Environment Health and Safety Executive Committee

I'm not sure I can make this meeting...summer plans and all that.. I think I will be there however, if you want something brought up I will be sure to pass it along.

Advisory Group on the Environment

Meeting to be held on Monday 19th July 2010 at 2:30 pm,
Vice Chancellor’s meeting room, Aston Webb

1. Apologies

2. Minutes of the last meeting 17th December 2009 (attached EAG 10.07.1)

3. Matters Arising:
a. Waste and Recycling Contracts update
b. Sustainable Travel Plan update
c. Carbon Management Plan update
d. Future of the Advisory Group & Sustainability Task Group
(i) Terms of reference/areas of compliance (attached EAG 10.07.2 )
(ii) Membership of the group
e. Eco homes project
f. Green Impacts Initiative update
g. Times Higher Awards
h. People & Planet Green League Table

4. Action Plan 2009_2010 (attached EAG 10.07.3)

5. Date of next meeting

Leaving post

I have made plenty of mistakes while being an EEO I have been far from a perfect officer, but, this is far from perfect guild or movement. I could write about things I have done wrong, done right, done well, done badly…. about opinions expressed in sabb leaving speeches like the idea that empowerment is giving a fresher Ed Sparkes phone number and e-mail or that ethics or liberation are side issues or that students are not the best people to run the guild … or the events of last guild council.

Why should I be self indulgent or reactive? When I could talk about what I think is really holding our movement back, I’m basically no longer an officer, what is the worse that can happen?

I have always been shocked by the blatant corrupt nature of the obvious careerism of so many in guild and NUS… probably worst that I have seen was Labour student and guild president 08/09 Jenifer Larbie going to work for David Lammy the then Labour Minister for Higher Education who so strong in supporting the raising of fees immediately after finishing her stint as guild president.

dominated by Labour students? six of students in the picture are labour students and one is a labour minster..


But, that is just a minor case point in what the careerist stepping stone that the NUS has become. Out of the most recent presidents of the NUS six became MPs, four became special advisors to MP’s (MP’s in waiting), One became a Labour Executive on its national council and another became a Labour London mayoral candidate and a member of the London assembly the only president who didn’t take the Labour career instead joined the British communist party. For the record since the once home secretary and now the right honourable MP for Norwich south Charles Clarke Became NUS President in 1977, there has only been one Non-labour NUS president.

Our movement is a shadow what it could be and students have has lost so much… we’ve lost: Travel Grants, Special Equipment Grants, Minimum Grants, Older Students Allowances, the right to claim housing benefit, unemployment benefits and income support during holidays, the introduction of loans and now the looming threat of top up fees.

And at the same time that students are losing so much, those at the top have taking more and more, while corruptly saying that there is no money for students… just over the last ten years…The number of staff paid over £100,000 at the University of Birmingham has gone from 28 to 96 and in terms total pay to management there has been average increases of 19.9% each year since 2000. The VC’s wages have also increasing staggeringly from £169000 to £342000 in same period. Both of these increases are far out of proportion with the growth of the university which has grown in the same period by an average of 6.6% per year.

Our movement largely crippled by careerists won’t even organize a national demonstrations or local campaigns against the worsening situation… seemingly because the controlling labour students is at best quasi democratic and has some very dubious “democratic channels” which are easily controlled by Labor party central office and those in hope of a political career will not upset this order by running campaigns with real bite.
Just five points about labour students…
1.The Labour party fund Labour students
2. The Labour party employ Karim Palant full time to “liaise and lobby” Labour students.
3. Labour students sabbatical officers work at Labour central office
4. Labour students is run effectively by the steering committee not by its conference which has effectively no powers.
5. the steering committee is made up of three Labour students, the sabbatical officers based at Labour party central office.

