The Orbital | The Official Students' Union Publication of Royal Holloway, University of London » News

SURHUL Annual General Meeting Live!

theOrbital — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 18:29:04 +0000

Don’t forget to click refresh to see the latest updates!

23.48

This concludes a fantastic year of live coverage: stay tuned – we’ll be back with more live-blogging in September and we’ll still be updating theorbital.co.uk until then!

23.42

That concludes the today’s Annual General Meeting and The Orbital’s Live Blog!

23.41

Rachel Pearson has suggested in Any Other Business that the current sabbatical should be awarded Ordinary Lifetime Membership. The motion has been passed unanimously.

23.40

Rupert has been duly elected. Congratulations.

23.35

Rupert Dickinson is now running for the position of Off-Campus Students’ Representative on the Inclusion and Representation Senate.

23.33

The Student Activities Communication Representative for the next year is Matt McKeever. Congratulations!

23.32

There have been no objections raised, and both Rupert and Florence have been elected. Congratulations!

23.27

Both he and Florence are running for the Events Representative positions, of which there are 4 available.

23.26

Rupert Dickinson is also rerunning for SAC and is now making his speech.

23.24

We are now dealing with SAC (Student Activities Committee) elections. Florence Johnson has just completed a one minute speech to become the Events Representative.

23.20

The Orbital did not liveblog Candidate’s Question Time last Thursday, so in the interests of fairness will not report the details of the candidate or the speech.

23.19

That candidate has not been disqualified, following a vote from the floor. He is now required to make his speech for the position of Postgraduate Students’ Officer at this General Meeting.

23.18

We are now discussing the recent Candidates’ Question Time. One candidate is facing disqualification for not attending, which James has said was through no fault of his own.

23.17

People who won Lifetime SU membership as a result of winning a Laurel have also been confirmed.

23.15

Named membership of the Finance and Services Sub-committee is currently being confirmed. A vote is being taken, there are no abstentions or “no” votes. It is once again unanimous.

23.13

It was passed unanimously.

23.13

No questions about the policy have been raised, a vote is currently being taken.

23.11

Cheapest possible accommodation must used when travelling.

23.10

Under this amendment, travel must be booked along with events rather than at a later stage. In the case of travel by privately owned cars, the drivers’ own insurance must be used, rather than the SU’s.

23.09

Travel expenses are now being discussed.

23.08

The budget has been passed unanimously by the floor.

23.07

Charlotte Bassam-Bowles has answered that there is a contingency budget if there are any mishaps, which occurred in 2006. It is not actually a cut in budget.

23.05

A question from the floor about the RAG budget has been raised, asking why there has been a drop from £1637 in ‘06-’07 to £500 for next year.

23.01

There is a rise in Sabbatical Officer employment costs, as college fees for on-campus accommodation – which is provided for Sabbs – has risen.

22.57

The difference Charlie has referred to is expected to be provided by alternative sources.

22.55

Charlie Pagliero has pointed out that the FM application for Insanity Radio states that the SU would provide £6,500 and has asked for clarification.

22.53

A provision of £6,300 for Insanity Radio for FM improvements made last year has remained untouched, and will remain available to Insanity Radio without affecting this year’s budget.

22.50

The SU will be leasing one less Non-Res bus for financial reasons.

22.50

Insurance costs have dropped by around £6,000. Establishment expenses have also dropped by around £20,000 following a switch to a new cleaning provider.

22.48

Student Activities has jumped by £8,000, the most notable change being a £4,000 competition increase. This is taken from another budget line and includes a grant.

22.47

Sundries for the President’s budget line is now split into general Sundries and General Meeting administrative costs.

22.47

The President now controls all of the training and event attendance costs, which explains the £12,000 jump in costs, as well as the brand new RedBrick Student Survey.

22.46

Most importantly, InsanityRadio and The Orbital have their budgets fixed the same as 2009-2010 levels, that’s £4000 and £7000 respectively.

22.44

A £17,000 increase in budget for Communications and Campaigns takes into account the new role of Campaigns as well as the brand-new website launching this Autumn.

22.43

New this year, ‘Nightline’ [a Samaritans-like service] has been put in the budget for Welfare.

22.43

This year, Sabbatical Officer Salary and Employment costs have been split, with an increase to £13,500 from £13,164 fixed salary across the Sabbatical positions.

22.39

The bars and coffee bars are expected to make significantly less in the next year than the current one.

22.38

However, this year the SU will be budgeting for a deficit of £22,000.

22.38

James has refuted claims that the SU has been losing money.

22.36

The budget has already been approved by four bodies other than the AGM.

22.35

We are now moving on to the budget.

22.35

The motion has been passed unanimously by the attendees.

22.34

The motion to remain affiliated has been supported by all four Sabbatical Officers.

22.33

James is currently presenting a motion suggesting we remain affiliated, despite a relatively high cost to SURHUL (£36,497 for the academic year 2010-2011, previously £34,000 for 2009-2010).

22.30

James Pidgeon: “We wouldn’t survive our years in office without NUS training.”

22.30

After a five minute break, we are currently discussing our affiliation with the National Union of Students (NUS).

22.29

22.19

There is currently a discussion about the safety of online voting, but James has taken the decision to move on and take questions regarding this issue directly at a later date, as a motion to accept online voting was passed at the last General Meeting on the 18th May, 2010.

22.12

Role of the Students’ Union: to represent the students, to provide quality services and to cater to the needs of the membership.

22.09

We are now moving on to a review of the Constitution Proper. This was last done in February 2007. “Too long” ago, as James says.

22.09

The motion has been passed unanimously.

22.08

James is accepting amendments suggested to Schedule 2 as suggested by attendees of the General Meeting.

22.05

Charlie suggests that the Board should be mandated send their recommendations to a General Meeting rather than submitting an outright veto.

22.04

The idea is [I think], that these Trustees are a regulatory body, whose decisions will only be to veto decisions and report on recommendations, rather than make wholescale closed-doors decisions. This is what’s being discussed on the AGM floor right now. Rachel Pearson even quoted the Parliament Act. Phwoar.

22.03

It would be difficult for the student body, for example, to propose a motion-of-no-confidence in a Trustee whom they do not know or whom they have not observed in their Board meetings.

22.01

James Pidgeon, on the topic of right-to-recall, raises the issue of a certain amount of trust being invested in the Board of Trustees to keep their position.

21.58

Sabbatical officers have to sign a Trustee Declaration before running for election. Prospective external trustees will be required to fill out the same declaration before submitting their nomination for the position.

21.55

In answer to Charlie’s question, James has said that the Board would only ever veto decisions that were financially risky and would not step in at other times, and decisions such as these are rarely made by the Students’ Union. Recommendations for changes would also be taken back to a General Meeting, rather than the Board purely vetoing decisions.

21.52

The Board will be chaired by the President.

21.51

Charlie Pagliero is asking how accountable the Board will be, with only 40% of the Board being made up of Sabbatical Officers.

21.51

Majority vote at a Board of Trustees meeting can overturn any [General Meeting, or other] decision. However, they would be invited, and expected, to attend the next General Meeting to justify their decisions.

21.50

Another question is asked: whether large decisions would be passed by the Board of Trustees or a cross-campus referendum or even a General Meeting.

21.49

Further Constitutional Regulations must be examined before a decision is made.

