Agenda for SSCSU Open Meeting

Thursday 4^th March 2010, in the JCR

1. Signing of the Previous Minutes

2. Reading of Emergency Motions

3. Reports Back/ Questions to Exec:

4. Questions to the CUSU Officer (SSCSU External Officer)

5. Questions to SSBC and Sports and Societies Leaders

6. Items for Discussion:

a) Hall Food and KFC

 

Kim: Overall food is quite cheap at Sidney, below the College average, which is £2 for a main course (not including veg) It has been suggested that prices should go up 20%. However there will be two main meal prices.

Charlotte: The 20% will be on the higher meal which will also be better quality. The other one will only go up about 4p. Anything that is significantly below the average will go up 20%.

Formal will be £6. 50. KFC will go up 5% and a further 5% for the next couple of years, this is negotiable however.

 

Yuddi: Last year KFC went up 5.2% and we voted it down but it went up anyway.

 

Sallie: College Council have the final decision making power on this.

Yuddi: So what power do we have?

Sallie: Obviously College want a solution that students are happy with so we do have some negotiating power.

Kim: Nick is happy to take our ideas on board.

Rob: Would it be possible to keep KFC the same and put food prices up more, as then the cost is passed on to those who actually eat there. Then Hall would be rewarded for better quality food as more people would attend.

Charlotte: There is also an issue that as hobs are being removed people in hostels should be paying more KFC as they can actually cook.

Denver: This should also be reflected in a higher cost for Blundell where there are proper kitchens.

Kim: would people be in favour of doing this instead?

Indicative vote:

Higher price rises on food rather than KFC is more popular.

 

7. Notices:

8. Motions:

8.a Motion: Founding of the Sidney Sussex Jazz Society

 

SSCSU Notes:

1. There is a growing interest in jazz among Sidney Students.
2. The college has recently been given a gift in cash to spend on jazz.
3. There already is a jazz band that regularly rehearses in Sidney, with a successful gig in Sidney bar in Week 6.

 

SSCSU Believes:

1. Such student activity should be actively encouraged and supported by a sustaining society, including funding.
2. The jazz society can be an integral part of college life, as is the case in colleges such as Homerton, Fitzwilliam, and Churchill.
3. It should be separate from the Music Society, as:

a)  It will allow specialisation of genres, as well as provide opportunities for more music events at Sidney.

b) Other colleges have specialised jazz societies, such as those noted above.

c) It will allow the movement to last even after the current students leave

 

SSCSU Resolves:

1. To affiliate Sidney Sussex Jazz Society and its subsidiaries (bands) with SSCSU.

 

Motion by: Rin Ushiyama

Seconded by: Iain Blackwell

 

Motion Clearly Passes.

 

8.b.

Revised University proposals on disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures

 

SSCSU Notes

1. The Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on disciplinary, dismissal, and grievance procedures: Notice and announcement of ballot (Reporter, pp.546-85, available at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2009-10/weekly/6179/section1.shtml#heading2-4)

2. That this report represents a revision of proposals made in Michaelmas 2009, which drew widespread opposition amongst many staff and students as well as from the UCU, who variously believed that they unduly threatened job security, courses and departments, and academic freedom, and discriminated unfairly between “academic” and supposedly merely “academic-related” staff;

3. That the University Council and General Board are putting the revised proposals to a ballot of the university’s academics (Regent House) between 23 April and 7 May. The vote will offer a choice between:

a. Accepting the proposals in full (“Grace One”),

b. Accepting the proposals except for the division between types of university staff (“Grace Two”),

c. Rejecting the proposals in full;

4. That many staff, including senior members of University Council, remain dissatisfied with the revised proposals;

5. That it is possible to submit a “fly-sheet” – essentially referendum propaganda – for circulation with the ballots, but students can only do this if the signatories include 5 JCR/MCR Presidents, CUSU/GU sabbaticals, and/or student reps from University Council;

6. That David Lowry, student rep on University Council (and thus quite familiar with the proposals), has consulted with Cambridge UCU and senior members of the Council and drafted a fly-sheet arguing opposition to the changes from a student perspective, which is attached.

 

SSCSU Believes

1. That the revised proposals are an improvement and some elements of them are to be welcomed (for instance, academic freedom is better protected than in the previous version);

2. That unfortunately the proposals will harm our education and university experience and therefore remain unacceptably flawed:

a. They do not address students’ concerns about underperforming staff;

b. They will make it easier for administrators to remove University officers for financial reasons with reduced rights of appeal, threatening the existence of certain courses, departments and teaching styles;

c. They weaken the University’s internal democracy – one of its great strengths;

d. The discrimination against “academic-related” staff is unfair and unreflective of the important work they do to benefit students;

3. That the defences which are being attacked here are those which recently played a substantial part in saving teaching in Architecture and Portuguese from ill-conceived abolition by administrators;

4. That it is especially vital that we do not lower our defences against damaging, short-sighted cuts and downsizing at this time of economic strife – while it must always be possible to make changes to the University’s structure, such actions must be carefully thought-through and the whole University must be given a say. A University is not a business and therefore academic, not financial, interests must remain a protected priority;

5. That the academics voting on these proposals ought to hear our position.

 

SSCSU Resolves

1. To oppose the proposals in their new revised form;

2. To mandate the JCR President to sign David Lowry’s fly-sheet and invite other JCR members to do the same if they wish;

3. To mandate the JCR President and External Officer to support any proposal mandating CUSU sabbs to sign this fly-sheet, or any other appropriate CUSU action against the proposals.

 

Proposed: Morgan Wild

Seconded: Alex Evans

 

Flysheet for the Ballot on the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on Disciplinary, Dismissal and Grievance Procedures

 

We, the undersigned, are persons currently in statu pupillari at the University. We wish to advise members of the Regent House on our views on the Joint Report, as these matters are of importance to students, as well as to University officers, and will have a great effect on our education.

