a climate emergency

CG: I want to vote for this

RM: We don’t to make TP cry again.

CG: Last time his motion got yeeted out of assembly. He’s a nicer, less abrasive, Christian, male version of me from Trevs. He’s also a better human being than me.

*MT also arrives at last*

RM: Is the proposed new PVC going to be paid over £100k?

LH: I think Edinburgh Uni have one.

RM: Greta would vote for this.

CG: If Greta would do it, Cuth’s will do it.

Lobby landlords to accept international guarantors

CG: I’m excited for the beef, even though I’m vegan.

CG: Proposal for SU to lobby landlords to accept international guarantors. University can now guarantee certain students, following SU lobbying. But they’ve only agreed to do it for a limited number of people. Estate agents have clocked on and are refusing the Uni as a guarantor. A lot of people have to pay to have a guarantor.

CG: I’m voting for this.

Election rules motion – revisited

CG: Re-visiting now more people are here.

*CG summarises previous discussion.*

MT: I think it would be unfair on competitors for one candidate to be endorsed by the incumbent. I say vote against it.

RM: They also say it’s not compatible with the standing orders because SU officers are also members.

CG: I think they should just change the standing orders. I intend to vote against it and bring it up at SU comm that the standing orders need to change.

MT: I think it would be undemocratic to allow officers to campaign because campaign team reach is limited.

CG: I think they should be able to campaign in uncontested elections, but I think it’s better for them not to campaign. All the SU reps hate this motion.

EG: The person who holds the positions holds so much more power than anyone else.

LH: But also they have the experience and know what’s required to be good at the role.

MT: But they can tell people what’s required and let people make up their minds.

RM: That’s the view of SU officers, that they have more insight into the position that anyone else.

CG: The election roles for NUS delegate say that people who encourage others to vote shouldn’t campaign for anyone. So that’s in conflict with this. Why are SU officers different to SU reps? If SU reps can’t express their views, then it’s not a problem for SU officers to not be able to. This just highlights constitutional problems. For an outsider to bring a
motion to assembly would be very intimidating. Part of this is fighting cliqueness. I think I’ll vote against, but I’ll see how it goes on the day.

Association elections that work for all – revisited

*CG summarises previous discussion*

LH: For voting online, do you listen to husting before?

RM: It’s similar to Cuth’s Method I elections.

LH: I think it will encourage more people to vote.

CG: I’ll probably vote against it, but I’ll see how it goes.

Assembly Walkdowns

CG: Did I mention my Gran is dead?

CG: Me and LH will meet at Bailey at 18.00, so everyone that wants to come can come with us. MT and EJ will walk from Parson’s. Promote it to your friends.

MT: Let’s put it in the freshers’ chat.

CG: If people want to know how we’ll vote, they can read the minutes then bite me.

CG: If you want to run for NUS delegate, it’s open now.


LH: Do you still want me to organise a social?

CG: Yes, but after my 100% summative is due.