5th Week Hilary 2008 Minutes

 

NB: Initials refer to sabbatical officers

Matters arising – correct “Elliott Goldend” to “Elliott Golend”

No elections and ratifications

Sab reports:  

RH:  Apologies for no report.  Will write a stunning one next week.  Ask me if you have any questions and he'll do his 'best to satisfy you orally'.

CA:  RAG next week.  Buy rendevoux tickets for £5 each because you get lots of free stuff and it's for charity.

MM:  First meeting this morning on OUSU funding group. Hopefully report by 8th week Trinity term.

Daniel Lowe: E&E running a stall outside Sainsburys local next week and come along to pick up a free canvas bag.

Questions?  None

Emergency Motions

None

Policy Lapse:

MM:  Explained background of policy lapse.  You can only accept or reject policies, not amend them.  People have put in requests for which policies should be kept.

Advertising Ban on Life

HR:  Key point is directional or non-directional advice giving.  Important not to influence peoples opinion, but provide supportive space for people to make their own decisions.  Main tenant of SAS in OUSU and other peer supporters.  Recognition of importance of non-directionally, means OUSU does not advertise directional advice services.  Lots of evidence that LIFE is directional – focus on accidental babies and post-abortion support.  However, some people don't know whether they want baby.  LIFE is part of larger campaigning body that is anti-abortion.  

Elliot Goland (PMB):What does advertising mean?  OxStu?  Oxide?

RH: Advertising ban total – anything we produce they don't get advertising.

David Howell (ChCh):  Will there be opportunity to speak against this?

Chairman :  Yes

David Howell (ChCh):Are there any records of conversations between LIFE and students?

HR:Have one example from 2005, sent to NUS womens officer.  Discussion of conversation, where directional advice given.  

James Osun-Samni (StJohns) – How to LIFE advertise themselves?

HR:  As a non-directional advice service.

David Howell (ChCh):  Agree that cases where LIFE has offered directional council are wrong, but LIFE are advertised as non-directional, and have had endorsement by BACP.  Long time since policy went into effect.  LIFE should be given another chance due to services they offer. Are in centre of Oxford, have no waiting lists.  Shame we don't use service that is on our doorstep.  Have discussed provision for student parents with Hannah and past VPWomen and shame we can't use nearby service.  Give support to women who keep their child, but not supposed to push people into that decision.  Have post-abortion care line as well.  Not like they don't let women make that choice.  

RH:  Rare that I get passionate about anything.  However, no way we should overturn the ban.  Might be near by but not good enough when they are providing bad advice to such vulnerable people.  I was listening to phone call Hannah discussed, and they were most harrowing calls I've heard.  Listened to councillor (who was supposed to be non-directional) steer conversation.  

Dani Quinn (Merton): Understand concerns that no support for students who wish to keep babies, but peer supporters provide all options, including keeping baby, so will not persuade people one way or the other.  Do not need overtly pro-life organisation advertised by OUSU to cater for students.

Ben Karlin (New);  Understand examples are contrary to rules, but if there is evidence of consistent aberation from these rules, then they should not be included.  Continue advertising ban.

Joe Moon (teddy Hall):  One case read out, but what evidence apart from opposition?  

Kat Wall (LMH):  On website, offer non-directional advice service but motives are to preserve life to natural death.  Don't believe you can be consistent in advocating these motives and not providing consistent advice.

Elliot Goland (PMB): Understand problem with counselling service, but is there a need for ban on all their activities?

Sandra Hall (St Hilda's):  This is not school child who should be given second chance, but organisation that will affect peoples life.  If mistakes have only happened once, too risky to give them a second chance for any of their organisation.

Move to Vote (accepted)

HR:  Fight between pro-choice / pro-life big.  But this is not to do with that.  This is about welfare provision.  People who are strongly anti-abortion and providing directional adivce should not be advertised by OUSUbecause it hits the most vulnerable people.  OUSU should not recommend this service, especially when we clear examples of breaches, and we should keep this ban.

David Howell (ChCh):  Clarify point about nature of LIFE.  They are not a political lobbying group.  Charity with many different branches, including counselling branch.  Also includes educational branch, which promotes motives, but are separate motives.  It is about vulnerable people, and there are lots of people missing out on welfare services if we didn't have this advertising ban.  One phone call is not enough to justify ban.

Policy retained by near unanimous majority.

