Further Council Discussion on International NHS fees campaign

1850: Currently disussing the paper before: "Motion to Publish the Voting Records of Council Members"

1858: Members are debating further about whether to make voting records of Council members public, and when this should start.

1904: Vote: Majority of members have voted for the "Motion to Publish the Voting Records of Council Members" paper with some ammendments. Ammendments to be clarified in upcoming minutes, but include setting up a working group to investigate the logistics of the policy.

1905: Next paper - Legitimising the International NHS fees campaign

1906: Proposer: "I think it undermines the campaign to not include their [non-international] responses"

Member #1: Clarfication: The survey was more to gauge the reactions of intl. students, not to hold a general referendum.

1908: DPW: I used a targeted surey for intl. students. This was done by the mandate of council,... the data was not misrepresented... the issue as to whether or not to survey all students could have been brought up in an earlier meetings... I have also been available for queries... my contact details are everywhere in the Union...As an elected officer... I feel I should have been contacted before this paper was submitted."

1909: Proposer: "First of all, all of the concerns raised in the Freshers' facebook were answered by either the DPW or President. Additiionally, the paper said that all results of the survey would be shown in the paper."

1910: DPW: "I do not think facebook is an appropriate means for official communication. We mainly used it to contact intl. students since we don't have a specific mailing list tageted at them..."

1912: Member #2: "Some students may feel as though their responses have been binned?"

1914: Proposer: "The reason I am raising this now is because I have been contacted by half-a-dozen people who are angry about this issue."

1915: Member #3: The reason the survey took place was not to gauge student opinion, instead it was to get a response from intl. students about how they feel the proposed bill would affect them.

...

1917: DPW - "This was done to the mandate of Council... students are able to come to Council, and we have publicised this a lot this year. And we have some non-voting members here today!"

1919: Non-voting member #1 to Proposer: Why did you not contact DPW in order to get an answer from the students who contacted you, instead of presenting this paper?

1920: Proposer: Well, I think that the issue is that people's votes should not be ignored.

Vote: 2 votes for the paper. One abstaining. Majority against.

Next paper: Union stance on cycling in London

1924: This paper has been generally well received.

1927: Proposer: "When I speak to people about this I they tend to come up with a large list of things to be included. What I really what Collge to do is lobby the local council about improving safety, for instance on Lillie Road"

1928: Non-voting Member #2: I think the Union should include education on cyclists about behaviour on the roads, something that might strengthen the impact of your campaign.

1931: Member #4 If there was a cycle infrastucture there... I think education would come with it.

1932: DPFS: Just as a point of information, something the Union may be able to do internally, would be to have a section of our website devoted to cycle safety.

1934: DPW: Proposal to chance the title of the paper to focus in cycling infrastucture.

Vote: Majority vote for the paper.

Next paper: Motion on the Criminalisation of Student Protest with addendum

1937: Proposer explains background about the recent student protests at ULU and about police violence.

1938: Proposer "We can't function as a Union if we have our Officers arrested while doing their job. I already know one IC student (not me) who was arrested last week at one of the protests, so this does affect us."

1939: DPFS: "...We have had a lot of success with other methods and for ICU, we don't really use non-violent protest as a key method of discussion... While I agree"

1946: Non-voting Member #3: "If the situation were reversed and we were being shut down I would hope that we would have students up and down the country would come and support us"

DPFS: "... Council does not have a budget and you are welcome to approach the CW board and use money from the campaigns budget."

_There seems to be a general agreement with the paper, apart from the request to provide £100 of travel expenses to students to attend campaign meetings. _

1953: At the suggestion of the Council Chair, Council will vote whether to pass the paper as a whole, or whether to pass the paper's resolved individually.

1959: Council has spent the past several minutes discussing how the word campaign in the paper will affect the amount of campaigning the Union does. Or something. Several people are confused.

2001: DPW: If we are mandated to have a stance that condemns an issue, do we need resolves telling us which actions to take?

2002: Council chair proposes a vote on the paper as a whole with the addendum to remove the requirement for travel expenses/budget on resolve 6.

2004: Council chair proposes a vote on the notes and beliefs of the paper.

Vote: Majority vote for paper's notes and beleifs.

Votes on indiviual resolves:

1. To declare our refusal to be intimidated by these recent events.

Majority for

2. To condemn and campaign against violent policing perpetrated against peaceful student protests.

Majority for

3. To condemn and campaign against the arrest of the president of ULU and the imposition of disabling bail conditions.

Majority for

4. To condemn and campaign against any University’s use of violent policing and internal disciplinaries to curtail nonviolent protest.

Majority for

5. To support and defend any ICU member subjected to violent policing or internal disciplinary for nonviolent protest.

Majority for

6. Where feasible, to send delegations to protests and meetings called at ULU and the University of Sussex regarding this issue

Majority against. (Voted on twice after confusion on votes)

7. To release a statement describing this policy.

Majority for

8. To write to the Metropolitan Police informing them of this policy.

Majority for

9. To write to the president of ULU, informing them of this policy, expressing our solidarity and requesting further coordination to enact this policy.

Majority for

10. To describe recent events and solicit ICU members’ relevant personal experiences via the all-student e-mail.

Majority falls.

11. To form a working group to enact this policy

Majority for

12. To condemn the aforementioned mass arrest of protestors, journalists and

legal observers.

Majority for

13.To condemn the use of bail conditions to suppress nonviolent protest.

Majority for

14. To condemn the use of unnecessary bail conditions which prevent students from studying.

Majority for

Proposer to organise working group.

2014: Council moves on to the Sabbatical Officer reports.

President: ICU has one member of staff (also member of House of Lords) who will undersign letter to the Lords regarding immigration bill.

DP Clubs and Societies: Paper as tabled.

DP Education: Paper as tabled

DP Financial Services: "Buy your Summer Ball tickets now"

DP Welfare: Happy Holidays!

All Sabb papers passed.