Please don’t think that I back any of the other political factions that are so rife throughout student politics… they are just as bad, in the case of the SWP, maybe even worse. I’m against allowing formal factions, and it was Jack straw who removed the “no politics” clause when he was president of NUS in 1970... turning the NUS into waste of time mini parliament it is today.(watch out this lot)

This years campaigning on fees and cuts have been some what lackluster in my opinion and I’m upset by a guild that has broadly welcomed the logic for plans of £20 millions pounds worth of cuts at the university.
The solution to ending the domination of this careerist political clique that controls and restricts… is… I think to leave the NUS… time to finally say goodbye to that colossal bureaucratic nightmare that costs the guild of students a badly needed £65,000 pounds a year to affiliate to.

The NUS as democratic representative body has failed completely, turnouts make it look embarrassingly out of touch with most students. The NUS is not dealing with the problems of student finance, housing, and standards of tuition effectively. While at the same time as being a massive financial burden its factional politics are passed back down to its member unions by those with using it as back door into their own parties.

(On a side note leaving the NUS would also get us cheaper beer, freedom of choice and better ethics. Including the cost of the affiliation fees NUSSL s one of the most expensive bulk consortiums ever and additionally it restricts our choice to its own limited catalogue, which includes very few Fairtrade items and no Stella!)

Frankly, we would be better off without this political clique… unions In Scotland, where all the major universities are already out of NUS, non-affiliated unions got together to do their own lobbying and campaigning over fees, grants and loans. The culmination of their efforts was the abolition of tuition fees in Scotland… something the NUS thinks is just impossibility.

Anyhow so goodbye for now, I’m not going anywhere, I will be back next year, maybe trying to get the guild to leave the NUS and certainly pushing anti fees/cuts and the ethics rights and environmental agenda forward wherever I can.

Much love to rest of the officer team, all the best to you

Edd xxx

Ethical investment, would be so easy...

How appropriate is it that a charity and a public institution are funding the manufacture of torture equipment and landmines... it would be so easy to sort out but, guild officers for the entirety of my time at university have consistently blocked progress. It is a change that countless student unions have achieved, to the benefit of their universities and students... the below is a plea to next year team to stop acting like spanners in the work and be a help not a hindrance.

Images like this are deeply disturbing; peace activists shot multiple times at close range, some dying, some dead. Over forty shot, if you have any doubt, about the nature of violence last Monday you can find the evidence here however, the images are very disturbing so, you may not want to look.

Can’t we have an investment policy at the University of Birmingham or at the guild of students that means we have nothing to do with M-16 totting kids rappelling out of helicopters and shooting aid workers? Freedom of information requests about the university holdings reveal not only does it has stakes in the manufacture of M-16s that the Israeli commandos use but in depleted uranium weaponry, cluster bombs, land mines and torture equipment not just sold to Israel but other equally repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.

Would it be so hard? The USS, which is the universities academics pension fund, holds £19 billion can manage an ethical policy. As can universities like Oxbridge colleges, Edinburgh, York, East Anglia, Stanford and Harvard The School of Oriental and African Studies not to mention the massive local authority bodies like Devon, Hampshire, London, Croydon, and Edinburgh.... to name a few.

It wouldn’t cost a dime, the guild has this year committed to adopting an environmentally friendly investment policy, the change doesn’t have to happen overnight, merely the next time a new investment is made, just make sure it is in line with ethical policy... a gradual transfer costs nothing.

Interestingly, modern studies are challenging the assumption that ethical funds underperform the market. Some are going as far as indicating that they could be more profitable. The FTSE4Good index has repeatedly outperformed the FTSE index and the Jupiter Ecology Fund has grown in value by 135% since its inception. It is thought that the more diverse nature of ethical fund holdings and the avoidance of share value disasters like what is currently happening to BP lead to the increased profits that have been clearly more resilient to the recession.

And if the university is looking for an ethical equity fund that has performed consistently better than the BGI fund that is uses it should try this one
Ethical investment is a change waiting to happen at the university, it just needs students to at last act as catalysts. We would only be asking them to invest our money more competently while making the university more attractive to alumni donors.

