Unconfirmed
BISHOP GROSSETESTE STUDENTS’ UNION
MINUTES OF THE STUDENT COUNCIL MEETING
HELD ON MONDAY 2ND FEBRUARY 2015
Item / Action1. / Welcome and Apologies
The Chair welcomed everyone to the first student council meeting of 2015. The Chair asked Jamie to confirm the attendees stating that 43 elected representatives were present and we are therefore quorate.
2. / Minutes of the last Meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were confirmed to be a true record of the meeting.
3.
3.1 / Matters Arising
Dr Ruth Sayers (Executive Dean Teaching, Learning and International), formerly Dean of SCEI. New role is working across the whole institution rather than just the school of SCEI. Responsible for heading up a group on the learning, teaching and assessment strategy and works with students on student engagement. Ruth highlighted the learning, teaching and assessment strategy draft document to the students and asked them for any comments. Ruth explained that they had added it to the student portal for students to look at and informed students that they can ask Jamie if they can’t find a copy. Ruth argued that student engagement is more than representation at meetings and is something that we really want students to be involved in. It’s a partnership between students and staff, so when we are doing our courses we are listening to your views. We want to come up with an agreement/charter of what we can offer you and you to agree with us. It’s a genuine attempt to involve you to design your own course and have input into your studies. We need to share teaching and learning experiences and we need students on board. Don’t be afraid to get involved as we really need your views. We already have four reps on the board but we need to broaden it out. Please help us to make it work and collect your views. I am up for any suggestions you have.
Jack – can people feedback views as part of council? Can staff come ever y so often to council and the SU organise it?
Jamie – we can definitely collect views as a part of council and we can organise staff to come to council and give talks or/and answer questions you may have like we have previously done inviting the vice chancellor and the deputy vice chancellor down to a council meeting.
Ruth highlighted that the 3 year primary education QTS course is a good example of good practice happening in the institution. The course ensures that your voices are heard and that students are engaged.
Ruth informed council that she would be happy to come to any meetings you may have/like to have.
3.2 / Andy Wright delivered a talk about the BG foundation fund. It exists to enhance the student experience. It also makes a difference to other people’s lives. It benefits students, alumni and staff. Grants are awarded by an independent disbursement committee with many members of staff throughout the institution. It's not there to replace spending on staff budgets. It's there when there is no other money available. Mainly awarded to voluntary activities, overseas and in the UK. There are three points in the year you can apply for a grant. Grants are awarded on the strength of an application. If your application is detailed including itinerary, finances etc. you stand a better chance of receiving the £500. My role is to support people who want to apply, increase the quality of their application, to help them have a better chance of receiving funding. The next closing date for applications is 20th February. There is normally a month after the committee decides until you get the money. Fundraising activities for the fund include fringe and Bollywood evenings. Please take a leaflet and I am on the Newton building upstairs and I can provide you with advice if needed.
Ellie – asked about the foundation fund in relation to the RAG trip to Machu Picu as it’s not technically volunteering and asked if students going on the trip would still be able to apply. Andy asked Ellie to come and have a chat with him outside the meeting about the possibility of funding.
3.3 / Formal Business: Motion Proposal 1 on liberations reps. Proposed by James Franklin. (See appendix 1 for the motion proposal document).
James – what I am proposing are five liberations reps, one for each liberation group. They would be responsible for gathering information and student opinion into each of the liberation areas. Each rep would sympathise with a particular liberations group. Most SU’s have an officer per group but we are too small. They would carry out research but would not be a member of the exec team. The Liberations Officer would be responsible for the liberations reps and liaise and support them to carry out their duties. Bit like RAG reps but for liberations.
Jack - I have several concerns. If you only have 5 reps one per group, they are the only different identities that exist. As soon as you have labels more people feel like they don't have a label and then would want one and feel excluded. Why do they need to be from all of those backgrounds? You can do a job without being from one of those backgrounds. I am not a fan of positive discrimination.