21.48

It has not yet been determined whether or not Student Trustees will be able to run for any other elected position whilst holding a Board position.

21.48

Recruitment costs were just asked about, and SURHUL is looking to spend approx. £4,000. N.B. A one-week advert in The Guardian costs £750.

21.47

The Sabbs will remain the representation of the Board of Trustees at SU committee meetings, such as Exec. The entire Board will not be expected to attend.

21.46

Royal Holloway is currently behind nationally, as many Students’ Unions have already introduced boards like the one being proposed.

21.45

According to James, this Board is being brought in to compliment the existing skills of the Sabbatical Officers to ensure the SU is being run in the best possible way.

21.43

There is a Model Trustee Code of Conduct, based on the NCVO guidelines for trustee boards.

21.43

They can be re-appointed, but this would be unlikely.

21.43

The Board will be able to co-opt specialist Trustees under exceptional circumstances for a period of one year.

21.43

Knowledge of governance and long-term development, as well as financial experience and training, are key traits the current Sabbatical Team believes external trustees must possess.

21.42

Student Trustees will be elected in cross-campus elections and will serve from the 1st August to 31st July the next year, and cannot hold office for more than two consecutive terms.

21.41

External Trustees will serve a term of three years. College Trustee nominations will be received by the President from the office of the College Secretary.

21.41

The duties of the Sabbatical Officers and the nuances of their guidelines remain largely unchanged.

21.40

This addition of an external trustee board follows the example of many other students’ unions and charitable organisations. They will regularly monitor senior members of staff in a fair manner, relating to financial doings and long-term reputation.

21.39

The Board will hold the General Manager to account, which is currently done by the President.

21.38

The board of Trustees will represent the students and will not veto any decisions made in General Meetings, unless there are serious financial concerns

21.38

There will be 2 Student Trustees 3 External Trustees and 1 Royal Holloway [College] Trustee. They are designed to complement the Students’ Union, but will not contravene the power of General Meetings or anything set out in Regulation D.

21.36

James has said that the four Sabbatical Officers are trustees whilst in office, but the trustee board does not contain a healthy mix of external regulators.

21.34

This is looking to introduce a board of trustees.

21.32

We’re now reviewing Schedule 2, which governs the Sabbatical jobs.

21.31

The amendments have been passed by the AGM unanimously.

21.31

This has already been passed by the Financial Services Committee, the first step of a three stage process – stage two being tonight.

21.29

There is also a new clause being introduced that means that trustees of the Union (for example the Sabbs) cannot sign their own expenses forms to claim money back from the Union.

21.28

There is a new clause within the regulation that allows for the use of debit cards and credit cards within the venues.

21.27

Last updated in 2004, it is being brought up to date so it’s inline with the actual actions of the Students’ Union.

21.26

This is Regulation G, which according to James is the “longest and the hardest” regulation to amend.

21.26

Up now: review of the financial procedures of the Students’ Union.

21.25

Right, the Sabb’s year round-ups are over, so we’re moving on to official business.

21.20

Last but not least, we have our Vice President for Student Activities, Emma Montague.

21.16

David is talking about our website! Whoop!

21.14

Every time David mentions the student media we’re giving a quiet cheer.

21.13

David Cummins, the last ever Vice President Communications and Services is up now running through his year.

21.08

Charlotte Bassam-Bowles is now at the mic summing up her year. It’s the last time this Sabb team will be presenting at a GM. The liveblogging team is getting rather tearful at the thought!

21.07

James Pidgeon has just made a comment about being “extremely internally audited.” It has led to titters from the audience.

21.02

James has said that this has been the biggest year for Constitutional reform, which coincides with SURHUL’s registration as a charity.

21.01

You’ll have to forgive us, but it’s rather hard to keep up, so those wishing to see the summaries can log onto surhul.co.uk and check the Sabbatical Officer blogs.

21.00

Rather than the normal 60-second Sabb, this meeting is different as each Sabb will present a sum up of their year. They’ll be going in constitutional order.

20.59

Arran Wiltshire, Union Chair, has presented the apologies for absence, and we’ve now moved on to talking to the Sabbs.

20.57

Hello from The Orbital! We’re going to be live-blogging the entire event, and you can either follow us on our website, theorbital.co.uk or on our twitter, @theOrbitalBUZZ

SURHUL General Meeting Live-Blog

Deputy Editor — Tue, 18 May 2010 19:08:25 +0000

Don’t forget to click refresh to see the latest updates!

22.39

Arran concludes the meeting as there is no other business. He asks you all to help put the chairs away. No…. no? I’ll do it then.

22.38

Incoming President of the Amnesty International Society says that if you are interested in finding out more about the situation in Burma, and getting involved then you should contact her or look out for them next year.

22.35

They have shared their quotes from the conference, with highlights from James Pidgeon being “It’s very flat around here, until you get to the hills” and “Is that it?” when remarking on the Angel of the North.

22.34

Ollie talks about how the Further Education denomination is very under-represented at the NUS but is also the largest denomination.

22.32

The pair are detailing how the campaigns for the roles within the NUS are extravagant, with one candidate hiring an entire bar and inviting the delegates to go.

22.29

Matt says that the conference not only elected Presidents and Vice Presidents, but also passed various motions and amended motions – like we’re doing right now.

22.28

Ollie elaborates, stating that students do have an important say in the General Election. He says that due to the proximity to the recent General Election the NUS had each of the three party leaders present their views on education costs etc, and these are available on the NUS YouTube Channel.

22.27

They heard from a guest speaker – Ko Aung, from Burma, who was from the 88 generations group. They attended a ‘Vote for Students’ Fringe Event and Matt Mckeever notes how the whole conference was fairly anti-Conservative, with concerns about the rising costs of education.

22.24

They explain how the conference runs, and Ollie Kerr details the ‘fringe activities’ including things like seminars on the NUS’ views on Afghanistan, and other political activities.

22.21

Arran thanks those who put the work into updating the constitutions and the next item on the agenda is announced – a presentation of a visual report on the NUS Delegates conference by Matt McKeever and Oliver Kerr.

22.20

This amendment is being voted on, and is passed.

22.17

He says that the people who donate to RAG should be assured that they are being represented by the people they elected cross-campus – not the RAG Board. It is proposed that the clause states the Executive Committee and the RAG Chair and Vice-Chair may vote, as they are elected cross-campus.

22.15

David’s amendment is a little confused, but he clarifies, saying that he has always believed that RAG are involved in the decision, whilst being unable to vote. James adds that the Executive Committee and the RAG Board are not on an equal footing, and their varied responsibilities and election processes make them different.

22.15

Submissions deadline for the next print edition of The Orbital will be 26th May!

22.12

David proposes to make an amendment to the original motion, maintaining that the decision lies with the Executive Committee. He will then submit his amendment to the original motion, and then this will be discussed by the group.

22.11

Ben is being questioned on this, and says that he thinks that the RAG Board and Executive Committee should be able to vote because they are all involved in the efforts to raise the money. Charlotte clarifies that the Exec only vote because they are elected cross-campus to take the students opinions into consideration.

22.11

‘The 12 o’clock deadline ruined my life’ Facebook Group gets a nod from VPComServ David Cummins, who gives a statement addressing the issue.

22.10

It’s the opening of the General Meeting, which begins with Communications and Statements.