 

We recognise that there is much that is positive in the Joint Report. The introduction of mediation and the changes to grievance procedures would greatly shorten the length of time taken to deal with problems, meaning that University officers can return to teaching as soon as possible. The Working Party have also shown some willingness to take on board objections to the previous Report, including those expressed by students, during the Discussion of that Report.

 

However, we would like to express our disappointment that the Working Party did not feel the need to take on board the difficulties faced by many students with underperforming staff or staffing arrangements which are not responsive to their learning needs, and lament the ongoing trend, reinforced by this Joint Report, towards privileging research to the exclusion of teaching.

 

Furthermore, we would like to express our disappointment that the Joint Report will make it easier for the University to make officers redundant for economic or restructuring reasons, with reduced rights of appeal. Whilst we recognise that a full vote by the Regent House on individual officers is not the best way to determine redundancies, alternatives exist which would enable the University as a whole to have a say in the deployment of resources. As we have seen in student campaigns against the cessation of teaching in the Department of Architecture, and in Portuguese in the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages, the central administration does not always know best where resources should be deployed, and it is lamentable that such closures will become easier in future.

Grace One has the further disadvantage of devaluing University officers not listed in Schedule J, which does not reflect the student experience of their vital and rigorous work, which contributes to the learning and research of students as greatly as that of officers listed in Schedule J.

We therefore urge members of the Regent House to reject both Graces. If, however, members of the Regent House feel that the advantages of the Joint Report are such that they wish to vote in favour, we urge them to support Grace Two, to avoid devaluing officers not listed in Schedule J.

 

Charlotte: Does anyone understand this motion?

(OM nods)

Motion clearly passes.

 

8.c Motion: to create the post of charities officer for SSCSU.

 

SSCSU Notes-

 

1. 
   
   SSCSU charity work is currently done by Green and Ethical officer, Social Welfare officer, Publicity Officer and Ents Officer with no coordination between them.
2. Many other colleges, and particularly the ones that raise the most money, already have a Charities officer
3. The experience of the current committee where there is no power structure is one where often events and activities are not organised or advertised, as there is no accountability and no-one in a position to take charge.
4. Sidney students currently have no way of deciding who is on the RAG committee for their college.
5. Anyone, including RAG central, who would like to contact Sidney for information about or to advertise a charity event currently has no obvious first contact point for the college.

 

SSCSU Believes-

 

1. 
   
   Charity is important to the student community and as such students should have a say in who is responsible for the organisation and coordination of campaigns and what type of events they would like to see (as hustings for an elected position will allow)
2. It would be beneficial to the college community to have those responsible for the organisation of charity events held to account by SSCSU and the student body.
3. Having a Charities Officer would make it easier for charity events to be organised and coordinated effectively.
4. Ethical issues are linked closer with a charities officer than a green officer, so executive positions would become more relevant.

 

SSCSU Resolves-

 

To create post of Charities Officer, who would be in charge of:

 

1. 
   
   Being the first point of contact with RAG central and RAG/charity officers of other colleges, including attending weekly RAG central meetings.
2. Organising events of a charitable nature within college, with the help of a team of unelected reps.
3. Handling all information and publicity related to any other charitable events around Cambridge.
4. Managing the accounts of the position
5. Dealing with any ethical issues that arise within college

 

Proposed : Greg Styger

Seconded : Mhairi McNeill

 

Motion clearly passes.

 

SOXXVI

The Charities Officer

1. The Charities Officer shall be elected annually by a secret ballot of all Full Members held at the end of Lent Term. His/her term of office shall begin on the first day of the Easter vacation following his/her election.
2. The Charities Officer shall hold no other post listed in Chapter VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
3. The Charities Officer shall be responsible for forming and leading the Sidney RAG team.
4. The Charities Officer shall be the main point of contact for Charities for publicity and fundraising purposes.
5. The Charities Officer shall, in conjunction with the Junior Treasurer, administer the SSCSU Donations Fund.
6. The Charities Officer shall produce a report at the end of his/her term of office outlining achievements, ongoing projects and any other pertinent information to hand over to their successor

 

8.d. Motion to donate funds for the May Ball Special Project

SSCSU notes

1. The Sidney Sussex May Ball’s budget comes from ticket sales only; the ball receives no money from college.  This year a special project is being undertaken by the ball committee, requiring significant extra funding. SSCSU has funds that are used for various college activities, the ball is a prestigious event that will advance college’s reputation, and the money will be very well spent.
2. Last time the impressive Fire Trees special project was made possible by a donation from SSCSU.

SSCSU believes

1. The May Ball committee should be given this extra help with funding for the completion of this special project, which will benefit all those who attend the May Ball and the success of which will reflect positively on Sidney as a college.

SSCSU resolves

1. To allocate £2000 of SSCSU money to the May Ball Special Project fund. 

Proposed: Rob Weatherup (May Ball Treasurer)

 

Seconded: James Rickenbach (SSCSU Junior Treasurer)

 

Yuddi: How much did the special project cost last time?

 

Rob: £400

 

Yuddi: Could we have the money back if there was money left in the contingency fund- there was last time because the headliner pulled out?

 

Rob: In principle yes, but the money left over will go to charity. If the project doesn’t happen we’ll give the money back. The contingency fund is spent in the weeks before the ball, if we know it won’t be used, but we can’t use it at this point and we need this money soon.

 

Charlotte: SSCSU has far more than this in our own funds.

 

Luke: The money goes to charity anyway so we should support this.

 

Motion Clearly Passes

 

A.O.B.

 

 

 

 

 

A.O.B