Nestle

CA:  Ban we've had for a while.  Forgot to bring stuff I downloaded.  Main problem is aggressive advertising of baby powder in Africa.  Breast milk cheaper, but traps mothers into buying powder milk.  Many mothers dilute powder with dirty water which leads to about 15 baby deaths a month.  Heavy advertising with maternity nurses.  Also examples on unethnical action over compensation for shares from Ethiopia, killing pets due to toxic food and promoting GM crops in Europe.  They are a nasty company, and you are a bad person if you oppose this motion.

No opposition so policy retained.

Support for Full-Time National Black Students' Officer in NUS

James Osun-Samni(SJC):  This seems like a good policy that we should support because there are still inequalities in higher education that should be supported.  

Sam Wheeler (LMH):  Is there a NUS ethnic minorities officer or just black officer?

MM:  This is a campaign that worked, so a bit strange to keep it in the book.

HR:  NUS uses black as an overarching term.

RH:  Don't need to support this as it has already been achieved.

Daniel Lian (Teddy Hall):  Useful to keep policy in case issue comes back.

MM:  I'm not a racist, and position exists, and it is doing a really good job.  At the moment, policy is redundant.  Would welcome more up to date policy, so vote this down, and bring motion that reflects current work.

Policy lapsed by a clear majority.

Production of a disabilities handbook

MM:  Time specific motion, and out of date.
LR;  Just produced new guide for this year.

Policy lapsed by clear majority.

Support for eating disorders support group

HR:  New group being created, and though not same group, would like to use policy to support advertising group.  

JL:  Will the work happen anyway?

HR:  Yes

JL:  Would it be better to have a relevant policy?
HR:  I guess so – wasn't be who proposed this.

James Osun-Samni – Sorry, St Johns fault.  Just passed something round.

RH:  Opposition speech – lets only keep relevant policies.

Policy lapsed by very clear majority.

Condemnation of Religious and Racial Discrimination

James Osun-Samni (St Johns) – Very relevant policy, and should support it now.

Policy passes by clear majority

Failing Mods or Prelims

James O-S (SJC):  Seems like a good idea, to give people chance to take exams again and get support when doing so.

Martin Nelson (LMH):  What about Easter?

Andrew Scott (Wadham):  What effect has it had?

JL:  Senior Tutors meeting this week when I'm trying to promote this.

MM:  Lots of work in 2004/05.

Policy continues unanimously.

Promoting Awareness of Sexual Health Issues

James O-S(SJC):  Nothing to add, sensible policy.

Elliot Goland (PMB):  What does policy mean?

LR: Won't forget about sexual health issues.

Policy continues unanimously

Support for No Sweat Campaign

Daniel Lian (Teddy Hall): Motion about opposition to sweat shop labour.  Need policy so that E&E can do things, and won't to do this next term.

Adam McGuivor (Jesus):  Will you bring policy back so that it is up to date?

Daniel Lian(Teddy Hall):  Happy to bring motion back to up date it, but prefer not to have to.

Ben Karlin (New):Can we strike repeated motions at bottom of list?  Yes

Mark Mills (teddy hall) How would you define a sweat shop?

Daniel Lian (Teddy Hall):  No definitive opinion, but I think that this is a manufacturing of materials in poor conditions, e.g. few breaks, no water, 9 hour shifts, child labour, harrassment, no unions.  It's a nasty place to work.  

Joe Moon (Teddy Hall):  Any examples of sweat shops?  Some countries may have economies based on sweat shops.

Daniel Lian (Teddy Hall);  Don't know, trust No Sweat to make decision.

Carol Edsmon (HMC):  Being asked to support No Sweat campaign, and though against exploitation, but seem that No Sweat has just been directed at China, and want reassurance that no against only communists.

Daniel Lian (Teddy Hall);  Not just China, but India, Burma, Bangladesh, Nepal, and others.  Sweat shops everywhere.

Marriage Kemp (Worcester College);  Don't see point of having policy booklet that is not time relevant.  Should bring motion back that reflects Ethics committee doesn't exist and defines what a sweat shop is.  

Joshua Monahan(Merton):  Are policies we not discussing more relevant?  No, typo and policies only printed twice.

Policy retained (32 in favour 14 against 10 abstentions)

Support for Oxford Student Dyslexia Network

LR;  This is really out of date

Jonny Medland (Queens):  Its out of date and made irrelevant by the law
John Maher (Keble):  Will you bring motion back?  Yes

Policy lapsed by clear majority

Policy lapse suspended and will start again after ordinary business over


Emergency Motion

NUS Amendments

Elliot Goland (PMB):  Way NUS Conference works is that governing bodies like OUSU need to offer amendments.  OUSU passed policy in 7th week Michaelmas Term for advertising ban on UBS due to their involvement in Sudan and Darfur.  Want to add some teeth to policy on Darfur at NUS.  Need wider list than just UBS as other companies are involved.  Calls for NUS to share this information, and encourages NUS to give national lead on advertising ban to encourage other people to follow.  NUS only sending information but means efforts will be coordinated.  Also problem of getting troops onto ground, and calls for their deployment.

