CUSU Council Michaelmas 4

or "THE BATTLE OF THE CUSU BNOCs!"

Hey y'all,

This CUSU Council saw a clash of CUSU titans. In the left corner we have ROS OLD, President of CUSU, and in the right we have CHARLIE BELL, V-P External of Queens' MCR.

As ever, in the manner of a realistic supervisor, all of the below is recommended reading, but I only expect you to read the starred items.

1) What has CUSU actually done this term?
* 2) Charlie's anouncement
* 3) Charlie's motion
4) Elections

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) What has CUSU actually done this term?

The first half hour of the meeting was consumed by the sabbatical officers telling us what they had achieved over Michealmas, and what they wanted to do over the next term. Although it lasted half an hour, I didn't make any notes for this section of the meeting. Partly because you can just look over previous editions of the blog to see what has been happening, and partly because there didn't seem to be anything hugely relevant to report on.

* 2) Charlie's announcement

The party got started when it came time to make the announcements. Charlie Bell took the floor and shit got real. At CUSU Council 3 you will recall that elections for the CUSU exec took place. There were also elections for the Elections Committee, for which there are 6 positions. The elections committee are responsible for running the CUSU sabbatical elections which will take place next year. On the ballot sheet there were three Queens' members running (Charlie Bell, Harry Prance and Callum Wood). Charlie had encouraged Harry and Callum to run as he thought the presence of non-'CUSU types' on the Elections Committee would improve CUSU's image, as it would appear to be less of a closed shop, or 'self-serving elite'.

On the night of the elections, however, 4 sabbatical officers stood for positions on the Elections Committee, mostly citing the reason that they had 'a lot of time on their hands' as sab officers without a full-time degree to deal with. They were all elected, gaining a majority on the committee. This was unsurprising because the sabs are well known at Council, and also Charlie, Harry and Callum were all not in attendance.

Charlie was successful in being elected. In his announcement, however, he said that he had written to the CUSU sabs complaining of what had happened, and he had no response. He said that he did not want to be part of an elections committee which would perpetuate the image of CUSU being comprised of a self-serving elite. He resigned from his position.

A sombre silence fell across the room. Rather surprisingly the CUSU sabs did not take the opportunity to tell Charlie why they decided to run and take the place of non-CUSU types.

Charlie 1, CUSU 0.

[The chair broke the silence by suggesting we move onto the first motion of Council. We did, and it was a motion about Quality Assurance. Within it, there was the statement 'CUSU believes Quality Assurance is exciting'. Charlie questioned this, causing the education sab to admit that whilst he personally found quality assurance to be exciting, he couldn't say the same for the rest of the student body. There was no alteration of the motion, and it passed. So that means we all now believe quality assurance is exciting. I'm not convinced.]

* 3) Charlie's motion

The next motion was brought by Charlie. It relates to the activities of the 'CUSU Oscars' in Easter term last year. At the time I wrote this:

"7) CUSU Oscars Controversy

I don't think I was the only person in the room confused by what was going on, and since the chairperson of CUSU forgot to ask if anyone had any questions there was about twenty minutes of debating between Charlie Bell (our old JCR president, and now chair of CUSU LGBT), Ros Old (CUSU President Elect) and various others before I had a clue about what was going on.

Basically, every year the sabbatical officers nominate one or two people to be 'honorary life members' of CUSU. This year four people were nominated for this apparently highly coveted honour. Charlie Bell put forward a motion which would mandate the sabs to nominate a further two people, ie Gerard Tulley (outgoing CUSU President) and Taz Rahul (outgoing CUSU Access officer). Ros was arguing that we should vote to withdraw this motion on the grounds that it was improper for sabs to be forced to nominate people, and that too many people as a result would be nominated to be 'honorary life members', devaluing the honour. That is why earlier I said that the Tab article was misleading to say she was opposing Gerard's nomination - she was opposing the procedure Charlie was using to get him nominated.

I voted for the motion to be voted on, and then voted for the motion to be passed, which it did. This was partly because I thought it was a bit hypocritical for the CUSU elite to say Charlie was destroying the honorary life membership system when the sabs had chosen themselves to put forward an unprecedented number of people for it. It was also because I mischievously wanted to undermine the honorary life membership system."

Charlie at the time vowed that that wouldn't be the last we would hear from him on the issue, and he did not fail to dissapoint. In his motion he called for the suspension of the honorary life membership system and a constitutional reform to be drafted to remove it from the constitution.