22.09

Ben has also included a clause stating that the RAG Chair and Vice-Chair should have more of a say in the charities that they donate to, alongside the Executive Committee, taking three proposed charities to the Exec Meeting and then involving the RAG Board in the decision by giving them a vote as well.

22.07

Ben intends to put RAG in regular contact with the Students’ Union Publication and Radio Station, and to implement an annual RAG Trip abroad.

22.06

Major changes have been made to the roles and their titles, including the introduction of a Social Secretary, and varying subcommittees have been temporarily omitted due to RAG’s smaller size – they can be accessed at the discretion of the RAG Chair.

22.05

Ben Parfitt will now present the Amendments to the Rag Constitution, which he says was also outdated and has been edited to bring it in line with other constitutions.

22.04

The motion is taken to a vote and is passed.

22.00

Some of the roles of the Production Board have now been updated to reflect how they are currently operating.

21.58

David states that this Union resolves to update the InsanityRadio constitution, and outlines some of the changes made to the roles.

21.56

The motion goes to a vote, and is passed. David Cummins is now presenting an Amendment to the Radio Station Constitution, for InsanityRadio. The only remaining copy of the constitution has not been updated, and originates from 2004. “Yikes!”, says David.

21.55

Charlotte Bassam-Bowles has a question for Nick, about who takes responsibility for the format. Nick responds that full creative control rests with the Editor, who is encourage to take into account the elected Board’s opinion, but ultimately has the final say.

21.53

Nick has added the correspondents to the Board Structure, and their roles.

21.51

Next up is the Students’ Union Publication Constitution, aka, the constitution for The Orbital. Nick Stylianou presents, and outlines the chances he has made.

21.50

The amendment is passed and before we move on James alerts the room that they are able to ask to stop and read through any of the updated regulations.

21.48

Next up is Regulation E: Recognised Clubs and Societies. Emma Montague presents it, declaring the constitution out of date here, and wants to implement minor changes and a regular review of Regulation E. It also goes straight to a vote.

21.47

The motion goes straight to a vote and is passed.

21.46

The second motion on the agenda is Amendment to Regulation C: Officer’s Responsibilities. James Pidgeon outlines it, stating that the functions of the Student Activities Committee’s roles need to be updated in the constitution. Their responsibilities are outlined and their responsibilities are clarified.

21.44

The motion has been taken to a vote, and it has passed.

21.44

They are discussing the need for a clause mandating a turnout report to be presented by the President after each Election, but James says that the resources and time could be diverted into actually maintaining the election turnout.

21.41

Rachel Pearson queries the absence of a need to strive for 10% in the constitution, and James and Charlotte have responded. James says that the President should be aware of the situation regardless, and Charlotte adds that the responsibility for a low turnout or the control over the elections turnout should not lie with one person.

21.38

The removal of the 10% quorum will affect the immediate By-Elections, but online voting will not be in effect until September 2010.

21.37

The new website enables Online Voting, and students further afield or on years abroad will still be able to vote. Therefore, James proposes that Clause 3.9 of Regulation B should be removed entirely, therefore removing the 10% quorum.

21.36

James announces a new website for the Students’ Union before September 2010, and that our Union is registering as a charity which means we must pass the ‘Public Benefit Test’.

21.34

Royal Holloway is one of very few Universities (only 6 or 7) across the country that adhere to this rule.

21.32

James has raised the issue of the 10% Quota set for all cross-campus elections, and is explaining how it works. He is recapping the issues that the Executive, Media and RAG Elections faced earlier this year.

21.31

Arran asks if anybody wants to leave before we begin formal business – nobody does, so we go straight onto the first item on the agenda – the Amendments to Regulation B: Elections, presented by James Pidgeon.

21.30

We’re moving onto ‘Ask An Officer Anything’, and a representative from Ninjitsu has a question for Emma Montague, regarding hall bookings for competitive and uncompetitive sports.

21.25

Next up on the agenda is 60-Second-Sabb, with James stepping up first. His list is impressive, and is followed by Charlotte. Then David, and then Emma.

21.19

Emily Cookson lets us all know that Volunteering Week is coming up, and you need to get involved ASAP!

21.17

Charlotte Bassam-Bowles, VP Education & Welfare, asks a cryptic question about representation for library services.

21.17

Rachel Pearson, President-Elect, announces that nominations for the By-Elections are open, and she encourages to people to run for one of the positions.

21.09

Arran Wiltshire, Union Chair is calling the meeting to order, and listing the apologies for absence.

Summer Ball 2010 line-up announced

Deputy Editor — Sun, 09 May 2010 15:58:25 +0000

Example, Diana Vickers and Tinchy Stryder are the acts set to be playing Royal Holloway’s Summer Ball on 4th June 2010.

Vickers has received acclaim for her single “Once” which reached number one on Sunday 25th April, while her album “Songs from the Tainted Cherry Tree” was top of the album charts midweek, and is expected to hold the top spot later today.

London-born rapper, Tinchy Stryder has had plenty of attention in the charts since his top-ten collaboration with Taio Cruz “Take Me Back”. His recent single, “You’re Not Alone” made it into the Chart Top 20 and the rapper played his part in the 2009 charity single “I Got Soul” performed by a collaboration of artists calling themselves Young Soul Rebels.

Example, who graduated from Royal Holloway in 2003, is the voice behind hits such as “Watch the Sun Come Up”, “Won’t Go Quietly” and the new Sub Focus-produced “Kickstarts”, which was featured as Zane Lowe’s Record of the Week on Radio 1 for 13th April and is set to be released sometime in June. The single has also been remixed by Fenech Soler.

These are the only acts to have been confirmed via Twitter by the Students’ Union so far (www.twitter.com/SURHUL_ENTS), but the Summer Ball’s Official Facebook event does mention Royal Holloway’s own Undergraduated playing the Ball, following an ongoing campaign by its members and fans.

A How-To Guide: The Orbital Board Elections

Deputy Editor — Sun, 02 May 2010 10:10:06 +0000

It’s that time of year again, that wonderful opportunity has once more arisen – the day of each year where you get the chance to get involved and take one of the all-important Board Positions for The Orbital.

This year we’re on the hunt for dedicated, creative, committed people with fresh ideas and a fun-loving attitude. If you think you’ve got what it takes, here’s how to go about getting a position on The Board.

First you need to come to ALT2 at 6pm, on Monday 3rd May 2010. If you want to run for a position, you’ll need to have prepared an informal two-minute speech about why you think you’re the best person for the job. At the appropriate time, you’ll need to make yourself known, present your speech, and then answer a question put to you by the person currently holding your position on the board. A vote will be taken, and the results will be announced immediately.

If you’re unsure of that the positions entail, here’s a list of Board Positions and their responsibilities:

Administrative Director:

This position reports to the Editor and primarily assists the Editor and the Deputy Editor in all non-editorial affairs and functions. They are responsible for updating the membership archive and processing all invoices. They are also responsible for handling emails, general typing tasks and personal co-ordination. They must co-ordinate and train the Publishing Team, the Marketing Team and the Events/Publicity team.

Submissions Editor:

This position reports to the Deputy Editor and must co-ordinate and train the Sub-Editing Team. They are responsible for ensuring a thorough and complete editing process of all articles ready for layout, including editing copy to remove spelling mistakes and grammatical errors and ensuring that word counts are adhered to. The role may even include re-writing an article to increase the quality.

