All Student Meeting: Student Union president title change and Union accountability
The University’s Students’ Union (SU) held its third and final All Student Meeting (ASM) of the academic year on Monday 12 May. The meeting addressed the motion to rename the title of the SU president to ‘Khal/Khaleesi’ and discussed increasing the accountability of the SU.
Prior to the meeting, the Trustees voted to withdraw the latter motion, despite the motion passing through the Composite Committee.
This decision meant only one motion was up for debate. However, the meeting opened with clear concerns about the removal of the motion from the meeting agenda.
SU president title change
Disappointed students were quick to question the sabbatical officers as to why the motion to rename the position of ‘president’ had been discarded.
Aaron Bowater, who was responsible for the motion, voiced his frustrations at the start of the meeting. He made it clear that his motion had complied with every regulation set out by the SU.
The SU’s claim that the legal costs would be too high was also questioned as Mr Bowater asked for proof of this. He insisted that he would be able to obtain the legal advice for free.
Mr Bowater asserted that the SU politics alienated much of the student body and this motion was an attempt to engage the student body.
He remarked: “The Union’s job is to represent and help its students. We do not support sabbatical officers who only encourage participation on its terms. If you’re not here to represent us what is the point of you?”
In response to Mr Bowater’s list of accusations Cosmo March, democracy and development officer, insisted: “It is within the trustees’ remit to withdraw a motion. They were within the procedures. It is completely within their powers.”
Alex Shaw, a first-year student, was keen to find out why the motion was removed from the agenda. Other students continued to press the sabbatical officers over how many of the unelected Board of Trustees voted to removed the motion.
After initially dodging the question, Ben Sundell, president of the SU, revealed the vote was “unanimous”.
Increasing the accountability of the SU
The meeting then turned to discuss the only motion on the agenda, a call to make the SU more accountable to its members.
The proposer of the motion, Thomas Raynor, a third-year History student, introduced the motion as a shift towards the SU being “member led” so that students can know what it is doing and why it is doing it.
He insisted: “It doesn’t mean we think they are doing anything wrong. We just want to hold our SU to account.”
Mr Raynor continued to list some of the points of his motion, including a call to anonymously publish the salaries paid to SU staff and also move the L drive, a section of the SU website containing the bylaws of the SU, to a more accessible place.
Frances Lasok, a third-year History student who seconded the motion, echoed Mr Raynor’s thoughts. She said: “What you do is great, but the students don’t understand…The stuff on the L drive, the bylaws, should be available.”
In response to these statements, Cat Turhan, current welfare officer and president elect, questioned who this motion would benefit.
Ms Turhan voiced concerns that people would start questioning where money was being spent, using the example of the Student Advice Centre, which she asserted “saved peoples’ lives.”
She continued: “I appreciate the sentiment in which this motion was written but the way it is written doesn’t quite achieve what they’re after.”
Lucy Gill, postgrad officer, agreed that there were parts of the motion which weren’t “what the majority of students want.”
But Ms Gill added: “I would vote yes to most parts of the motion if I could. Most of them are great.”
Nonetheless, there was general support for the motion at the ASM. Students agreed that the contents of the L drive should be more accessible.
Ms Turhan insisted if students want to make the SU more accountable then they should ask the sabbatical officers, or the councillors, what they are doing.
Ms Gill agreed, remarking: “You can come and talk to us.”
After the discussion, a vote was taken in which the motion was marginally defeated.
The ‘L drive’ resources which details the bylaws of the SU can be accessed here.
Voting is open on the motion until midday on Friday.
Comments (1)
I am so grateful for your article.Thanks Again. Great.