Minutes of the Joint Council 06/04/2017
Chairing the meeting: Zhane McKenzie (ZM) Ryan Willet (RW)
Officers Present: Daniel Winney-DW (Vice President Student Activities), Keira Rounsley –KR (Vice President Welfare and Community) Ahtesham Mahmood –AMa (Vice President Student Activities) Mike Mayes- MM (Vice President Media and Communications)
Part time reps: Lauren Thomas (LT) Women’s Representative, Vivian Nwagboso (VN) International Students’ Rep
Course Reps and committee members in attendance: 77 students
Staff: Samuel Hilton (Student Engagement Co-ordinator) David Lewis (Student Voice Manager)
Minutes to be ratified
1. IntroductionThe Chair open the meeting and explained the agenda.
2. Ten questions
The attendees were asked the following questions,
1) Do you think that £15 is a fair price for graduation guest tickets, 2) If you could have known one thing at the start of University, what would it be? 3) How do you think your mental wellbeing has been affect whilst at University 4) What improvements/ IT and Media services would improve your DMU experience 5) Should DSU hold a referendum on our NUS affiliation,
The answers were as followed
1) 18 stated that it was, 32 said that it was not a fair amount and 3 said they did not know. 2) The answers to this question were free text comments and are available on request. 3) 16 students said their mental wellbeing had improved, 33 said worse, and 10 said unchanged. 4) The answers to this question were free text comments and are available on request. 5) 17 students answered yes, 22 answered no and 19 stated that they didn’t know.
Student comments on Graduation
A student stated that when graduations where at the Curve people paid £16.50 for Graduation tickets, and that it should now be cheaper as it was at a DMU venue. MM responded explained that the Executive Team had meet with the relevant parties at the University. He informed the room that the University had made a persuasive case. The cost of DMU’s graduations were similar to other Universities in the midlands and were considered sector leading.
A student said that students at Coventry University received two guest tickets. MM answered that this is not what they had been told. He agreed that communications about graduations needed to be improved.
A student stated that Kent University students received free guest tickets. They articulated the view that the price of tickets were particularly unfair for International students. They explained that their parents had had to pay £600’s to fly into the UK and arrange accommodation. Part of the reason that this cost had been so high was due to the late release of the dates for Graduation.
MM told students that there would be good news tomorrow.
A student said that they had requested an earlier release of graduation and they had not been released, it felt like DMU did not care about International Reps. MM reassured the student that this was not the case
Sports awards
A student stated that they were not happy that the Sports Awards had been announced. A member of the executive explained that they would be announced tomorrow. They explained that they had successfully lobbied to ensure that the Sports award would be open to as many students as possible and not just committees. They explained that there would be an after party in the SU.
Improving IT
A student asked in the free printer in the SU was fixed, Dan stated that he believed it was and that he would check.
NUS referendum
A student stated that if there was an NUS referendum then information should be checked and ratified before being circulated. Another student said that the NUS was great in a lot of ways but that students should still have a say on membership.
3. Policy (Postgraduate representative)
The Chair invited AmA to advocate the policy. He read the policy.
A student stated that many Postgraduates were employed by the University and that the University was the main provider of their income. The student suggest that this could create a conflict of interest. Another student stated that have a rep who was integrated into the University and had those pre-existing relationships that would be a good thing.
A student argued that DSU was an independent body from the University and that having representatives at the highest level of the SU who were dependant on the University for employment could compromise the Students’ Unions independence.
MM stated that students who were frontrunners were employed by the University and subject to all the same staff regulations as a postgraduate who taught or were employed by the University in some other way. He pointed out that frontrunners could run for any of the part time representative posts. He stated that it would be unfair to have one rule for some and another rule for others. He reiterated the point that having relationships with University staff was a plus for representatives. He explained that the SU had a variety of mechanism to deal with conflicts of interests.
The chair called for a vote. The room voted and the vote was as follows:
35 students voted to pass the motion
8 voted for the policy to fall
10 abstained
The motion passed.
4. Policy (Course representation Structure)
The chair invited the proposer to the front of the room. The proposer advocated the policy.
DW took a speech against the policy, stating that it could limit opportunities for first year representatives.
A student said that they had nominated themselves in the recent course rep elections and that this nomination had not been acknowledged.
MM asked if students in second and third year, who may have a greater academic workload, should take on a more responsibility as reps. KR gave a speech against the policy.