Art Director:

This position reports to the Deputy Editor and must co-ordinate and train the Studio Team. They are responsible for the implementation of design elements, under guidance from the Editor. This means they must oversee typeset, artwork, photography, placement of advertising and maintain artistic continuity

Associate Editor: Society

This position reports to the Deputy Editor and creates, commissions and edits content regarding current affairs (news, sport, Dialogue…) They are responsible for allocating content to the News Desk, Contributors and Correspondents.

Associate Editor: Culture

This position reports to the Deputy Editor and creates, commissions and edits content regarding the arts (music, film, books, theatre…) They are responsible for allocating content to Contributors and Correspondents.

Associate Editor: Lifestyle

This position reports to the Deputy Editor and creates, commissions and edits content regarding features (travel, food, entertainment, fashion…) They are responsible for allocating content to Contributors and Correspondents.

We are also looking for Correspondents for each of our sections. Each of the following correspondents will work closely with the Associate Editors to write and source content in their relevant sections. In order to get one of these roles, you’ll need to make yourself known on the night and then you’ll be asked a relevant question by the current corresponding Associate Editor. If necessary a vote will happen, and then the results will be announced. We’re looking for the following:

Music Correspondent (Culture)
Television & Film Correspondent (Culture)
Literary Correspondent (Culture)
Arts Correspondent (Culture)
Travel Correspondent (Lifestyle)
Fashion Correspondent (Lifestyle)
Food Correspondent (Lifestyle)
News Correspondent (Societies)
Sport Correspondent (Societies)
Dialogue Correspondent (Societies)

Aaron Porter elected NUS President

Editor — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:01:09 +0000

Current NUS Vice President (Higher Education), Aaron Porter, has won the NUS Presidential Election with 65% of the vote.

Aaron will be the 54th NUS President after winning an overwhelming majority of the votes in the first round of counting at the NUS National Conference at NewcastleGateshead. He defeated current NUS Black Students’ Officer, Bell Ribeiro-Addy (27%) and Chris Marks, Vice President (Education) of Hull University Students’ Union (4%).

Aaron will succeed current NUS President Wes Streeting in June 2010 for an initial twelve month term having served for two years as NUS Vice President (Higher Education). He graduated with a BA in English Literature from the University of Leicester and was the Academic Affairs Officer for the University of Leicester Students’ Union, becoming the first Executive Officer from Leicester’s Union to be elected to a full-time role at the NUS.

Aaron was ‘delighted to be leading NUS’ in what he calls a ‘crucial year’. He urged students to be involved, stating ‘it is more vital now than ever that we come together to put our issues at the top of the agenda with a credible, representative student voice’.

Although a member of the Labour Party, Aaron stood as an independent candidate, stating he would fight against Labour if it accepted the review’s recommendations of a hike.

He said: ‘The worst scenario would be for the cap to be lifted to a place where there is a market, where different institutions charge different fees. That would alter the choice of course students make. This is a time to continue pressurising politicians not to increase the cap on fees. Students, families and the wider public overwhelmingly oppose higher fees and I will fight to ensure that politicians listen to them.’

Previous NUS presidents have included journalist David Aaronovitch, former Home Secretary Charles Clarke and current Justice Secretary Jack Straw.

Silver SURHUL makes a Sound Impact

Deputy Editor — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 19:00:56 +0000

Royal Holloway’s Students’ Union has been awarded Silver Standard in The Sound* Environmental Impact Awards 2010 by meeting the 23 Bronze and 12 Silver criteria and achieving an overall score of 420 or more.

Sound Impact is an accreditation scheme run by The NUS in conjunction with The Co-Operative and The Ecologist. The scheme ’seeks to encourage, nurture, reward and celebrate good environmental practice in Students’ Unions’, and it holds an annual awards ceremony. This was the fourth year the scheme has been running, and a record 83 universities took part.

For the Students’ Union, it reflected a year of hard work and innovative campaigns for Alice Redfern, Ethics & Environment Officer, and David Cummins, Vice-President (Communications & Services), in order to achieve Silver status in the Sound Impact Rankings.

The pair attended the Awards Ceremony at the NUS Services Limited (NUSSL) Annual Dinner, held in Liverpool. The evening was hosted by Alex James from inDemand at Key 103, along with Roy Walker, of Catchphrase fame.

Other Unions who entered the awards this year did everything from collecting over 10,000 used textbooks which were sent to less privileged schools in Tanzania to creating a computer re-use project, which ‘rejuvenated’ PCs in order to donate them.

Even those lower down the Sound Impact rankings still went to great lengths to impress the judges with bra banks, Fairtrade football and allotment schemes all being commended.

Susan Nash, NUS’s Vice President (Society & Citizenship), praised all who were involved this year, saying that ‘With 50 unions reaching our Silver standard, we have demonstrated that we have collectively made a really positive impact on the environment’. Edinburgh University was the highest scoring entrant, with 776 points.

With four Special Awards, five Gold Awards, fifty Silver Standards, twenty-three Bronze Standards and five Unions Working Towards Accreditation, you can download the full rankings here.

SURHUL Elections Round-Up

Deputy Editor — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:18:09 +0000

Following nearly two weeks of controversy and confusion, the much-anticipated results of the Executive Committee, Media and RAG Elections were confirmed on Friday 26th March, in an unexpected Emergency Meeting.

Due to the Elections failing to adhere to the rules regarding quota, outlined in Regulation B of the SURHUL Constitution (Point 3.9) as ‘10% of the full membership of the Students’ Union for any cross‐campus election’. According to Regulation B if quota is not reached then ‘a quorate General Meeting shall confirm the validity of the election.’

As a result of this, a vote was taken during the General Meeting on Tuesday 23rd March which, against expectations, chose to de-ratify the Elections, rendering them invalid. Should this have remained the case, all 12 positions would have been re-opened in the May/June 2010 By-Elections.

However, due to ‘a formal written request along with 61 signatures’, an Emergency General Meeting was called, which took place on Friday 26th March. With the Students’ Union Building Main Hall at standing-room only, the decisions made on Tuesday’s General Meeting were overturned, and a second vote overwhelmingly declared the Elections valid.

The successful candidates, who will enter into office following a hand-over period in the Summer Term, are as follows:

Democracy Officer: Dedar Singh Mahal

Entertainments Officer: Michael Conway

Equality and Liberation Officer: Douglas German

Academic Affairs Officer: Ben Sibthorpe

Ethics and Environmental Officer: Ed Resek

Societies Officer: Mari Burton

Student Development and Volunteering Officer: Sarah Kettle

RAG Chair: Ben Parfitt

Students’ Union Publication Editor: Alex Murphy

Students’ Union Publication Deputy Editor: Rachel Dakin

Students’ Union Radio Station Manager: Charlie Pagliero

Students’ Union Radio Station Assistant Manager: Sarah Honeycombe

These form the part-time student governance of the Students’ Union, underneath the full-time positions of the Sabbatical Officers-elect for 2010-2011: Victor Nicolau Garcia (Vice President: Student Activities), Sarah Rahman (Vice President: Communications & Campaigns), Beth Rowley (Vice President: Education & Welfare) and Rachel pearson (President).

There will be a by-election in June to determine the 7 remaining positions of the Executive Committee, and the single RAG position of Vice-Chair, covered, of course, by The Orbital!

SURHUL Emergency General Meeting Live!

theOrbital — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:11:34 +0000

Don’t forget to click refresh to see the latest updates!