Naturally the CUSU sabs did not agree with this. They argued that a constitutional reform wouldn't pass because no-one cares about CUSU constitutional reforms, which need to be ratified by referendum. Charlie agreed with this, but said that the reform could be put to a referendum at some later date along-side more gripping changes. They also argued that the honorary life membership system was very good at awarding particular people who had done an outstanding job. This doesn't seem convincing due to the trend in recent years to put more and more people up for this 'exceptional' award. Also, if you know you are a CUSU bad-ass, you shouldn't need to be validated by an honorary life membership.

Despite this, there was relatively little debate on the motion. On the vote Charlie lost 10 votes to 12, with 7 abstentions, and I voted in the minority.

Charlie 1, CUSU 1.

In some ways I am glad the motion failed, because if there is something I want to avoid whilst I am in office, it is another referendum.

4) Elections

After this there were more elections, with positions which no-one ran for being filled up. There are still places for the Black, Minority and Ethnic officer, and the Anti-racism officer. So if you love ethnic diversity, and/or hate racism, I would recommend you stand for one of these positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 1-1, this is one rumble in the jungle which is going to rumble on. Stay tuned for more next term!

Dom,
Your friendly VP Ext

CUSU Council Michaelmas 3

Or the one where I made an amendment to an amendment, and won...

Hey folks,

After the tedium of Mich 2, I was starting to lose hope in CUSU. Where was the pointless political posturing? The labyrinthine cacophony of amendments on amendments? The misplaced glimmer of hope in the eyes of an optimistic fresher?

In short I was concerned CUSU had become less of a 'Bleak House' and more of a 'Little Dorrit' (I don't understand what that means either... don't hate)

But like a faithful but unreliable friend, CUSU seems always to deliver in the end.

* 1. Should Mathmos work during Freshers' week?
*** 2. Public protest is 'childish and naive'
3. Elections

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*1. Should Mathmos work during Freshers' Week?

This was a motion put forward by the Claire JCR President. It called for an end to work being set to students at the beginning of term in the five-day period of time from Saturday to the start of lectures on Thursday commonly (but not officially) known as Freshers' Week.

Although this sounds like a good idea, I had a few misconceptions.

Firstly, the focus of the motion was very narrow. It referred to situations where work would be set during DOS and supervisor meetings during Freshers' Week, which was to be handed in during or subsequent to the final day of Freshers' Week, such that students felt like they couldn't participate in Freshers' Week events. Claire's JCR Prez suggested that their events were under-attended because of this problem.

If this actually happened regularly then I think this would be a problem. When pressed, however, the proposer only really could only cite Maths as a subject where this happens. And no offence to Mathmos, but I don't think Claire can blame bad attendance to their events on just a lack of Mathmos (if it was Trinity then maybe things would be different).

Secondly, I couldn't see a better alternative to Freshers' Week as a time to set work when it was felt by supervisors that there is not enough time during full term. The only alternative would be to set work for Freshers prior to them coming to Cambridge for Fresher' Week. I raised the argument that this wouldn't necessarily be a better route to take, as this could stress students out before coming here if they find the work difficult (or they are just too lazy to do it). Also, the discretion about when to set this work should be left with the academics who set it, since they are better placed to say at what point the work should be done (for example, maybe the work is set in 'Freshers' Week' so that the material is fresh still when lectures start).

In short, I gave a speech against this motion, but the motion passed 16-6. I'd be interested to hear from you if you disagree with me, since I can see how this might seem slightly opinionated of me. Also, I'd be interested to hear from any Mathmos about the volume of work they were set, and whether they found they still had an enjoyable 'Freshers' Week'. My gut tells me that Queens' 'Academic Alignment Week' is just more fun than Claire's 'Freshers' Week'...

***2. Public protest is 'childish and naive'

This was one of those debates that reminds you what CUSU is really about - letting people with strong political views try and mandate a supposedly representative organisation into creating the appearance that an entire student body of over 20,000 students supports agrees with them. lol just kidding.

Usually it is the left-wing view-holders who attempt this kind of stunt, but this time we had a right-wing (I don't know if this classification is even correct - please correct me if I am wrong) motion from Robinson college entitled 'Paying for Education'.

Essentially, this motion took issue with a CUSU facebook post which stated that 'CUSU is sending coaches down to NUS demo 2012 because we believe that education should be free'. The proposers (the ex-president of Robinson college et al.) objected to this, claiming:

"if education is to be free:
a) There should be fewer students studying
b) Such students should be studying worthwhile degrees
c) Such students should be subjected to a sufficiently high workload"

Although this makes economic sense, Ros (CUSU president) summed up my personal feelings pretty succinctly when she said in her opposition speech: "If students cannot be idealistic about free education, then who can?"