This year’s officer team have refused the lobby the university, blocked attempts in guild council on spurious fears of recriminations by large multinational companies. This is a challenge that countless student unions have got their university to rise to... so please will next year’s officer team rise to this challenge? I’m looking at Dora Meredith next year’s president Ashley chambers the VPDR and Rob Hunter in particular to take the lead on this.
If you want to tackle this ...

You will need to get ethical clauses built into the terms of reference of the university investment subcommittee. Win student representation on this committee, shouldn’t we have a say in how our finances are run? And strengthen the universities incredibly weak ethical investment policy which reads “The Members actively encourage the Fund’s Investment Manager(s) to take account of social responsibility considerations insofar as they believe such considerations will not jeopardise return or increase risk. The Members also consider non-financial and reputational risk and have chosen not to invest directly in companies that are involved in the production and sale of tobacco”.

Terms of Reference investment sub committee

(a) To determine the investment policy and the criteria upon which the investment performance will be measured
(b) To determine delegated authorities of staff within the Finance Office, within the investment policy
(c) To ratify changes to the investment policy made within the delegated powers
(d) To receive reports from the University’s Finance Office on Financial performance and compliance
(e) To receive reports from organisations used by the University for investment purposes
(f) To review investment performance against policy and asset management criteria
(g) To report to the Governing Body on investment policy and performance
(h) To monitor strategic risks relevant to the work of the Committee as determined by the Strategic Risk Register.
(i) To monitor the extent to which value for money is achieved within the areas under the Committee’s oversight
(j) To monitor relevant Key Performance Indicators and to ensure that any concerns with performance against these KPIs are addressed

If on the other hand you are not a officer why not engage in a e-mail conversation or telephone call to Mr R Shortland the Assistant Director of Finance
t: 0121 414 6109, e: r.a.shortland@bham.ac.uk

Motion for next guild council, Supply chain justice

As a next step in the WRC campaign I want to get the guild to lead by example and affiliate to the WRC on its own. This will cost the guild £500. However it will make us the first organization in the UK with a ethical procurement policy that deals with discrimination and gender equality with effective independent monitoring.

It will show a working of example of effective ethical procurement in the UK and help our efforts to get the university to sign up. In the process we will show that Birmingham students are not only committed to civil liberties and equality but are innovative and determined.

There are other benefits for students as well; The WRC helps arrange internships abroad for students interested in human rights work via their unions. Signing up to the WRC would be an opportunity for Birmingham students seeking this kind of work.

The guild is already committed to spending this money and signing up to the WRC, however this motion changes our commitment to signing up as a student union rather than jointly with the university.

It is currently backed by the following

Lincoln Smith Oxfam, Matt ward LGBTQ officer, Allan Ssesanga ethnic minorities officer, Emma Cooper LGBTQ officer (elect) , Laura Beckman Ethical and Environmental officer (elect), Catharina Paul Women’s Officer (elect), Rob Hunter VPEA (elect), Joseph Moses ARAF (elect) and Lizzy Bell people and planet

Any changes or edits, please message me or discuss here

Guild Council Notes:

1. The WRC is a US-based independent labour rights monitoring organisation, conducting investigations of working conditions in factories around the globe. Their primary focus is the labor practices of factories that make apparel and other goods bearing university logos.

2. In December 2009 The Worker Right Consortium Fruit-of-the-Loom-campaign, organized by the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) and USAS, was the first time student pressure has forced a company to reopen a factory and re-employ all the workers EVER, The Guild was thanked for its part in bring campaign to the UK.
3. 186 universities and colleges are affiliated worldwide to the WRC but, as yet no organization in the UK has taken this step. Signing up would make the guild the first UK organization to do so and show we are a group of progressive and innovative students.