17.26

That concludes today’s Emergency General Meeting, and the hall is emptying – thank you for watching/following us today, and if you didn’t keep up, then watch our for a full write-up of this week’s events at some point tomorrow!

17.24

There is now the option for individuals to vote on singular positions, and nobody moves. James Pidgeon congratulates those successful candidates present, and thanks people for turning up today. He encourages those people present to turn up to General Meetings in the future, where there are further important issues to be discussed.

17.23

The vote has taken place, and the figures are as follows – 141 people voted for, 6 people voted against, and there were 14 abstentions. Therefore the Election has been declared valid.

17.20

It now comes to the vote for the validity of the Executive Committee, Media and RAG Committee Elections. Becky Baxter points out that ‘We’ve got 10 minutes left’.

17.18

A vote has been taken as to whether there should be a secret ballot, which is overwhelmingly against, with 67 votes for, 105 against, and 9 abstentions.

17.15

The decision has been made to overturn Tuesday’s vote, and the vote will be conducted by secret ballot following a proposal speech by Charlotte Bassam-Bowles, who argues that due to reasons of intimidation she feels a secret ballot should be appropriate. Guy Dunkley argues that people should be able to follow through on their convictions and therefore a secret ballot is not necessary.

17.12

A vote is being taken, and Emma Montague and Becky Baxter are high-fiving.

17.11

Charlotte Bassam-Bowles asks for a secret ballot. Initially there has to be a vote as to whether a vote will be taken, which is being organised now.

17.09

Florian Jensen makes the opposing speech, arguing that the group are complaining that not enough people voted at a General Meeting, but whilst not enough people voted in the Elections, the Students’ Union does not represent the Students as it claims to.

17.08

James has now asked for one person to make a one-minute speech to propose that the group assembled take a vote to overturn Tuesday’s decision. Georgia Woolley takes the microphone, and argues that the 700 people have already voted, a decision has been made, and we should make that count.

17.07

Mari Burton, who ran for Societies Officer, argues that she is not willing to be ‘lumped in’ with those who did not campaign simply because they were uncontested.

17.06

Laura Blott asks why the people present can be angry if they did not turn up at the previous General Meeting where there vote could have counted. She suggests that we’re not even 700 people now, and therefore there’s no point debating the issue.

17.05

Charlie Pagliero is asking questions about the legitimate democracy of the issues raised. He argues that the idea of getting a higher democratic turnout is ridiculous, and if in the General Elections less than 50 people turned out, people would be angry if their vote didn’t count.

17.02

Paul Philo argues that this is an ‘excellent wake-up call’ and that the confusion and complications surrounding these elections can be used to exemplify the consequences of not voting. Emily Smyth argues that people cannot be singled out due to their efforts, especially because that effort is hard to determine.

17.00

Florian Jensen asks why not ratify the uncontested positions, as there is ‘no competition there’ and it is unlikely that another candidate would run in the by-elections. He suggests that the contested positions should be put back into the by-elections.

16.58

Anoosheh Dastbaz states that he believes that the elections were in fact valid until they were stated to be invalid. He asks ‘what the hell is wrong with everybody here?’ stating that he knows of uncontested candidates who were out every day.

16.56

Guy Franks has stated that he thinks it is a ‘complete moot point’ that the elections did not reach quota, as we are now discussing whether or not the candidates deserve their positions. Guy Dunkley asks exactly how many candidates voted against ratifying the elections who did not win their chosen positions, and considers the idea of a vested interest. Sarah Honeycombe responds, stating that she thinks the idea of questioning individuals will not further the discussion.

16.55

16.52

Ben Sibthorpe agrees stating that ‘if we’re all angry enough to ratify these elections’ then we should ratify them and then discuss each position in turn, and hold those candidates accountable.

16.51

Questions are being asked about the practicality of a group of people overturning the votes of 700, and currently Megan is arguing that if people in this room have turned up simply because they are angry or frustrated, then it may be the best ever thing that has happened to this union.

16.49

Ed Resek states that if looking solely at the numbers, the elections simply weren’t valid. He argues, that what we are really debating is whether or not ‘we deserve these roles’ and he urges the group to ‘debate each position.’

16.48

Joel Cabourne-Jones argues that holding a by-election will restrict the number of people who are out in the open due to the time period it would be within, and that by that time a lot of people would by that time, have gone home.

16.47

Georgie Woolley says that she is very upset that ‘we are begrudging these people what they have worked so hard for, what they have won’ and that she would be very concerned about the position that The Orbital and InsanityRadio would be left in without the positions being ratified. David Cummins adds that, as a point of clarification, the usual format for Elections ratification is that it is passed with no questions, and the reason we are here today is simply because it has been unstarred.

16.45

Florian says that by raising the awareness, and the complications surrounding this election, the publicity will increase the number of voters who turnout for a prospective by-election in May.

16.44

Florian Jensen replies by stating that the rule exist for a reason and cannot be ignored, therefore the elections should not be ratified. Mari raises the point that considering we are a relatively non-political University, she was impressed by how close to quota the positions were.

16.42

James replies by assuring the floor that in the next General Meeting he will be moving to remove the rule of the 10% quota from Regulation B. Mari Burton then asks, ‘practically, what are we actually going to do without an executive committee?’

16.41

Anoosheh Dastbaz, who asked the initial question this afternoon, has asked whether it seems ironic to those present that ‘an arrogant 21′ people were able to overrule all the voters, and equally so that everybody present today is looking to overturn that previous decision.

16.39

Scott Hooker asks for clarification as to how far below quota the elections turn-out actually was. James clarifies, and Gunanika asks whether spoiled ballots are counted. James says they are not, to which she responds with asking why, if people have made a democratic choice not to vote, their ballots are ignored?

16.37

Charlotte Bassam-Bowles argues that there is plenty of publicity for every single General Meeting and nobody is dumbing down the importance of each GM held, she says ‘We can’t spoon feed you, you’re students! You’re here to learn!’ Charlie Pagliero responds directly saying that this is a moot point, the people are here now and that is not a reason for preventing the point being discussed.

16.36

Charlie Pagliero argues that publicity for the previous General Meeting only happened on the day of the event itself, and that the importance of the meeting itself was not stressed sufficiently. He states that several students publications and Results Night itself implied it to be simply a formality.

16.34

Nick Stylianou reiterates the points he made at the previous General Meeting, and is responded to by Gunanika Singh who raises the issue of people not attending on Tuesday, to which Nick responds by stating that as an elected official he did all he could to make sure people attended the General Meeting.

16.31

Ben Sibthorpe takes the mic, asking if either of the students who unstarred the motion would like to make an opposing speech today, considering nobody moved to oppose Guy earlier.

16.30

This response is followed by the question ‘was it assumed then, that in a later by-election, there would be a bigger turn-out?’ James does not reply but instead opens the floor to respond.

16.29

There is no opposing speech, so James opens the floor for discussion and questions. After a quiet start, there is a question regarding what happens once the positions are not ratified. James announces that all elected officers continue their roles until 31st July 2010, and that all positions still open (whether due to a de-ratification or unfulfilled roles) would be elected at a by-election in May.

16.27

Guy’s points include the fact that the Insanity Station Manager and Assistant Manager were not present on Tuesday means that points were not raised, and several constitutional points need to be discussed, such as the fact that spoiled ballots in the Elections are not counted, whereas abstentions in a General Meeting are moved over to a no-vote.

