The final Student Council meeting of the year turned into a farce as not enough voting members turned up to pass any motions.
The council constitution specifies that 15 voting members are required to pass any motions on the agenda, and on Thursday, April 22nd, only 13 turned up.
This meant that the proposal to reform the position of council chair will have to be delayed until the next academic year. Dan Derricott, SU student officer, described it as “having a pretend meeting”.
It was revealed that the university has taken a firm position on recording lectures, a problem which was brought up at a previous council meeting, whereby all students, regardless of ability, should be able to record their lectures.
This comes with the prospect of digitising learning materials, where everything, from the currently available slides and case studies on blackboard, to recorded lectures, will be incorporated online.
A motion to reform the role of the chair was “passed in principle” by the partial council. The person elected will now chair both the council and the All Student Meeting, which means, according to Derricott, they will “need to have backbone, and some balls.”
The chair will become an independent member of the council instead of being a rep for a course, and in order to prevent interference by the SU and maintain an unbiased front, will not be allowed to be an SU officer for the duration of their chairpersonship.
On the railway motion, which was passed earlier in the year, it was disclosed that the bridge will not be built on the road outside the new Business and Law faculty building, due to foundation problems.
However, Network Rail will meet the university to plan the structure of the bridge, which will likely be placed on the front side of the Main Admin Building, and the rear of the LPAC.
Finally, feedback on the state of accommodation in the Courts, the university’s student accommodation, was presented to the council. Survey results and evidence of problems have been compiled into a report which will be sent to those in charge of the Courts.
Chris Charnley, the president for the SU, appeared irritated at the response he got from the Courts’ residents. He accused the Courts’ residents of being lazy, saying there was “huge amounts of apathy – students are willing to complain, but not use the right channels to do so.”
Updates:
-
Two officers resigned before the meeting. Kayleigh Turner and Chris Farrell will only be working two days a week for the SU after finding other employment.
-
The motion put forward by the Art Group at the NUS conference calling for a fair living wage to be paid to interns and and for priority listing for paid internships was passed.
-
Following the Women’s conference, a women’s society is in the process of being formed. This society is expected to serve as a support and lobby group on issues such as the pro-choice stance on abortion.
To clarify about the below statement:
As I specified in the meeting which you have overlooked, the apathy I spoke of was relating to the university complaints procedure and not that of students living in Courts. I’m currently reviewing the way in which the accommodation complaints procedure is promoted to students, making it far more accessible. Further more, at no point did I express irritation with those students living in Courts and find it misleading that you have said so.
I simply asked those reps on Council to encourage students who do have issues regarding accommodation to complain to their accommodation providers as the unacceptable standard found in the University Courts accommodation can not continue.
Those students wanting to give feedback on their accommodation can do so with the Students’ Union Accommodation Survey which can be filled in online @ http://www.lincolnsu.com/accommodationsurvey
On a final note, Kayleigh Turner will be working two days a week whilst Chris Farrell will be leaving at the end of next week. Students who would normally liaise with Chris Farrell and Kayleigh Turner should contact SU Reception.
The quote I have used: “huge amounts of apathy – students are willing to complain, but not use the right channels to do so,” is a word-for-word relay of what you said at the council meeting.
You did, from my point of view, appear irritated at the students you have spoke to, basically saying that while students weren’t happy with the condition of their housing, they also weren’t doing much to report it.
It is also clear from how you said it that you were in fact targeting the students with what you were saying, and not the managers of the Courts accommodation.
Thank you for clarifying Chris Farrell’s departure, and I hope you continue to enjoy reading The Linc.
Why has the week in review gone out with the same glaring errors, despite this being corrected by Chris Charnley? I was also at the meeting and Charnley was not irritated at courts residents. Despite the fact this has been addressed, it’s been repeated again with Sam’s report. Why did you not simply record this and then repeat Chris’ corrections?
Also, hasn’t it occured to you that many students are currently busy with exams and handins? The meeting has been well attended every other week of the year, so to call this a farce is a bit…well – farcial.
The words “smear” and “campaign” come to mind, but things evidently haven’t changed with the new leadership team…
I refer you to Jack’s comment above – no correction is required.
If it’s a straight choice between trusting one of my reporters or trusting two SU apparatchiks, there’s no contest.
When is the next council meeting?