4. The WRC supports union organising in developing countries and actively tries to empower workers is the only monitoring organization that deals comprehensively with Gender Equality. Other codes only mention gender issues, with reference to general discrimination. The WRC deals with gender specific employment related issues like maternity & paternity leave, occupational health, housing, childcare and work family balance provision.

5. The WRC helps arrange internships abroad for students interested in human rights work via their unions. Signing up to the WRC would be an opportunity for Birmingham students seeking this kind of work.

6. Signing up the WRC as a union would cost £500.

a. Assurance that our ethical policy is being implemented
b. Reputation Protection from negative attention of being involved with Unethical practice.
c. Opportunities for students such as internships
d. Positive publicity of being the first UK organization to sign up

Guild Council Believes:

1) As part of the £8 billion spent in the higher education sector on purchasing we have an ability and a responsibility to use our expenditure to contribute to lower carbon emissions, and aid development in the Global South, whilst maintaining a strong commitment to upholding human rights.

2) The Fruit of the Loom campaign success must be followed up.

3) There needs to be global strategic frameworks in place to make workers unionising globally the rule not the exception.

4) That the worker rights consortium is the most effective and most appropriate structure of support for workers rights in university supply chains.

Guild Council Resolves:

5) To lobby the University to affiliate to the WRC.

6) To join the University in affiliating to the WRC, in the event of the university affiliating.

7) To look into proportionally sharing the cost of affiliation with the University.

8) For the Guild, until the University does affiliate, to the lead by example by signing up to workers rights consortium on it own.

9) To encourage all other student unions and universities to follow suit.

Guild Council Mandates:

1. For the President of the Guild with the EEO, to write to the Vice Chancellor the director of HAS, all members of the senate, council and executive, encouraging the University to sign up to the WRC and explaining why the Guild has done so.

Corporate structure

I was writing that we need to change the nature of our movements collective intelligence. Information our movements “collective intelligence” is very much focused on the officer team. We need to transfer this to the very fabric of our movement.

Collective intelligence helps us deal with the world, free information like wikipedia is a great example of collective intelligence… collectively formed by those who tread the same paths.

It time that the student movement at Birmingham starts building for all students not just officers a data base on the university… which is why I’m publishing details of university structures along with contact information that aren’t available purely on the university website.

Universities are a Byzantine mess, they are one of the few institutions other than monarchy and the church to survive intact from the medieval era … we say intact but modern reforms have brought about a unified administration in the form of “corporate services”, with the Registrar and secretary at its head.

Below are the contact details of corporate services main positions and details of who is charge of who… so you know who to go over whose head by

These Directors unlike some of the members of the senate and council, although they maybe sympathetic… with their “job hats” on they will always fee obliged to take the universities side in every case. Unlike the academic structures of university they also are not tied by any democratic structures.

If you are getting no where, maybe just e-mail them all!

The Registrar and secretary Lee sanders l.sanders@bham.ac.uk , the president of guild has regular meetings and contact with the Registrar and secretary, if the president won’t back your cause however don’t be afraid to contact him yourself.

May also be worth using his PA --- PA to Registrar and secretary Kim Davies k.m.davies@bham.ac.uk if no luck try calling on Tel: 0121 414 3977

The following Directors all work directly under the Registrar and Secretary

Director of Academic services Brendan Casey B.Casey@.bham.ac.uk

Director of Finance Gill Ball g.ball@bham.ac.uk

Director of IT Services Dr Sean P Duffy : s.p.duffy@bham.ac.uk

Director of development and IT issues Nick Blinco n.blinco@bham.ac.uk

Director of Human Resources and Administrative Services Heather Paver h.paver@.bham.ac.uk

Director of Legal Services Caroline Pike cmpike@bham.ac.uk

Director of estates Ian Barker i.barker@bham.ac.uk

Director of planning office Christine Abbott cmabbott@bham.ac.uk

Director of housing and accommodation Stuart Richards s.richards.2@bham.ac.uk

Director of corporate relations Tracey Lancaster … don’t have her e-mail can anyone help fill in the blank?

