Pembroke Junior Parlour

Minutes for the Open Meeting on Disaffiliation (Gerard Tully, CUSU President)

Moses Hoyt: Introduces the format of the meeting.

Richard Stockwell (JPC President): Currently- anomalous because constitutionally affiliated to CUSU. Most colleges have ratification and bring up the issue each year. Disaffiliation would not affect INDIVIDUAL membership of CUSU, participation in the shadowing scheme etc. The £3115 is the cost of affiliation for the JP, coming out of the GAC Fund. The issue is whether CUSU, or societies within College, should get the money. Secondly, politically, the JP is tied to what CUSU says. For example, we support the Blood Transfusion scheme. However, it also means we sign up for controversial issues, such as CDE (Cambridge Defend Education), and supporting the strikes lecturers.

Gerard Tully (CUSU President): Wants to discuss firstly whether CUSU is a good idea in itself. It is woefully underfunded, and affiliation fee is vital- more than the entire welfar & education budget combined. 1/5 of Student Advice Service. Affiliation fees fund some of the most important CUSU initiatives- such as the Access Scheme. It cannot continue without affiliation. Nor can Student Advice Service, of which Pembroke is a vital user. Politically, the record of CUSU correlates with Pembroke- such as the unanimous support in an open meeting of CUSU in March. To stop a "hijacking" of CUSU politics, moderate voices must remain.

Oliver Watson (JPC Ents): Do other Colleges pay affiliation in the same way as Pembroke?

GT: In every JCR case, money from Colleges is marked for CUSU. Every College has CUSU money siphoned off.

RS: In Pembroke's case, the Bursar has assured us that the money is not predicated to pay for CUSU, and the GAC Budget is for whatever we decide.

Zoe Adams (Women's): What are we getting back if we can use services without affiliation?

GT: All students can have access to our facilities. But our budget is so tight that disaffiliation could have consequences onto frontline services, because the University dedicates us no money.

Chris Ramsden: Where do other SU's get money from?

GT: Other Universities give out a lump sum to their SUs. Cambridge is an anomaly.

RS: Oxford used to run the same model as Cambridge, but mass disaffiliation meant that they needed to be "bailed out" by a block grant from the University.

GT: Not quite accurate. Oxford was running a structural deficit, and the disaffiliation came afterward.

Holly McGuire: Where would GAC money go if not to CUSU?

RS: Societies, or new societies. One welfare idea is to create a "welfare society" with more steady finances.

HM: But these additional services are already run on a university-wide basis.

RS: It should be for the students of Pembroke to decide whether their services should be run inside or outside of College.

GT: On the Welfare side, the welfare officers get training and support from CUSU, signposting professional support where necessary. This could not be done automatically without affiliation. Supplies are also subsidised by affiliation.

RS: Welfare Officer Amy Gandon is pro-disaffiliation. Training and support provides mere common sense advice, with variable service dependant on the officer in charge.

GT: Our Welfare Officer does not lead training, training is done by professional, full-time officers. Currently of 25 years service.

ZA: The sessions attended have been somewhat irrelevant to Pembroke as a College. Are they therefore a waste of time for our students?

Harry Adams: How would Pembroke-specific service be based?

ZA: CUSU does not provide a particular benefit, and other options could be investigated.

HM: There is a limit to what Pembroke can do. With regards to disabilities, Pembroke does not have a representative despite some students with interest in CUSU-wide campaigns, such as Degrading is Degrading.

GT: D is D is a good example. It effectively could not have happened without College support.

RS: Was the campaign independent of CUSU?

GT: Their money was independent, but CUSU decided via their vote to wholeheartedly support the campaign. Discretionary funds by CUSU were used to support them.

RS: CUSU has £6,000 debt.

GT: We budget for this error from the 1990s, regarding affiliation of St. Edmund's College. Legal costs are necessary on some welfare issues, such as Public Liability Insurance.

P de Souza: Badminton training for women here halved because not enough money in the GAC fund. What do you think about this?

GT: As affiliation fees have been frozen, the real cost has gone down. I will happily take suggestions on CUSU's budget.