Further I raised the point that the definition of a 'worthwhile' degree was ambiguous. I asked whether a 'worthwhile' degree was from a sufficiently prestigious university no matter the course, or whether it excluded subjects like Classics, ASNAC, History, English etc which might be regarded by some as not worthwhile considering their lack of a vocational basis. The proposer answered that it would be based on subject, to which I replied that this would mean that CUSU would be advocating different fees for different students. Further, another person questioned what would happen if the person doing the 'worthwhile' degree decided they didn't want to pursue that vocation, to which the the proposer had no reply.

More fundamentally, this proposition raised issues about the perception of Cambridge University as an elitist place. One of the proposers said 'I don't think we should be ashamed of being elitist if it is to aspire to be the best in the world'. I think this is the wrong approach to take. It is for the university to push for higher funding from government, possibly at the expense of other universities. It is for the student body to push for the aspiration that education can be free for all no matter how unrealistic it is, if only to avoid creating the impression that Cambridge students just want to take money from universities they regard as inferior.

Due to the political content of this motion, I had strong misgivings about voting on it, considering I am meant to represent Queens' students and not my own views. I was grateful then, when an amendment was chaired to only vote on one of the points within the 'CUSU Resolves' section (this is kind of complicated, but essentially a CUSU motion is split into 3 sections: CUSU Notes, which are statements of facts, CUSU Believes, which are statements of aspirations, and CUSU Resolves, which are statements of policy. If a motion is passed, it means CUSU will be mandated to note what is in 'CUSU Notes', believe what is in 'CUSU Believes' and resolve to do what is in 'CUSU Resolves'. An amendment is a suggestion to alter one of these sections of the motion, in order to change what the Council votes on).

A twist I haven't mentioned yet is that this motion had a very simple underlying motive. The motion would involve, amongst other things, CUSU resolving to 'withdraw all support for #Demo2012: Educate, Employ, Empower'. As you might remember from Mich 1 (2 posts ago) we resolved CUSU then to support the protest and provide some money for coaches to take students down to London. The core of this motion, if you stripped away all of the political BS, was to overturn the motion from two weeks ago.

The amendment to only vote for the part of 'CUSU Resolves' about the demonstration passed. However there was still alot of BS about education spending in the 'CUSU Notes' and 'CUSU Believes' section. One person suggested an amendment to remove certain parts of it which she found objectionable, such as the statement that 'demonstrating to claim that education should be free for all is silly because...standing in the cold shouting to be given more money on a weekday afternoon is both childish and naive' (whatever happened to freedom of speech...). Instead, I thought we should cut the crap, and I proposed a amendment to her amendment to cut everything in the motion not related to the protest, so that the whole motion would read:

"CUSU Notes:
CUSU's Facebook status on Sunday 04 November 2012 : "CUSU is sending coaches down to NUS demo 2012 because we believe education should be free".
CUSU Resolves
It would be better to show the government how diligent and cocnscientiously we are working
CUSU Mandates
To withdraw all support for #Demo 2012: Educate, Employ, Empower."

The original document was a page and a half long. I would copypaste it here, but it was an 'emergency motion' and so I didn't get a copy of it emailed to me before the meeting.

This truncated motion was duly rejected by a strong majority. I voted with this majority, not out of any great love of the protest, but because it seems pretty irresponsible to CUSU to back out of a policy it has already voted for, spent money on and secured external backing for.

Which brings me to my concluding request. There is a chance that the political aspects of the motion will return for next CUSU council - the justification for scrapping it was that it was so political JCR and MCR reps needed to have time to consult with their members before voting. So what do you think? Should CUSU stand for the ideal of free education for all, or should it be more realistic and maybe recognise that the rationing of resources means that this may not be possible? How should resources be allocated? Should certain courses/universities not be supported any more?

I'd be especially be interested to hear from those paying the higher fees, as it is possible that you guys might have a slightly different perspective.

3. Elections

There were lots of elections. My favourite was that of the newly created and uncontested position of 'Student Parent Representative'. The woman standing for it politely requested that her election was heard first because her child needed to go to bed (it was past 9.30 at this point, and it was a school night).

There are lots of positions still up for grabs, because for a considerable number no-one wanted to run. Keep an eye out for the next CUSU email from Ros where these are likely to be advertised - you never know, you might find the perfect position for you there!

Until next time,

Dom