CA:  When is deadline?

MM:  1pm next Friday, so no more Councils between now and then.

CA:  Have sent what we've passed on UBS to NUS and other student unions.

Jonny Medland (Queens):  Main thrust of amendment is to take out what we passed last time apart from UBS ban.

Elliot Goland (PMB): Sort of

Daniel Lian (Teddy Hall):  Would you be willing to work on an amendment.

Move to debate

CA:  Agree with principles, but things that need to be spoken about this, and want to have a chat.

Amendment:

Council Believes:


Delete everything up to:

‘Part of council's intention with that motion was to have a more coordinated national policy to increase its effectiveness’

(Accepted as friendly)

CA: This is a very different motion from the one that came last term, and this does two different things.  We should vote for them, but wanted to clear up that I didn't not send stuff to UBS and other Student Unions.

Elliot Goland (PMB):  Not suggesting anything else, but wants to make it relevant to NUS.

Amendments
5.    That NUS implement an advertising ban on UBS
(proposed by Hannah Roe, seconded Kat Wall (LMH).

HR:  Passing this amendment will put additional pressure on other companies and UBS, and its worth it for NUS to pass this to increase scrutiny, just as we passed this.  

Elliot Goland (PMB):  AEGIS trust who are a campaigning group about Darfur genocide are against an advertising ban on UBS because it focuses too much on one individual company.

POI:  Daniel Lian (Teddy Hall):I was one of the people who set up group campaiging involving AEGIS against Darfur genocide, and one of our aims was to encourage advertising bans and disinvestment.

Elliot Goland (PMB):  I heard that AEGIS didn't want a ban.

Jonny Medland (Queens):  Voted in 7th week Michaelmas to support this, and does not seem logical to not ask other SU.s to do the same thing.  

Joe Moon (Teddy Hall):  Undermines what we are trying to do if we don't ask other SU.s to support this motion.  

CA:  To balance this out, don't want this motion to go in.  UBS not only company doing this, but this will remain a stronger motion if we don't get bogged down about who is funding whom.  Irrelevant for us to have long list of companies we would ban when they would never advertise with us anyway.  This motion would be stronger if we try and do everything to stop the genocide, not everything with our main work being to ban advertising a ban by NUS.

HR;  This is one part of the motion, and NUS doesn't have to include everything.  When campaigning often best to pick a symbol.  Need to pick one company and make them emblem why practices are abhorrent.  Can't pressure everyone all of the time, and should target UBS.  Illogical to say we should divest but not ask NUSto do so.

23 in favour 12 against 25 abstentions

Amendment passes


Amendment

Council notes 4.
Replace notes 4 with:  That this is the last chance to submit an NUS amendment (proposed Claire Addison, Seconded Louise Randall).

Accepted as friendly.

Amendment

Council resolves two:  To send someone of the Presidents choice to compersiting to make sure words count.

Accepted as friendly

Move to vote (accepted)

Elliot Goland (PMB):  NUS motion currently has lots of beliefs, but we're wanting to amend it to make sure they do something as well.  

Motion passes

Motions nem com

Student Bus Passionate
Academic Representation
Voicing Concerns about Student ID Card Scheme

University Funding

JL: Consultation motion

Stefan Baskerville (Univ): What do you mean by clause 6?

JL:  There should be one funding system for the UK

Mark Mills (Teddy Hall):  What does upfront fees imply?

JL:  Don't pay money before your education, but possibly contribute afterwards.

Joe Edwards (Jesus);  What do you mean by structured contribution by business?

JL:  Businesses should contribute towards the cost of education as they get a big benefit from students  going to university.

Adam McIvor (Jesus) :What do you mean by 3?

JL:  What you contribute should reflect what benefit you receive in your higher earnings after you graduate.  Those who earn less, contribute less.

John Griffiths (Magdalen):  What do you mean by 5?

JL:  What it says on the tin.  You should receive what money you need.


Move to debate
Ian Simpson(Somerville);  We should campaign for everyone to have free education.

Claire Addison – there should be one funding policy for the whole of the UK. This is a massive issue. We should have policy but not put through in this manner. We shouldn't just have one line on funding.

Any SFQ?

J L – this is a motion on university funding. Each point is very important. Doesn't take a view on devolution as a whole, just on small parts of it. Students being bribed by nationalists.