RS: Disaffiliation would give us more money for the GAC fund, and if this is what students want we should provide it.

HM: Sports societies could get sponsorship.

Matteo Yoon (Men's): What was cut as a result of Corpus' disaffiliation.

GT: Much less money at stake. What happened was we took a little off each Student Campaign (e.g. Black Students, Internationals)

ZA: In terms of Academic Campaign (e.g. Women's "More Men Get Firsts"). Would we be disadvantaged on academic issues?

GT: We would never deny access to services for individual students. We couldn't by law. For long term issues, wider issues, perhaps yes.

RS: Regarding education help, there are elected factoral reps who sit on CUSU council and faculty councils, [GT: who are trained by CUSU], so representation would still occur.

Tom Hogan: Where does Pembroke fit in in terms of how much we pay. Our affiliation accounts for 1% of CUSU's budget, and 1/6 of Pembroke's Budget. If we are a higher payer, how much impact could we really have?

GT: There are a number of fixed costs (e.g. auditor, rent, sabbatical officers etc.) which are unavoidable. Affiliation costs £6.35 per pupil.

HA: Is our £3,000 in withdrawal a dangerous message for snowball effect?

GT: I honestly don't know what would happen.

Freya Rowland: How necessary is us retaining the money could be? Are we getting by fine?

RS: Like badminton court rentals, the impact on societies is hit on a daily basis. If the money was made available, perhaps more would be inspired to create more.

GT: University Sports Society Syndicate issues money to college sport. For sport societies struggling, this is an option.

MY: This sounds excellent, but we don't know.

GT: Communication is inherently difficult for us. We need to communicate more. Communication wouldn't be made easier by disaffiliation.

RS: All it take is a single email. Part of this debate is to give CUSU an incentive to reform slightly and improve. Value for money.

Will Carpenter: If affiliation is more than Access, why is less than 1% of the Budget on access. Politically, this debate has shown we are concerned by politically concerned. Without affiliation, could Moses and Richard raise problems such as CUSU's internal organisation. Perhaps more would change with disaffiliation by sending a stronger signal to reform?

GT: Total income is around £350,000. Around half never reaches us- rent of building, etc. Another portion is "restricted" which cannot be spent on anything but, e.g. Acccess. With what's left, £95,000 is spent to pay Sab Officers. Around £50,000 is left. There is no block grant for Access. The net access budget is -£2500 for Access. We have some endowments for Access, but we are heavily dependant on affiliation.

RS: But money does come from the University for CUSU.

GT: But this is for paying for staff, and spending more on things we already spending money on. With Corpus' disaffiliation, nearly unanimous support of CUSU work, but pulled out for financial self-interest. If all Colleges did that, it has serious knock-on effects. With regards to changing CUSU, I ran to change a lot of the structural weaknesses. Better be constructively engaging than totally disengaging. I intend to launch a reform of CUSU Council tomorrow. I'd love to update the website, but its an enormous task. If you think in the totality of our work, the £6 per head is worthwhile, given all the important work that we do, please do stay with us.

WC: One of the biggest structural problems with CUSU is the lack of a block grant. This is an anomaly. Would it be right to argue that starting this process of disaffiliation, we are showing the need for a block grant from the University.

GT: It's a weak argument. The University has a £25mil deficit. They will let us go to the wall. I was there when they argued this. The situation of Oxford was completely different financially when they were "bailed out".

WC: EVen with all government pressure to maintain access?

GT: Yes, and it pains me to say it. The U would itself take over access etc., and do so without our say so.

CR: If our money is so crucial, why can't you simply update the website?

GT: Fair point.

RS: There are 6 Sabs. I only know your name! The Women's Officer has £20,000, with much of that going on wages. There is so little coming out.

GT: Our Women's Campaign is one of most successful in the country. Its existence has been put to referendum a number of times and survived.

HM: Sabs are perhaps most important to those who need them- and if you haven't heard of them, it means that you haven't required them. Andy McGowan single-handedly saved bursaries, and did so via CUSU.

GT: Its a valid criticism to say we do not vocalise our work enough. We do try.