Stuart Richards Director of HAS and Brendan Casey Director of Academic Services both have series of sub directors working for them

Working for Stuart Richards Director of HAS

Director of university catering Sue Mclaren s.j.mclaren@bham.ac.uk

Director of Sport Zena Wooldridge zjwooldridge@bham.ac.uk

Director of Housing and accommodation general manger Lesley Stewart k.stewart@bham.ac.uk

Working for Brendan Casey Director of Academic Services are

Director of Library Servies Dianne Job d.m.job@bham.ac.uk

Director of Learning Development bob hunter r.hunter@bham.ac.uk

Director of academic and student admin Sophie Bowen … unfortunately missing

Why we should publish the vice chancellors e-mail for all students to hassle him.

To build a movement that grows, that changes, that has weight it needs to constantly replenish it self with, new activists, new “hubs” of the movement. This is something I think we do very poorly at the guild of students.

Hubs are easy to spot; they do a vast amount of the work, and they seemingly know everyone and have connections seemingly everywhere.

Yeah, we need people like this but where I think the guild falls flat on it face… Is that it turns these “hubs” into permanent entrenched leaders who suppress the development of their replacements… limiting the growth of our movement.

To become an effective student activist on campus you need introductions … not just to other students and student groups but to the university its officers and managers and union and staff campaigners… more than it requires skills, knowledge about the university and a memory of the past.

The Guild reserves all these things for mainly for its officers as an officer you get the training, get taught about university structures told who is who, who to approach on each issue and start building relationships with these people.

This knowledge needs to be decentralized away from individuals and woven into the very fabric our student movement’s environment.

We should have pages on the guilds website profiling the universities directors with the e-mails available, interactive maps of the universities committees; including their links. Members remit and contact information.

The system of campaign representation was (I hope) designed with the best intentions, to get students heard. Its has unfortunately now become more like a bottleneck more of a block than boost to student campaigns. It is surprising? we don't need the one many army we need hundreds of students with the tools and will to make a difference.

Up until I leave as EEO I’m going to spend time publishing this information as best I can, while its up copy and paste it incase it gets removed.
I’m going to start with the upper management academic structures
University council – the highest body in the university, approves all decisions.

Professor D Eastwood The Vice-Chancellor and Principal d.eastwood@bham.ac.uk
Professor M C Sheppard The Vice-Principal 30/09/12 M.C.Sheppardl@bham.ac.uk

Professor M J Hilton Modern History 2012 M.J.Hilton@bham.ac.uk
Professor J M Marshall Medicine 2012 j.m.marshall@bham.ac.uk
Professor C Ryan European Economics 2013 c.ryan@bham.ac.uk
Professor A J Schofield Physics & Astronomy 2013 ajs@th.ph.bham.ac.uk


The Heads of College members of the council


Professor A Pauwels Arts and Law Email: a.pauwels@bham.ac.uk

Professor E W Peck Social Sciences e.w.peck@bham.ac.uk
Professor M C Press Life and Environmental Sciences m.c.press@bham.ac.uk
Professor N P Weatherill Engineering and Physical Sciences n.p.weatherill@bham.ac.uk
Professor L S Young Medical and Dental Sciences l.s.young@bham.ac.uk

The senate

think of this as guild council for the university, recent reforms have weaken its powers considerably and handed them over the executive, however this is how staff and student dissent with decisions is expressed. If you are upset with a decision that seems to have already been made… then it could well be useful to approach these people.