16.25

James has moved onto the biggest item on the Agenda, which begins with a speech (one minute and thirty seconds) by Guy Franks, who organised the petition to bring this Emergency General Meeting.

16.24

Communications and Statements state that The Orbital (that’s us!) are Live-streaming the event, and that The Laurel Awards and The Apple for the Teacher Awards nominations close at 5pm today, so you have two hours to get those in. Also, James has mentioned an NUS Campaign where students pledge that they will be voting in the General Elections in May so that Student Issues can properly be discussed.

16.22

James is now going through the apologies for absence, for which there are several. He has moved on to the approval of the minutes for the previous meeting, and is proceeding through the agenda as normal.

16.20

James announces that he has prepared for a secret ballot, which is a plausible request – the slips will be counted and prepared by the Democracy Steering Desk and then verified by a member of Students Union staff. He is now explaining the definitions of the word ‘Quota’. We are discussing today the fact that the elections ‘did not hit’ that quota.

16.17

Requests for a secret ballot and a vote must be proposed, with the decision taking place following a vote on these procedural motions.

16.17

Today is not a platform to air views on complaints, as these have been dealt with by SURHUL or the NUS.

16.16

Tonight will be a forum for discussion followed by a vote, which must be a majority.

16.15

The Emergency General Meeting was called by Guy Franks, who received in excess of the 30 required signatures to solidify this meeting.

16.15

Yep, we know our live-blog is an hour out, but bear with us.

16.14

Timing is strict today, so we have to be over and done with by 4.30pm

16.14

After letting everyone peruse the meeting, James Pidgeon, SURHUL President, welcomes us and gives us a run-down of why we’re here.

Ratifications & Re-ratifications: Elections invalid at GM

Deputy Editor — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:00:56 +0000

The final General Meeting of the term, held last night, has voted against the ratification the recently held Executive Committee, Media and RAG Elections, rendering all the positions invalid.

The most important item on the agenda for the evening was the starred ratification of the Executive Committee, RAG and Media elections. As the elections, held between 10th and 16th March 2010, did not reach quota (which is set at 10% of the voting population of students) then the validity of the elections must be ratified at a General Meeting. A starred item is usually rushed through with no discussion, however following the item being un-starred by several students present, the floor was opened for discussion.

Among irate discussion over clubs and societies presidents having ‘forced democracy upon [them]‘ by being mandated to attend every General Meeting, the floor hosted an equally-heated debate which one attendant described as ‘the GM biting back’.

Points were raised about everything from candidates ‘not trying hard enough’ in campaigning for their positions to the fact that Royal Holloway is one of very few universities in the country which upholds the idea of a 10% quota. There was also discussion regarding bringing individual positions into question, most notably the positions for Academic Affairs Officer and Student Development and Volunteering Officer. The discussion continued for 45 minutes until a vote was taken regarding the ratification as a whole.

There were 22 votes for the ratification, 15 votes against the ratification and 9 abstentions. This means that the ratification of the Elections failed, as abstentions were taken to signify a no-vote. Following further debate and discussion, it was agreed that confusion in relation to the significance of abstentions meant that the vote would be re-taken at the Chair’s discretion. In the re-vote, there were 21 votes for the ratification, 14 votes against and there were 8 abstentions, meaning that the Elections were still considered invalid.

A final vote was taken on the basis that several people present called into question the entire GM voting process, and a vote was taken to decide whether those present should re-vote on the ratification. In this deciding vote, 14 people voted against re-voting, 17 voted against re-voting, and there were 7 abstentions, meaning that the second vote – failing the ratification of the Executive Committee, Media and RAG Elections – was deemed to be the final decision.

James Pidegon, Students’ Union President, and Rachel Pearson, Students’ Union President-Elect, gave the following statement in an email to both successful and unsuccessful candidates: ‘There was some extremely heated discussion this evening, and we can only imagine how upset, annoyed and angry the successful candidates present, must feel. However, in line with Regulation B of the Constitution, this Election’s validity did need to be passed at a General Meeting, and so this has been the case.’

All positions in the Executive Committee, Media and RAG Elections will be re-opened, as a result, in the 2010 By-Elections which will take place from 3rd – 9th June. Nominations for all positions will open on 17th May.

A full breakdown of the meeting is available through our live-blog coverage or from minutes available from the meeting.

SURHUL General Meeting Live-Blog!

theOrbital — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:00:47 +0000

Don’t forget to click refresh to see the latest updates!

23.33

There is no other business, and the General Meeting is concluded.

23.32

The for vote received 14, against received 17 and abstentions 7 meaning that the proposal to re-open the ratification has failed.
This means that all positions elected as successful in the recent Exec, Media and RAG elections are invalid, and will be elected at the by-elections in May/June.

23.30

There is now a vote being taken as to whether or not to re-open the vote regarding the ratification of the Elections.

23.29

Jahvel, I honestly have no idea. Stick with us though.

23.28

Ed Resek has stepped up to speak in favour of re-opening the vote, arguing that if the vote is not re-opened and the elections are not ratified there is a chance that Exec, Media and RAG will all suffer. Nick Stylianou has argued that we have already voted twice and the procedure should be upheld.

23.26

Nathan Parsad has brought up the issue that he has counted eight people have left in the last 20 minutes, and wants to know if we are going to continue voting until 4am when there are 10 people left in the room… Arran is opening the floor for another one-minute speech to re-open the vote. James is clarifying that a procedural motion has been proposed to re-vote, and there is now the opportunity for somebody to speak for and against opening the vote again.

23.22

There is an ensuing discussion as to whether there should now be another vote taken, and Charlie Pagliero has brought up the issue that conducting a by-election will not bring enough votes to reach quota.

23.17

If, during the by-election, there are not enough votes then the ratification for the by-elections will run through as a starred item in the first week of the next term. Nathan Parsad asks why we cannot now be given time to think about the results and call an extraordinary General Meeting to discuss this. James Pidgeon emphasises that he cannot alter the dates of the by-elections.

23.14

Charlie Pagliero and Florian Jensen both argue that the vote just taken was not fully explained, but the Sabbatical officers want to know why the questions now being asked were not asked at the beginning of the discussion.

23.13

Questions are being asked, but due to the fact that the elections have now not been ratified there are no real answers.

23.11

Beth Rowley has now asked who will be running The Orbital and InsanityRadio next term, to which there is no reply. James adds that there is nothing constitutionally to ascertain who will run the media, and that it could potentially be co-opted at a General Meeting. James also adds that we are not allowed to campaign in an exams period, therefore results for the by-election can not be announced until the last Wednesday of term.

23.09

For received 21 votes, against received 14 and there were 8 abstentions. The elections have now not been ratified.

23.06

The vote is being re-taken, as to the ratification of the Executive, Media and RAG Elections.

23.04

Charlie Pagliero is now contesting the entire voting process, arguing that the vote just taken was sufficiently confusing and Arran has responded stating that he understood everybody to know that abstentions were no votes. We are now voting on whether or not to take the vote again, and if 50% agree then the vote will be taken again.

23.02

The vote has been taken, and there were 22 votes for, 15 votes against and 9 abstentions. This means that ratification has failed, as abstentions were carried over to a no-vote, and all candidates who were announced as successful last Tuesday are not, and there will be a full by-election in May or June.

