KCLSU Word Template (Colour)

Welfare & Community Zone

4. The Women’s Officer, Ethnic Minorities Officer, Disabled Students Officer, LGBT Officer, and International Students Officer (henceforth Liberation Officer(s)) were elected by self-defining members of their liberations groups on a mandate to effectively represent the needs of students within their respective liberation groups

5. It is not made clear in KCLSU Bye Law 3 whether or not Liberation Officers are funded by KCLSU at NUS Liberation Conferences

This Union Believes:

1. Liberation campaigns on campus are crucial for the welfare and support of oppressed and marginalised students

2. Liberation History Months and One World Week serve only as tokenistic nods to liberation groups if those groups are not supported throughout the academic year

3. The concerns of liberation groups within the Union are not currently being dealt with in an effective manner

4. Liberation groups need an active and recognised voice within the Union in order for students within them to feel properly represented

This Union Resolves:

1. To create a recognised ‘Liberation at King’s’ structure supported by the Union and shaped by Liberation Officers and students within Liberation Associations

2. To support and publicise associations and forums (henceforth Liberation Associations) organised by any Liberation Officer

3. To automatically allocate self-defining Women/Black/LGBT*/Disabled/ students membership to any and all Liberation Associations associated with their identity

4. Friendly Amendment: To allocate membership to the International Students Association for students that:

1. Face differential access to benefits and welfare

2. Increased employment insecurity

3. Require a visa for continued study in the United Kingdom

4. Face discrimination while looking for housing

5. Pay overseas student fees

5. To support and publicise any events and campaigns orchestrated by a Liberation Association

6. To provide an annual budget for ‘Liberation at King’s’ which will cover expected costs of campaigns and events, including a ‘Liberation at King’s’ conference at the end of the academic year

7. To make available funding to send a full delegation of students to each of the four annual NUS Liberation Conferences (Women’s, Black, Disabled, LGBT*) as well as the annual International Students Conference

a. Delegation places should be selected democratically by the relevant Liberation Association in line with NUS national policy

8. To mandate Liberation Officers to meet with students within their Liberation Associations at least once a semester

9. To amend KCLSU Bye Law 3 to clarify that Liberation Officers are to be sent to NUS Liberation Conferences with KCLSU funding

Improve KCL Living Bursary

Authors:

Alberto Torres

Liam Jackson

AMENDED MOTION:

This Union notes

1. The most extensive bursary available to KCL students is the Kings Living Bursary; which awards £1,500 for those with household incomes below £25,000 and £1,000 for those with household incomes between £25,001 and £42,600

2. Many other competing universities' equivalent bursary schemes offer larger amounts, including UCL, whom award £3,500 for those with household incomes below £25,000, and LSE who award £3,500 for those with a household income less than £18000, and £3000 for those within the bracket of £18000-£25000 and Imperial award up to £1000 cash and a £5000 accommodation fee waiver

3. KCL and intercollegiate halls are significantly more expensive than most universities in the UK, as well as many universities within London

4. Alongside living bursaries, many universities, including UCL offer separate bursaries to aid with Halls of Residence accommodation fees

5. In the year ending July 2012 (the most recent data available), KCL ran an operating surplus of £31 million. In addition, a former student residence was sold for £5 million and shares in a start-up company were sold for £7 million indicating that there are more than sufficient available funds to contribute towards larger bursaries for students.

This Union Believes

1. Many students encounter financial difficulties due to accommodation fees, which also deter many students from applying

2. Better bursaries at other universities cause some, potential, talented students to study elsewhere, such as UCL and LSE

3. KCL must make the university more accessible to students of all backgrounds

4. That cash bursaries and accommodation fee waivers (for students in first year, living in KCL halls) are preferable to tuition fee waivers as they have a more immediate short-term impact on a student’s financial situation

This Union Resolves

1. KCL should improve their living bursary for those struggling with London living costs, in part due to expensive accommodation fees

2. The King's Living Bursary would be increased to £3,500 for new undergraduate students with a household income below £25,000, to match that provided by UCL and LSE, as well an increase for bursaries for those with a household income of £25,001-42,600

3. That KCLSU will only accept a tuition fee waiver as a last resort and will primarily lobby for cash bursaries

Improve KCL and KCLSU Ethical Investment Policy

Authors:

Alberto Torres

Liam Jackson

AMENDED MOTION:

This Union notes:

1. That the current university’s Ethical & Investment policy is ambiguous and basic, needing to be more explicit and comprehensive.