HM: You should have a blog.

GT: I am starting one tomorrow.

RS: How big a voice do you have. CUSU Council allows us to take motions to you and get voted on. Regarding the system of communication and accountability, there is no way of asking for updates. Its policy-making and not information relaying.

GT: Fair point. It is easy for us to restart Sab updates at every meeting, but it was voted to be removed. Knowing where to improve requires input.

WC: What do you see as CUSU's weakness, and how are you improving?

GT: I think our biggest failure is that we don't often spend our time aligning what we think should happen with what colleges want to happen. It is by definition insular and I admit that. To rectify that, we must try to reconnect further with Colleges, e.g. publicising our work for the Degarding campaign.

HA: As a non-JP member, I notice that we do not get much information from our JP. Perhaps you should have a responsibility at College level to disseminate information at College level.

RS: This is the why the open meeting is occurring- to see how we can all improve.

ZA: This is the most well-attended Open Meeting. Do people care?

RS: Low participation means Moses and I are operating without accountability.

GT: Referendums occur yearly to trigger the debate.

General debate occurs on the legitimacy of Open Meetings, and the stance of RS was to emphasise triggering a debate on this issue.

Chris Slade: Is there any way via CUSU Council to get website improvements, for example.

GT: This is me being held accountable.

CS: LBGT Events are never changed, and I have no power to change it. And it is not clear from the website who I should contact.

Archy de Berker: CUSU is a product. If we don't like a product, we don't buy it. If it is not advertised enough, it won't be bought. This analogy reflects the difficulty for us- investing money and time to make CUSU better.

GT: I can only send one email a week on X. Our only method of communication is via these Committees. I am open to change the way we work, but its hard to do so from a blank page.

AdeB: Club Nights are really well advertised. Perhaps if CUSU considered its position on a "market place", communication could improve.

GT: We simply do not have the resources to compete with Big Fish Ents, for example.

AdeB: perhaps change the balance of advertising and developing the product.

WC: Should we have a referendum each year? I am not comfortable without offering up this decision to referendum, but open meeting attendants are the best informed.

RS: Outlined the constitutional stance on referendums.

TH: Non-attendance is a sign of absention. Referendums would increase participation.

Oliver Budd (IT Comms): Any referendums suffer from lack of information. The JPC's role would be to inform.

RS: Constitutionally we cannot vote on this issue. The issue is whether we want to hold a referendum on affiliation this year, and additionally whether there should be a constitutional amendment to have a referendum year-on-year, or an open meeting year-on-year.

ZA: Us saying no referendum is saying we are to affiliate.

RS: Clarified the referendum process regarding questioning, and Constitutional Amendments (2/3 needed for amendment, but policy only 51%).

GT: Students would still be able to vote individually in CUSU Elections. Pembroke students could still run for CUSU positions.

RS: With the deadline for affiliation at the end of January, we are slightly rushed. A few more weeks would be helpful to fully adhere to constitutional procedure.

GT: No problems. Perhaps even have a referendum saying "if X changes are not made, we will then disaffiliate for 2013".

RS: I support this if there was a refund clause, for past failings.

GT: This has never been considered before. I am not in principle opposed, but there may be a technical reason why I cannot. I believe this also provides good incentive for my successor also.

HA: I disagree. We get too much power from this trigger- it is perhaps too vague.

GT: We would pay back from the reserves.

WC: Clarification on the standards set is necessary.

Jack Taverner: An open meeting on this issue has been highly constructive, rather than immediately disaffiliating.

Debate takes place over the necessity of a "money back clause" in any agreement over 2013 disaffiliation based on past performance.

The vote is
1. To change the constitution to ensure we ratify CUSU affiliation yearly at an Open Meeting: 14-2.

We will now have a referendum to decide whether we should amend the constitution.

The next vote is:
2. Whether to set-up a list of targets expected from CUSU, at another open meeting. The adherence to such targets would, should the referendum pass, form the basis of discussion for 2013 affiliation: 13-2.

Closing results:
a) To hold a referendum on whether to change the constitution.
b) To form a list of targets at another open meeting.