22.55

The decision is now being taken to vote on the elections as a whole, and if the elections are not ratified then the individual positions can be discussed. Closing speeches have been made and then tellers are taking to the floor.

22.52

Ben Sibthorpe, who ran as the sole candidate for Academic Affairs, has told the meeting that he will not be providing a defence his limited campaigning, but questions the legitimacy of questioning an election that was uncontested to begin with.

22.50

Charlotte Bassam-Bowles has pointed out that several people did not turn out for the Insanity Election Question Time Show, and that Sarah Kettle was one of several missing, but that she did provide apologies.

22.48

Sarah Kettle, who ran for the position of Student Development and Volunteering, is defending her position and argues that she also promoted the group which informed student they were available to vote RON also. Due to personal commitments and degree issues, she was unable to dedicate much time.

22.46

Rupert Dickinson is now taking the microphone for another one-minute speech against an individual election. He has clarified that he wants to discuss the Executive Positions. He says that he feels that the Media and RAG elections put in plenty of effort, and were seen on campus. He feels that as the candidates were all uncontested they should have had it easy, and but many of them were not campaigning at all. He wants to discuss Student Development and Volunteering Position and Academic Affairs Position.

22.43

He argues that the regulations placed on Facebook are restricting the candidates ability to get voters. Arran responds by stating that the election was held under those conditions and that if there was an issue with those rules then that would be a separate issue.

22.41

There is now a debate taking place regarding a ‘Gentleman’s agreement’ between the Students’ Union and The Founder stating that manifestos were to be printed in The Founder. Florian Jensen has taken the floor back to the point, referencing the Elections Code of Conduct.

22.40

Charlotte says that perhaps a reason for the higher turn out in the Sabbatical Elections is due to the prospective Sabb officers are putting their lives for a year on the line, and therefore work very hard on their campaigns. She adds that contested positions also work harder, but uncontested positions struggle to gain votes.

22.38

David adds that the reason for the Sabbatical Election’s success could be down to The Orbital’s coverage of the Elections period, including the exit polls. This year, James adds that The Orbital board were all running in this Election and could not cover the Elections due to the regulation that states that candidates may not take up their elected positions during the campaign period.

22.36

Jack Lenox thinks that it is connected to publicity, and the candidates are not to blame. He remembers a time where manifestos were published in both The Founder and The Orbital.

22.34

Nick Stylianou responds by saying that he has run in an uncontested election which reached quota, and worked equally hard in this recent election therefore he would feel bad picking and choosing between positions. James adds that the election to which Nick refers is when Media and Sabbatical officers were at the same time, and he feels that it is clear why more people vote for the sabbatical officer elections.

22.32

Charlie Pagliero is asking that if people choose not to vote, then that is a valid decision in democracy – people have a right not to vote, and not fulfilling quota should be considered as much democracy as not fulfilling quota.

22.30

James Pidgeon is touching on the publicity aspect, saying that he can happily show the floor all the publicity which was put into this election – he argues that at least 70% of the publicity comes from the candidates and their campaign team members, therefore the fact that quota was not reached indicates that there was not enough publicity from the candidates.

22.29

Nick Stylianou is now making his one-minute speech and argues that if elections did not reach quota, then it doesn’t matter how much effort the candidates themselves put in because at the end of the day, they did not reach quota and therefore the elections should not be ratified.

22.28

Rachel Dakin says that she feels the elections as a whole were not publicised from the beginning and the uncontested positions mean that not enough students will vote.

22.26

Rachel Pearson is suggesting the introduction of minimum campaign hours, or even a campaign hour log so that candidates think about the time they spend campaigning.

22.25

Ed Resek says that despite losing two days trying to prepare his campaign materials, he and his campaign team worked tirelessly in the days following, but perhaps in less visible places such as the back gate and main gate. He argues that the elections should be questioned on an individual basis, and is backed by Doug German and Hardeep Singh-Lalli.

22.23

Charlie Pagliero mentions ‘electoral fatigue’ and argues that there is too much harassment, stating that students thought that they had already voted [in reference to the Sabbatical elections earlier this year] – he states that having another election will only make the situation worse, providing an even smaller student turn out and an even more controversial ratification.

22.22

James Pidgeon adds that we are one of the few universities in the country that have the quorum of 10% in the constitution, and wants to agree with Rachel in saying that the people attending this GM should not have power over 700+ votes.

22.20

Rachel Pearson argues that it may be difficult for uncontested candidates to be motivated to campaign, but it ‘doesn’t sit well for [her] to let the amount of people within this room to override the students votes’.

22.19

Ben Sibthorpe has made a speech in opposition, arguing that people should not be harassed and they should use their own initiative to vote. Rupert responds by saying that people will not vote in their apathy and that he would not want people running this country with less than 10% of votes, and and he would not want people running his student’s union with less than 10% of votes either.

22.17

Arran adds that if the election is not ratified then there will be a by-election held in May.

22.16

Rupert argues that candidates did not ‘try hard enough’ to gain their positions, arguing that notable candidates did not put enough effort into their campaigns and therefore it is the candidates fault that the election did not reach quota.

22.15

Aaron is now outlining the procedure for the discussion. He states that the ratification has been un-starred by three people, and he will first hear a one-minute speech from the people who un-starred the motion, as if it were a motion to amend. Nick Stylianou and Rupert Dickinson both moved to un-star the motion, and Rupert has taken the microphone.

22.13

We are now moving on to the un-starred item on the agenda: the ratification of the Executive Committee, RAG and Media elections, James Pidgeon is summarising the results of the elections, stating that all positions missed quota by anything from 60 – 180 votes. He states that the item is usually un-starred but has been opened for discussion, and has reiterated that this is not the platform to discuss election complaints.

22.10

Ask an Officer Anything is up next, offering people at the meeting the opportunity to ask elected officers questions. No-one takes the opportunity.

22.06

Charlotte Bassam-Bowles (VPEdWelfare) is now making her speech. She will be followed by David Cummins (VPComServ) then Emma Montague (VPSA)

22.04

As we’re sure you can appreciate, the Sabbs are squeezing four weeks of work into 60 seconds, making it impossible to accurately note down. Notes on these speeches are available on the Sabb page of the Students’ Union website, surhul.ac.uk

22.02

It is now time for 60-second Sabb. James is up first. He has started by thanking people for coming and discussing the prior points.

22.01

The General Meeting will now be move on from this point on the agenda. All points raised in the discussion will appear in the minutes for this meeting and will be incorporated into any further discussion.

21.59

Jack Lenox has asked why The Founder has not been approached to publicise the GM in as you cannot “publicise these things too much.” Arran has responded that it is a work in progress.

21.58

Arran Wiltshire points out that agendas for General Meetings are available on the Facebook group, that all sports and societies’ Presidents have been invited to.

21.55

Michael Conway argues that there is plenty of information regarding manifestos, and that the General Meeting is widely publicised but the room is still definitely not filled.

21.53

Jack Lenox asks whether the recent bout of apathy is a result of the manifestos ‘and things’ not being put in print.

21.52

Claire Nineham wants to reiterate that the discussion point is not negative and is intended to further the benefits offered to the clubs and societies from the Students’ Union.

21.51

Rachel Dakin says that she believes that the University is spiralling into a sense of apathy, and mandating people to attend is the only way to avoid that.

21.50

Charlie Pagliero says that when one runs for a position of responsibility for their club and society then they should accept that it is their responsibility to represent their clubs and societies.