James - The Liberations reps do not cover all groups and this is the model that NUS suggest. It provides specific representation and ensures each group is represented fully.
Ryan - What's the need for the Liberations Officer if you have 5 reps? If there is a confidential issue this could be shared with 6 people and some things are confidential.
James - I am not arguing that I am not approachable, just the rep could organise research and broaden representation as a whole of the group; I would be there to oversee everything and head it up.
A rep suggested that you could have a Facebook forum to suggest things rather than have a rep.
Will you not have the same problem as the 5 reps have to come back to you and you can fit into every category?
James explained that 5 officers wouldn't work as we are so small.
Would having the reps mean you can approach more people than if you just had one person?
Do you think that a university as small as ours needs all these roles as we may have a period of time when we have no students who identify with certain groups?
What if you can't get all 5 people you need?
James - We will just run as we are with the amount of positions we can fill, it’s more representation than we currently have.
If we only have 2 filled then more people are underrepresented.
Ryan - Work with your exec and do the job we voted you to do rather than add more representatives.
James argued that one officer can't do everything and I feel this is the way forward.
The Chair closed discussions around this particular issue and explained that we are going to vote on 5 specialised reps, each one self-identifying with one of the 5 liberations reps.
As the Liberations Officer is responsible for the liberation reps wouldn’t it be better to have 5 liberation officers instead?
Votes for 23
Votes against 18
Abstentions 3
Motion passed
3.4 / Formal Business: Motion Proposal 2 on extensions. Proposed by Becca Smith (See appendix 2 for the motion proposal document).
Becca explained that there is no standardised way of granting extensions. Some tutors will grant extensions but the same issue can be declined by another tutor. This proposal is to petition the university to provide a centralised place that deals with this by the university. Could be in learning support or student advice.
Would there be communication between tutors and the centralised person? As tutor would know a student better than a person that doesn't know the students.
Becca explained that would be for the university to decide.
Some courses ask for death certificates but some don't, there needs to be standardisation. The university code of practice. needs to be looked at as it's vague
If it's someone from learning development this could restrict their availability
Just an example, it’s the university’s decision. This is just a request to ask the university to carry it through.
The issue of proof of death certificates to be considered in another motion at a different meeting.
Could there be a timeline involved when they have to get back to students. As a student applied but didn't hear back that they got the extension until after the hand in.
If there was a decent policy you wouldn't need a person to do this job. Is this about a need for a policy or a need for a new member of a staff?
A policy would be less regulatable than a person in post to organise this.
If it is a sensitive subject then could the tutor or lecturer hand in the form if the student didn't want to approach a stranger?
Still needs to be dealt with on an individual basis against a checklist.
I still think it's about the policy not the need for a person.
It's not the course tutor it's the academic coordinator.
The Chair stated that we can't split the motion the vote is simply for if we need to propose a recommendation.
Votes for the motion a clear majority and therefore the motion passes.
Ruth explained that death certificates should not be asked for.
5 people in the room have been asked for this in the past.
Ruth believes this should not be the case and will clarify this and get back to us.
3.5 / Formal Business: Motion Proposal 3 on the new proposed RAG Arrangements. Proposed by Jamie Caress on behalf of Chris Robertson (See appendix 3 for the motion proposal document).
Adam - Nothing has changed from the previous option.
Jamie - This is the only option.
Is this motion saying that the SU is a charity but can't give money to other charities?
Jamie – Yes it is.
The protected status, why should it be more protected/important than others. Other unions have rag officers why can't we, there must be a loophole?
Jamie - We don't want to lose rag it’s part of our ethos and integral to the union. Its right that the union supports it as it's good for the community and university. They have rag officer as its part of theory charitable aims. The only way we could do it is change our constitution/aims. It's worth exploring. If we pass this now we will be compliant, now and it could be reviewed.
When would this take effect? What we have will be kept for this year and new structure implemented in the new academic year.
Why would members pay to be part of rag?
Jamie - The motion says may charge not will charge but the principle of paying is to give rag some money for their accounts.