Three College Board members (each of these has been nominated by the Heads of College)

Engineering and Physical Sciences

Dr D F Hermans Director of Education hermadfm@adf.bham.ac.uk
Professor A J Schofield Director of Research ajs@th.ph.bham.ac.uk
Professor D W L Hukins Head of School, Mechanical Engineering D.W.Hukins@bham.ac.uk

Arts and Law

Professor M D Stringer Director of Education m.d.stringer@bham.ac.uk
Professor V L Gaffney Director of Research and Knowledge Transfer v.l.gaffney@bham.ac.uk
Dr L Brydon Head of School, History & Cultures L.Brydon@bham.ac.uk

Social Sciences

Professor C Ryan Director of Education c.ryan@bham.ac.uk
Professor C K Skelcher Director of Research and Knowledge Transfer c.k.skelcher@bham.ac.uk
Professor P B Jackson Head of School, Government and Society p.b.jackson@bham.ac.uk

Food Action Forum Group Meeting on 12 May 2010

Summary Notes and Actions of Inaugural Food Action Forum Group Meeting on 12 May 2010, 3rd floor Staff House, University of Birmingham


Attendance: Sue McLaren (SJMcL), Ed Sparkes (ES), Louise Sherratt (LS), Mark Houghton (MH), Kevin Herbert (KH), Jane Colbourne (JC), Adrian Blower (AB), Katie Ford (KF), Edd Bauer (EB), Laura Beckmann (LB) and Angela Smith (AS).

Apologies: Tom Guise (TG).

No. Item. Action.
1.0 Introductions:
• Sue McLaren opened the meeting and invited each member to introduce themselves.
2.0 Apologies:
• Please see above.
3.0 Membership and Terms of Reference:
• Terms of Reference were agreed by all present.

Review and Amendment of Current Membership:
• It was agreed that the membership should also included 2 members from the Residents Association. Ed Sparkes to advise.

ES
4.0 Update on Services:
Guild:
• Adrian Blower advised on the refurbishment that is taking place in the Retail and courtyard areas of the Guild. £4 million has been invested and the project is due be completed by July 2010.
• The group were advised that the food court has been designed to provide a more ‘upmarket’ feel, along the lines of “Zizzi’s” at a reasonable price. The bar is a multifunctional area able to deal with day and evening requirements.
• Coffee Nation machines will be fitted in membership services areas; these will be on same scale that is offered at the Main Library.
• Edd Bauer raised concerns over the ‘ethics’ of the Rain Forest Alliance which Coffee Nation promotes.
• A Chinese frozen and dry goods shop is opening in the Guild called ‘Fresh Asia’.

Catering:
• Sue spoke about the recent i-Graduate survey and advised that she would circulate the results to Adrian Blower once her copy had been returned.
• Coffee Tender – Peros has been appointed. University will provide fairtrade coffee in coffee shops. Starbucks will not be included as it’s under a different contract.
• Refurbishment works will begin in Staff House on the 1st and 2nd floor and hopefully will be ready for the start of the next academic session.
• Works will begin in University Centre in summer. Spar and 19 Gales will be relocating. The café area will be expanding and a mezzanine floor introduced to give a food court feel to the area. Café Spice will be a noodle type style of outlet. Mark confirmed that tofu and vegan options will be available. Mark also advised vegan meals are currently available in outlets, but only provided on request.
• Guild and University will work together to promote vegetarian and vegan foods on the new Campus Cooking site.
• New counters in Fusion have been well received.
• Catering prices will be review in August.
• I Lounge Café – café operation is planned to open in the Library at the start of the next academic year.
• Starbucks opening times will be reviewed for the exam period for next year.
• Meal Plan from September 2010 will be able to accept certain VAT items, i.e. orange juice and ice cream.
• Sue briefly spoke about the cashless card system and will give a full update at the AMG. Note: It would appear that the current EPOS system is unable to facilitate this functionality.
• Kevin and Ed spoke about the campus cooking project run by Tom White that will be launched in September offering residents a food diary system, cookery demonstrations, international films, shopping guide to Birmingham and much, much more. This initiative will be advertised on both Guild and University portals with the aim to targeting 1st year students.
• British Food Fortnight (18 Sept – 4 Oct) takes place over Welcome Week this year. Its aim is to promote British produce and local sustainable products. Mark hopes to have the Farmers Market on site during this promotion.