CA – I was not financially disadvantaged by coming to University here.

JL – Oops, strike what I just said.

Stefan Baskerville (Univ)– In favour of ammendment. Would rather all students faced the same funding system. Also believes in equality and justice for all. Council Believes 6 doesn't recognise the system that we face, and we should strike it.

Jonny Medland (Queens)– Let's not get into devolution.  Infeasible that such a system should be put in place. Doesn't say what ideal funding system should be. Wants to know why there should be more than one funding system

Joel Mullan (SPC) – BY having different funding systems you're creating internal markets in the education system. Education shouldn't be market place. The reason why people apply to certain institutions should be academic and not financial.

Ben Karlin (New)– I oppose because the only objections I've heard are practical. If you agree even if its unrealistic, doesn't hurt to say that's what OUSU believes.

Dani Quinn (Merton) – Shouldn't make sweeping statement about funding glibly. We haven't weighed up the reasons why they have independence over funding. Not true that they're disadvantged to study in England, only that they're advantaged to study in Wales/Scot/NI.

Joe Ammoun (SEH) – Ideally we want a fair system that means students don't pay tuition fees.  Don't want to give the government any ammunition to bring everyone in line with Westminster.

MM – Agrees with Claire. 6 should be struck. The problem is not different system but that within each system there are different groups that are being missed out. Some Scottish students that are more or less well off depending. Not a Nationalist – LEA funding varies and this is up to them.  In Scot, HE aren't getting rid of tuition fees.

MTV

Summary speech in favour – Claire A – This shouldn't just be one line in another motion.

In oppsition – James L – Wasn't fully aware of all situation, but still thinks there should be equity.

Vote – Council believes 6 is struck.

2nd ammendment – students shouldn't have to pay tuition fees
Not accepted as friendly

Mark Mills SHE – we shouldn't have to.

SFQ

Rich H – is this a cynical way of putting in policy that we've debated and rejected already?

Mark Mills SHE – 1st year, not aware that this has been debated before

SIO

JL – I like free things but we are going to earn a lot more. Fair to give back to the system. In a wonderful world the government would pay for everything. Not realistic any more if we want 50% or more in education. Some contribution after you graduate.

Ben Karlin. (New). - Agrees with JL in principal, and also what Rich said – this motion is supporting a review of funding. A general vague statement is contrary to the spirit of the motion. Opposes amendment.

Adam Smith (Balliol) – Should be opportunity not earnings based. Should be more in Oxford.

Jonny Medland (Queens) – Would be opposed to opportunity based tuition fees. Very important issue, but this funding group shouldn't necessarily focus on this one issue to the detriment of others

CA – The gov is going to continue with them, and having policy against fees is very counterproductive. We're then not able to negotiate at all. Stops us from realistically being able to do any good for students

Joe Edwards. (Jesus). - We need to be fighting for increased maintenance grants.

MTV

Ben Karlin – Only 2 views.

SSIF – Mark Hill – won't rehash.

SSA – MM  - any fees cut is going to raise fees for grads and international students

Vote – ammendment fails

SSIF of Motion

JL – motion has been ammended, please support.

Vote - passes


OUSU Support fro Environment and Ethics

Daniel Lian (Teddy Hall):  Update policy to reflect current issues.  

Discussion of what E&E do and why.

Martin Nelson (LMH):  Can we update old policy via this motion to change mention of Environment or Ethics Committee as now one body?

Various people shouting out, but decided that yes, it is possible.

Amendments
Insert resolves:
4.    Update all previous council policy reading Ethics Committee or Enviornment Committee to read E&E committee (proposed D.Lowe, seconded K.Wall).   Accepted as friendly.

Amendments

Insert in CR2:  'every tuesday' after 'attend E&E committee' – proposed Daniel Lowe, seconded Kat Wall and accepted as friendly.

Motion passes

National Day of Action on University Funding and Open Debate with Vice Chancellor

Adam Graham (St Johns):  We want to know what John Hood thinks and put views of students to him.

IF: Just passed policy that contravenes this motion

No it doesn't

IF:Scrap that

Joel Mullan (St Peters):  Only in conjunction with informed debate will we achieve anything, not just standing outside and shouting.  Have we got time build an effective demonstration in 6 days?  I don't think so.

Amendment:  Strike Resolves 1 and 2 – Joel Mullan, Jonny Medland

Joel Mullan (St Peters): Ousu should only support demonstrations that will put across effective message.  Six days is not enough time.  

Adam Graham (St Johns):  Striking resolve one would make motion pointless.  All motion is trying to do is get support for demonstration that is going ahead.  If we're going to support a demonstration it should be on that is happening.

