Proposal to cut 10 sabbaticals down to 6 at UCL falls through

UCL Union has voted to not reduce the number of sabbatical officers in a close-fought debate at a General Assembly on Tuesday. The motion, which was voted for by a simple majority of students, failed to pass as it did not reach the 75% majority necessary to modify UCLU’s governing documents.

A General Assembly is equivalent to an ICU General Meeting, where everyone is entitled to vote. Unlike ICU, UCLU have General Assemblies fairly regularly. This particular one was followed by a social.

The motion proposed to cut the number of sabbatical officers as a means to cutting UCLU’s deficit, which is running into the region of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The motion in question, called “Amendment 3” proposed for a conversion of UCLUs structure to have six sabbatical officers – “Activities & Events”, “Ethics, Environment & Operations Officer”, “Welfare and Communities Officer”, “BME and International Students Officer”, “Education, Democracy & Communications Officer”, and “Postgraduate Students and Medical Students Officer”.

The changes were proposed to save nearly £160,000 in salaries and associated costs, although costs from reducing the number of support staff were not included.

The overall result on the vote was 304 for, 225 against, and 10 abstentions.

The rejection of the motion has caused some controversy; with some complaining that the rejection of the motion showed that UCLU was “out-of-touch”. One student vowed that the campaign to cut the number of sabs “will be back”.

Following the rejection of the paper, a motion was passed to adjourn the meeting. Hannah Sketchley, the UCLU Democracy and Communications Officer described the decision as “unwise and undemocratic”, with it being a “massive shame not to hear the motions of other people who had worked so hard on their campaigns”.

Because of this, a fourth proposal by the sabbatical team involving the removal of one sabbatical officer was not considered.

Both motions would have increased the number of executive officers, similar to ICU’s liberation officers. One of the changes in Amendment 3 involved the elimination of the Women’s Officer.

In an article that incumbent Annie Tidbury wrote for the Telegraph website, she argued the proposal ignored the “long-term implications for students”. The proposals replace the position with a “Gender Equalities Officer”.

She noted that her role is “too big a workload to balance with studying for a degree”, and that people would lose the opportunity to “talk to someone in a position of authority”. According to the article, in the 17 weeks she has been in the role, she has had “over 30 students” contact her for advice.

Additionally, in her article she complained that a gender equalities officer would be problematic, as “it would not have to be filled by a woman.” She contained, “a man may well be appointed – someone with no experience of what it’s like to live as a woman or face misogyny”.

She highlighted the Black and Minority Ethnics Students’ Officer; another proposed new position, as also potentially experiencing a similar issue.

In conclusion, she said, “When we’re looking to make savings, why should it be already marginalised groups that have to suffer the most?”

However, in an article written to The Tab London, one of the proposers of the original motion, James Simcox, said that an amended version will be proposed at the next meeting to rename the proposed “Gender Equalities Executive Officer” to “Women’s Executive Officer”, amongst other changes.

Following the failure for the proposal to attain 75% of the vote, it will now be considered at UCLUs Trustee Board.