Votes for 24
Majority motion passed
3.6 / Formal Business: Motion Proposal 4 3DY design and budget proposal. Proposed by Jamie Caress on behalf of Chris Robertson
Are you going to promote the room more?
Jamie - Yes but students take priority. You haven't been a priority we are only looking to keep existing customers except when students aren’t here. . You can book it at the SU
A question was asked around Community groups. Benefit for students to network with external groups and the SU are looking at offering community rates to community groups who encourage students to volunteer and improve their CV.
Where are you getting the money from?
Jamie explained that the money would be coming from the SU reserves and that we would still have a good amount of money in the reserves following the investment.
What are you doing with the upstairs Bar area?
The bar will be changed into an SU and Chaplaincy kitchen and work area with laptop points, cooker, washing machine etc.
If it’s for health and safety shouldn’t the university pay for it?
Parts of the problems are concerned with health and safety and therefore the university are contributing to the investment.
When are you going to do it?
Over Easter or most likely over the summer break.
Will you ask the societies what they need?
Yes we need to consult student clubs and societies and students more widely.
The chair called on council members to vote and the motion passed with a clear majority.
As council was getting close to the guillotine Jamie proposed a procedural motion to extend the guillotine by 15 minutes. This was passed by council by a clear majority.
3.7 / Formal Business: Motion Proposal 5 Partnership Office Independent Audit. Proposed by Sam Lomax (See appendix 4 for the motion proposal document).
The partnership office is terrible and so rude We will do this if they like it or not.
It was revamped last year and nothing has changed will this make any difference?
Students were not involved in the revamp of the partnership office. The audit would involve student perspectives this time around.
Can the 40 miles be reviewed and the travelling time looked at instead?
Travel is part of the partnership office so they would be looked at jointly as part of the process.
Could people go home and have block placements at home rather than 2 days a week?
They put Steve Sefton on there to fix it and it's not worked.
The point of this is to find the problems and how we can help to fix them.
Students have different issues that aren't taken into account by the placement office.
40 sheets were filled in as students want to go home and the office are not lessening and saying they have to stay in Lincoln. It's not making the issue easier.
The office have views on where you come from. You get laughed at if you want to go home. Let people stay at home as it's closer than where they are placed.
Placement a student organised in kings Lynn was refused by BGU as BGU had organised their own placement and then BGU realised the BGU placement was in Kings Lynn and they had to take the BG placement as it would make the university look bad. Why couldn't the student sort it in the first place.
The office don't look at where you need to go.
The Chair asked council members to vote on the motion clarifying that they were voting on the independent audit of the partnership office carried out by the Students’ Union. The council passed the motion with a clear majority.
4
4.1 / Trustee Board Report:
Jamie delivered the Trustee Board report on behalf of Chris. (see appendix 5)
Jack asked why the 3DY proposal went to the trustee board prior to student council.
Jamie informed Jack that the trustee board can only meet a limited number of times during the year and the timetabling of this combined with the urgent need to decide meant that the business went to the trustee board and then to council. If council had decided against the proposals I am sure the board would rethink their previous decision.
4.2 / Presidents Report:
Jamie delivered the President’s report on behalf of Chris. (see appendix 6)
4.3 / Activities Team Report:
Ricky delivered the Activities Team report on behalf of Jay (see appendix 7)
4.4 / Welfare Team Report:
Casey delivered the Welfare Team report (see appendix 8)
5 / Any Other Business:
Luke South explained to council about his appointment as the lead student representative on the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) higher education review student submission and that he would be working alongside the university and the Students’ Union to write the report. He informed council that he would be looking to recruit a working group to support with the writing of the student submission and asked that any volunteers come forward and let him know they were interested or contact the SU.
6 / Meeting Closed at:
7.51PM. The Chair thanked everyone for attending the meeting and informed them that any matter arising can be highlighted through using the matter arising form and placed in the ballot box.
The next meeting will be on Monday 9th March at 6pm in the Hardy Lecture Theatre.
Appendix 1: Liberations Reps Proposal