SJMcL

KH & ES
5.0 Any Other Business:
• It was agreed that Adrian and Sue would keep each other in the loop regarding research to save duplication and will look at the possibility of introducing ‘mystery shoppers’.
• Katie raised questions over the future of Avanti and was informed that it will be evaluated depending on the new structure of University Centre and Staff House. Sue advised that she was keen to keep the Chicken Joe brand as it is very popular.
• Jane Colbourne is in the process of writing FAQ’s and will include items regarding vegetarian and vegan food.
• Polystyrene plates and containers used in Avanti are receiving complaints. Catering is looking at introducing bio-degradable cardboard products. Guild is also exploring more environmentally friendly items.
• Jane C will advised on areas were Soya milk products available on campus.
• Sue will look at the offers in Avanti as comments regarding ‘healthiness’ have been received.
• Sue M thanked Ed, Edd and Katie for all their efforts with the formulation of this group and wished them well for the future – it was hoped to build on this group.
• Van sales of local produce are to be investigated for the residential sites.

AB & SJMcL
JC
JC
SJMcL

Date of Next Meeting: To be arranged. Group wishes to meet in July 2010.

Food Action Forum Group

As some of you will know the first "official" meeting of the oddly titled “Food Action Forum Group”, is meeting this Wednesday at 1pm.

Below is the terms of reference for the group (what it deals with officially) and the agenda for the meeting.

If there is anything you would like brought up, especially any ethical or environmental issues or suggestions you have with or for catering related issues. Please do message myself or Ed “I got naked but, I am not wot for” Sparkes or suggest something on the group wall for debate.

Edd

Terms of Reference:

The Food Action Forum Group is concerned with all aspects of catering and food provision on campus and in halls of residence. The Group aims to consolidate the various existing methods of gaining student feedback (Residents’ Association, the E&E Committee, Focus Groups, Forums, Survey etc…) and provide a forum for the discussion of all catering related issues including Hub grub, procurement, healthy living, ethical and environmental impact, costs/prices, services and operational issues.

The Group aims to be a force for collaboration between the University of Birmingham and the Guild of Students in order to develop and enhance the catering experience of all stakeholders on campus.


AGENDA


1.0 Introductions
2.0 Apologies for Absence
3.0 Membership and Terms of Reference
3.1 Review and amendment of current membership
4.0 Update on Services – Guild and UoB
5.0 Any Other Business

The back door... that is odd, I feel like the front door has been kicked in

In my title I'm of course referring to the executives, rather arrogant dismisal of the no campaigners asking for changes to the referendum.

Johnny Davis said “this is a back door attempt to make changes” of course this is a referral to guild council’s attempts to change the new bye laws.
Somehow the referendum has become a absolute result ... odd considering the actual question asked was ““Should the Guild of Students develop and implement new democratic decision making processes based on these proposals, which can be found at”

And here is quote from the guilds president during the campaign “It is about getting the basic idea that we want referendums and open meetings and then we will draw up the 'legal texts' which will have to be approved by Guild Council and the trustee Board anyway.”

I can only describe the position that we can’t change the proposals because of the result of referendum deeply hypocritical.

Considering that as a test of student opinion that the results are somewhat invalidated by the way the Guild of Students allowed the 'yes' campaign privileged access to its extensive resources. This included employing students to hand out leaflets and put up posters in support of the 'yes' campaign, using the Guild's professional marketing department for the preparation and dissemination of 'yes' campaign material, granting access to Guild of Students Facebook group and events pages, and Guild and University e-mail lists, as well as respective officers soliciting support from residence associations and student groups for which they have responsibility. Most, if not all, full-time sabbatical officers campaigned in support of the 'yes' campaign against an under-resourced 'no' campaign run by students, many of whom were in the middle of essay deadlines and exams. All at a cost that we can only guess to be measured in the thousands.