2. That the current Ethical Investment Policy is three lines long and only makes specific reference to tobacco companies.

3. Since it was created in 2009, the university has had dubious research links and contracts with conspicuous organisations. These organisations are either complicit, or are directly involved in human rights and international law violations. This shows KCL has not acted on ethical grounds and that it is not serious about acting.

4. That King’s students have been consistent in showing due concern to King’s College London contentious investments. The victorious Ahava campaign in 2011 is a clear example of this, as well as the recent SU condemnation of the institution’s activities with G4S.

5. That King’s College London has been falling down places gradually on the national ‘People & Planet’ League tables. Last year, King’s fell to the 91st place, being awarded a meagre “Lower Second Class Award” and scoring “awful performance” on the ethical investment field.

This Union Believes

1. That KCL is in urgent need of developing a strong and comprehensive Ethical and Investment policy.

2. That the current policy needs better wording or to be changed all together. It needs a mechanism that reports annually to students and staff, and to allow them to engage.

3. That an Ethical Investment Policy needs to go beyond a sheet of paper. It needs to be put into practice.

4. That a comprehensive policy should target arms trade links, organisations that go against international law, as well as fossil fuel industry related partnership investments.

5. That King’s poor ranking on ethical awareness, investment and procurement is damaging to the institution’s reputation. This in turn affects us all.

This Union Resolves

1. To lobby and engage KCL in creating a more comprehensive, binding, transparent and detailed Ethical Investment Policy, based on the “Union Believes” section.

2. That the policy should commit King’s to go beyond financial incentives and economic gain, eg. Only investing ethically if there is no price difference.

3. To keep track and have a dense information network about company investment progress, made available and transparent to the student body.

4. For KCLSU to also develop a detailed Ethical Investment and Procurement policy.

5. That KCLSU will also produce a shorter summary in a format that is easily readable to students to make clear and transparent to students what KCLSU’s views on ethical investment and procurement are

6. to empower the Environment and Ethics Officer to achieve the resolutions set out in this motion

7. For KCLSU to also develop a detailed ethical investment and procurement policy in consideration at other, more detailed ethical investment policies in force at other university of London college, most notably LSE and UCL

Remove Lord Carey’s Image

Authors:

Robbie Hirst

AMENDED MOTION:

This Union notes

1. On the 8th of October 2012, at an event hosted by the Coalition for Marriage, Lord Carey stated that “Same-sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships and should not be put on the same level”

2. On the 23rd of October 2012 the KCLSU Student Council passed a motion resolving “To lobby the College to remove the image of Lord Carey from the Strand campus windows”

3. Lord Carey’s image remains at the front of the Strand

4. The current KCLSU Student Council Chair was elected on a manifesto stating “We cannot let the (Lord Carey) campaign started by Roar! dwindle away”

This Union Believes

1. Homosexual relationships are on the same ‘level’ as heterosexual relationships

2. Not only is the statement made by Lord Carey – in union notes 1 – unacceptable, it is deeply offensive

KCLSU Word Template (Colour)

Welfare & Community Zone

Contents:

This Union notes:

This Union Believes:

This Union Resolves:

This Union Believes:

This Union notes:

This Union Believes

1. That KCL is in urgent need of developing a strong and comprehensive Ethical and Investment policy.

2. That the current policy needs better wording or to be changed all together. It needs a mechanism that reports annually to students and staff, and to allow them to engage.

3. That an Ethical Investment Policy needs to go beyond a sheet of paper. It needs to be put into practice.

4. That a comprehensive policy should target arms trade links, organisations that go against international law, as well as fossil fuel industry related partnership investments.

5. That King’s poor ranking on ethical awareness, investment and procurement is damaging to the institution’s reputation. This in turn affects us all.

This Union Resolves

This Union notes