21.49

Ben Sibthorpe commends the clubs and societies presidents who have attended but thinks they are on a slightly self-defeating purpose because simply by being here, they have proved the point that they should be mandated as without them debating the issue because they were mandated to, they have prevented it going through.

21.48

Emily Cookson argues that having a representative on an Executive committee is not enough to make sure motions are not passed as they are just the one person, in bringing people to the GM more votes are ensured and more votes are therefore in your favour.

21.46

James Pidgeon responds directly saying that if you intend to put trust in your elected officials, then why must a debate be held on passing the motion. he also wants to reiterate that money from your Tuition Fees does not come to the Students’ union. Only joining fees etc get ploughed back into the Students’ Union, therefore if you are paying extra money, why don’t you want to get something back from that money and be a part of the decision making committee. He also adds that you can send your apologies if you do not want to attend.

21.44

Jack Lenox wants to remind students that the money which makes up the budget is actually money that students have paid for their union, and therefore the money should be fed back to them as appropriate. He asks why a referendum is not held campus-wide.

21.43

Charlotte Bassam-Bowles argues that if ‘you didn’t have a fantastic VPSA who is going to stand up and fight for your money at the AGM then we could take all of your budget (which is the largest budget) and put it all into welfare’.

21.42

Beth Rowley wants to emphasise that this is not a bad thing, nobody is ‘forcing democracy on you’ but it’s more that the Students’ Union wants to make sure that all clubs and societies (therefore more students) are represented at the GM in a positive way.

21.40

Charlie Pagliero (recently elected Station Manager for Insanity 2010-2011) says that there is almost a ‘debt of gratitude’ from clubs and societies to the Students’ Union and their attendance shows the fact that they appreciate the support from the SU.

21.38

James has re-iterated that the General Meeting features in each What’s On Guide, the Sabb Show on InsanityRadio publicises it, and The Orbital feature the GM heavily each time. He also reassures the floor that democracy is not forced on people, as they can send their apologies.

21.37

Many people have added that in ‘forcing the students to attend’ you are in essence ‘forcing democracy, which is undemocratic’. Somebody has also informed the floor that in his time at RHUL he has never heard of the GM until now, and he believes that the problem is with the Students’ Union not advertising it’s GM’s.

21.34

Charlotte Bassam-Bowles (VP Education and Welfare) argues that when her and the Sabbatical team were first years and the room was packed for each GM there was much more discussion, but since this has ended we have a ’sloppy general meeting’ which is unnecessary.

21.32

James responds directly saying that ‘all of you guys here are the Students’ Union’ and the GM is in danger of becoming a Sabbatical-led description making body, which it should not be. Especially considering this is the top governing, decision making body which should be open for wider discussion amongst the student body. He says this is the reason for which he sees no problem with the president or an elected official being present at each GM.

21.30

Scott responds, saying that he knows it is easy to send the apologies, but has an issue with the word mandatory – he doesn’t think it should be mandatory. The next President of Lacrosse (after Scott) agrees, saying that making the issue mandatory it creates more bureaucracy rather than getting the information straight across to the clubs.

21.28

Ben Sibthorpe agrees with James, saying that it takes less that 5 minutes to check the agenda for each General Meeting, and then a further 5 minutes to email the Union Chair giving your apologies where there are no issues that affect you.

21.26

James Pidgeon recalls that all clubs and societies presidents were emailed when GM’s happened where issues which may be of interest to their group of people. However, he wants to know how the Students’ Union know which issues are likely to affect the groups – for example, the opening times of the back gate affect club members celebrating on a Wednesday night, but would they consider attending GM’s where these things were discussed?

21.24

Scott Hooker argues that when he ran for a committee position it was to be active in sports and not to attend the GM.

21.22

Rachel Pearson says that the reason for the motion also has to do with the fact that it ‘doesn’t feel right’ to make decisions that affect clubs and societies without those people being represented.

21.21

Ben Sibthorpe disagrees, saying that the very act of being in the room whilst the motions regarding sports clubs and societies is the most important aspect. The Trampolining President responds saying that most of the information he received on taking the role was from the previous president, not the Students’ Union, therefore he doesn’t really know what the value of the GM.

21.20

A sports president is arguing that he doesn’t really represent his club’s views, and believes that if they were interested then they should attend themselves. He feels that he would attend, but would just be listening politely, without much real interest.

21.18

He responds by informing the floor that because of the support, financial and otherwise, that the Students’ Union provides the clubs and societies with throughout the year, they should attend. The clubs and societies are also affected by many of the regulations that have recently been altered, and need to be aware of the changes made. James gives the example of the changes regarding initiations.

21.17

James has been asked ‘if you’re going to mandate us but then say we can send our apologies then why should we bother?’

21.16

James Pidgeon agrees with Rachel, and emphasises that we need to either ‘mandate presidents or we don’t’ and reassures the floor that you can send apologies for every general meeting if you need to.

21.15

Rachel Pearson is disagreeing with the idea that societies represent one group of people, and says she is proud of the diversity shown through RHUL’s societies.

21.14

The floor seems relatively quiet, but somebody is commenting that the presidents should be mandated as ‘a probationary thing’, and it’s important to make sure that RHUL’s real diversity is shown through the meetings.

21.13

The Union Chair, Arran Wiltshire, has opened the floor to discussion regarding the motion about clubs and societies’ presidents or elected officials, and James Pidgeon has asked for the discussion to bring forth proposals to amend for the next General Meeting.

21.12

We are LIVE at the General Meeting, discussing everything from the motion that mandates clubs and societies’ presidents to attend the GM to the validity of the RAG, Media and Exec Elections.

21.10

Communications and Statements communicate that nominations are now open for the Laurels.

21.00

Welcome to this evening’s General Meeting!

HEFCE confirms RHUL’s funding cut

Editor — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:00:16 +0000

Royal Holloway is set to face a cut in Government funding for the second consecutive year, along with three-quarters of the rest of the UK’s universities, following the recent grant announcement.

The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), have revealed that Royal Holloway’s investment suffers a 0.9% loss, following a 0.4% decrease in 2009. This brings Royal Holloway’s total recurrent grant to £37,145,000, down from £37,495,000.

Of Royal Holloway’s allocation, £22.36 million is funding for teaching and £13.80 million goes to research. £970,000 is allocated for additional support for widening participation, as well as teaching enhancement and student success (TESS). TESS funding supports improving student retention, institutional learning and teaching strategies, and research-informed teaching. Widening participation funding provides additional support for widening access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and improving provision for disabled students.

The total HEFCE grant available for the 2010-11 academic year is £7.35 billion, a rise of 0.9% on the 2009 amount, but with inflation rates the total reflects a 1.1% decrease.

Higher Education institutions for the South East region (which includes RHUL) were allocated £833.19 million, reflecting an overall growth of 0.2%. The biggest increase in the South East region was Canterbury Christ Church University, up 8.3%. However, only half of the 16 institutions were an increase on the 2009-2010 grant, with the University of Reading left with the largest deficit of 7.7%. The University of Surrey received £42.25 million, a 2.1% decrease on last year.

The London region houses 40 higher education institutions, and suffered a 0.4% loss on last year. The London region gives out over £1.46 billion in funding, the biggest recipient of which is University College London with £178.8 million – a 1.7% increase on 2009.