It is not a stretch to question the meaning of 'support' for the proposals given that the 'yes' campaign focused largely on a simplistic and ambiguous 'vote yes' message couched in terms of currently popular memes such as 'change' and 'progress' which did not reflect the significance of the reforms being discussed or the issues raised during the 'consultation'. The only public debate during the campaign(s) was very poorly advertised by the Guild of Students and only around 10 students attended.

Considering despite this, hundreds of students voted no any many like some no campaigners asked abstained (yes Votes: 1681 No Votes: 337 Abstains: 98 spoilt ballots: 39 Total Votes Cast 2155 Total Valid Votes 2116) about 78% yes, it would not a stretch to be allowed at least allow some small amendments to be made... absolute none where. In my opinion the guild has taken another turn for the worse.

Protect Students not Israel!

Before I start, I do not find racism in any way enjoyable, and I am firmly for most No Platform policies in most contexts.

The motion, if passed; would discourage, daunt and threaten deeply needed debate that is morally and legally legitimate. The motion asks students to accept the EUMC definition of anti-Semitism, a definition the UK rejected in favour of a definition of all hate crime.

The EUMC definition while well reasoned in many respects, has serious flaws. From it individuals criticising Israel can be smeared as racist.

Individual criticism of Israel can be inferred to be racist simply from the fact that such criticism seems disproportionate when compared to some general level of criticism levelled at other western democracies or other states. Anti Israeli activists can’t help that the general criticism of say Britain, France the USA are not higher (it really should be), Anti Israeli activists don’t deserved to be smeared as racist because other people don’t criticise other countries as much.... it would also be absurd to ask them to criticize all the other racist, ethnic cleansing and criminal states at the same time, there are unfortunately many of them, we are talking about are individual students not amnesty international! Racism is heavy charge to bring against students and no platform is a extremely harsh punishment speaking in what is considered above the proportionate general level of criticism, if such rules where applied to all aspects of debate how would change ever happen?

The EUMC definition also defines Nazi comparison i.e drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, as racist. I can see the issue I would understand if someone compared Jewish person’s activities to that of Nazis or Nazi Germany, but I consider the state of Israel to be just as liable as any other state to this kind of criticism ... and the exercise of comparison is certainly not in most contexts racist.

Israel breeches regularly many fundamental human rights and commits ethnic cleansing, as do many states who should also be criticised, I like many students on campus would be branded racist and lumped in with skinheads and the fascists.

This motion needs resisting... the officers have given the motion no recomendation, which means they neither condem nor condone. I would have hoped the team would have rejected it, guild council is on tuesday may 4th, do attend if you can.

Here is a copy of the motion

Motion: EUMC Definition of Anti-Semitism
Guild Council Notes:
1. The last year has seen an unprecedented increase in Anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish students on campuses all over the UK
2. The EU Monitoring Committee working definition on Anti-Semitism has been created and agreed upon by all member states of the European Union as the right way to identify Anti-Semitism
3. At the last National Conference, the National Union of Students by a majority vote decided to renew the EUMC definition in their constitution
4. The decision to renew this was supported by all seven NUS delegates as voted for by the students of the University (which include the President, VPHC, VPSAD, VPDR)

Guild Council Believes:
1. That all students have the right to study, socialise and live free from racism, fear and intimidation
2. That the working definition of Anti-Semitism sets the boundaries of what constitutes Anti-Semitism whilst still allowing for criticism of Israel

Guild Council Resolves:
1. To put the Guild of Students on the front line in tackling Anti-Semitism and all other forms of racism.
2. To encourage the Vice-President of Welfare, ARAF officer and the Jewish Society to work with other societies to raise awareness about Anti-Semitism and the different forms it takes

Guild Council Mandates:
1. The President of the Guild of Students, when signing off external-speaker request forms, ensure that all external speakers follow the EUMC definition
2. The President of the Guild of Students to reject a speaker if they have a history of Anti-Semitic language in line with the EUMC definition.