Jonny Medland (Queens):  There is a protest happening in a few days, but very few people here have heard about it.  Rather than raising awareness with only six days, this should be a long term planning process.  Publicising protest is going to be counterproducive when very few people turn out.  Should do these things properly.

HR:  Protest is happening anyway.  Could either be a small protest, or a large protest using OUSU communication messages.  Not ok for VC to publicise his own views without talking to us.  Think we should use opportunity to protest.  Running effective campaigns sometimes need small demonstrations to start.

Joe Ammoun (TeddyHall):  Only says to support demonstration, not organise one.  Doesn't take much work to organise event.  Will reflect worse if no one turns up.  Not supporting a demonstration because no one is going to turn up is not a good reason.  

CA:  Let Martin talk about what has been done.  Should learn from successful SRI protest, that they were a large protests but conversation.  Don't want OUSU to piggy back on other organisations.  Should be an event everyone subscribes to, rather than supporting only one groups demonstration.  Should run our own effective campaigns.

JL:  Should talk, not scream.  Should have effective protests, not embarrassingly small ones.  Part of University group on response to fees, and should take part with that conversation.

RH:  Joining protests late on does not make them effective.

Rachel Cummings (Somerville): Is there a large scale protest across the country?

Yes, small events.

MM:  Looking at long term process.  OUSU now on University group looking at fees.  This is much more effective than protests now. Demonstrations in the future if necessary, for example if we're not being listened to.

Amendment clearly passes

MM:  Rock and hard place. Inviting VC to a event is a good idea, but he doesn't have anything to say yet because of working group.  This is an issue we've raised with him, and he is waiting for working group report.  Shouldn't get involved in a debate when we don't know what the issues are.

Stefan Baskerville (Univ):  Last year John Hood and University Finance guy came and talked about University funding, and we discussed a few questions.  Not harmful to have a dialogue to learn what they are thinking.  Should invite him to event as part of the process, to help us think about our approach.

JL:  Vote against motion.  There are some good ideas, but these need to be thought through together properly.  Martin is now in charge of a working group, let them come up with a strategy, and move forward.

John Maher (Keble):  Lets not get trapped in any  bad half baked ideas, but come back again in the future to think about ways forward.

Adam Graham (SJC):  This is a good idea and a way to start the discussions.

JL:  Need to think through things properly.  Let Univerity funding group do its work.

Motion fails

Shelter Voucher Scheme

Joe Ammoun (Teddy Hall):  Good to raise awareness of this issue.  Problems we can help overcome: no one knows about it, high cost of buying one booklet, no one knows where to buy them.  Work with Common Rooms to bulk buy, advertise in OxStu.  Want support for this idea to show Council are being pro active on this important issue.

Dani Quinn (Merton);  How to homeless people feel about scheme?

Joe Ammoun (Teddy Hall):  Response so far has been positive.  Problem that lots of students asked for money, and we don't know what it'll be used for.  This is a way for students who would like to help to do so.  Don't want to look down on homeless people, but group of people who have fallen into problems.

James O-S (St Johns):  What quantity of booklets?

Joe Ammoun (Teddy Hall):  Left it open deliberately so CR can decide.

Amendment:

Scrap in believes 1: 'without having to worry that their generosity will ultimately cause harm.

Accepted as friendly

Add Council Resolves 5:  To ensure that all advertising of this scheme is done respectfully.  (Kat Wall, Hannah Roe) – Accepted as friendly.

Motion passes

Animal Testing

Alexandra Hill (St Hugh;s):  Need this motion so E&E can do stuff.  Hope it won't be too controversial.  This motion is principled support for testing of household products on animals.  Mandates E&E to lobby government and companies to sign up to this standard.  

Joshua Mollahan (Merton);  Not against general meaning or spirit of motion, but worried with association of BUAV.  

MM:  Don't oppose medical viviscetion and lab should be built.

Alexandra Hill (St Hugh's): On BUAV, not supporting them, but using their information on good and bad companies.

James O-S(SJC):  Vivesection being used on household products, and way that cosmetics are tested, so are there ways to test things?

Alexandra Hill (St Hugh's):  Companies like Co-Op manage, and should encourage other companies to follow best practice.

MM:  Is there any overlap between medical and household product testing?

Motion passes

Policy lapse tabled until 7th week.

AOB

Daniel Lowe (Teddy Hall); Please return voting cards.

MM:  Thanks to Stefan for organising group, and we're going to Mitre for drink.

Stefan Baskerville (Univ):  Please tidy room.