A student suggest that students should be able to hold SRCs to account as this would seem to achieve the same thing as the policy aimed to do. A student stated that they believe students who had worked as reps for several years should receive extra recognition. The proposer of the policy suggested that the provisions under the resolves could be made optional. Several Officers suggest that this would make the policy redundant.
The proposer withdrew the policy.
5. Policy (Social membership policy)
The Chair invited the proposer to the front of the room. The proposer advocated the policy.
A student asked if it was unfair that social members should have the same rights to run for committee posts and vote in the elections as full members. The proposer of the policy argued that often social members were often key members in a society. A student suggest that only full members should be allowed to be on committees.
A student suggested that this policy would bring people together. Another student responded that a lot of work went on behind the scenes with committees and therefore it might not be idea to have social members as chairs of societies. A student responded that all members should be able to run in the elections and the electorate could decide if they wished to have social members on committees.
A student suggest that references to “social member(s)” should be changed to “non-competitive member(s)”. The proposer accepted the amendment and therefore no vote was required on the amendment. A student suggested that the words “within the sports team’s rules” were added to resolves one. The proposer rejected this amendment. This motion was rejected by the proposer. The amendment was put to the vote, 76% of students voted to include the amendment in the policy. The amendment was therefore added to the policy.
AMa advocated setting a minuim price for social membership of £10’s of this academic year, then in future the cost of the membership would be flexible in accordance with the policy. The proposer of the policy rejected this amendment.
The chair called for a vote on the policy and the latest amendment. The vote want as followed
33 students voted to pass the policy with the amendment
9 students voted for the policy to fail
2 students voted to abstain
19 voted to pass the motion without the amendments
The policy passed with all the proposed amendments.
6. Scrutiny selections
The Chair explained what the role of scrutiny panel and advocated the students’ involvement with the process. He explained that students who were interested should email the voice department.
7. Scrutiny (President)
The Chair played the President’s Scrutiny video. The President made himself available for questions.
A student asked for more details about the Graduation ball. She articulated some concerns that the same day as the ADH graduation. DW stated that it had been hard to get a date for the event that worked for everyone. He further stated that ADH students should be able to make the Graduation Ball as it started at 7:30pm.
A student asked if DSU could organise a deal with local hotels to get students cheaper accommodation. DW agreed that this was a good idea and that he would investigate it.
A student asked if the campus centre would be open over easter. DW explained that it would and laid out his view on how the space should be used. A student asked if there would be a New York trip next year. DW affirmed that there would be.
Action: President to investigate the possibility of getting reduced price hotel accommodation for Graduation.
8. Scrutiny (Vice President Media and Communications)
The Chair played MM’s video. MM made himself available for questions.
A student asked if the production company would be open to students who had graduated. MM explained that it would not be to start with but this could change when the company was more established.
A student asked if the company would only be open to students on creative courses, MM explained that it would be open to students on all courses but that it would be most useful for ADH and TECH students. He explained that this was a positive as ADH and TECH students were the students who would be most likely to struggle to get sandwich placements.
9. Scrutiny (Vice President Student Activities)
The Chair played AMa video. AMa made himself available for questions.
A student asked in the additional student reps would be elected, and how they would work with the VPSA elect. AMa explained that they would be elected at the Sports conference. He also explained that they would enhance the work of the VPSA and that they would work with the new Officer.
A student stated that their sports teams pre-varsity meeting with the Vice Chancellor had not been positive. They stated that the Women’s team had been largely ignored. The VC had only asked them how they would control “their emotions when they lost”.
10. Scrutiny (Vice President Welfare and Community)
The Chair played KR video and invite KR to the front of the room.
A student asked if courses that have no choice of modules could have their timetables released earlier. KR explained the challenges which the Universities timetabling team faced, focusing on the failure of lecturers to confirm that they were happy with the timetables in time. She stated that this would stop in future.
A student praised the Officer.
11. Part time rep reports
The Women’s rep gave her report. She was focusing on putting together a bid for funds from BUCs so she could run a project to increase engagement from underrepresented groups in sport.
The International students rep gave her report. She stated that she felt that DSU had the wrong culture. She also stated that she had felt that her campaign to equalise International Students’ fees had not be properly supported.
DW responded to a few of these points, stating that the SU had organised meetings between the rep and the relevant University staff.
A student suggest that there should be a day of action against to the treatment of International Students. Another student expressed concerns about how the University would react to the day of action. In response a student stated that if the Students’ Union did not do anything then it was not a Union.
The meeting ended with a student stating that the by-stander was on the side of the oppressor.
Action: President to investigate the possibility of getting reduced price hotel accommodation for Graduation.