Union Council. 6.6.13

Originally posted on The Epinal, June 6, 2013

Good evening. You can find tonight’s Union Council agenda here. The discussion tonight will focus on VP Democracy and Communication, Ali Cole’s, plan for the Union rebrand which was delayed from last meeting due to Council failing to meet quorum. The other main topic will be Cole’s proposal to drastically alter Council which was outlined here.

And that brings the last Union Council of the year to an end. Thank you for staying with us. Live updates will return next year.

Read closes the meeting with thanks to the Councillors for their work over the past year.

Carroll thanks the Exec for their hard work.

Read wishes Thompson good luck with next year’s Council.

Following that motion, Schedule XI must also be changed.

Essajee disagrees.

With only one objection, the motion carries.

The Proposal to Change Schedule II and remove Federation from Societies Federation.

Essajee objects to the change because it means changing further Schedules and because SocFed has been the name for a number of years.

The motion is put to a vote. It is passed.

There are technology issues however there is 9 for and 8 against. The rules state that there needs to be a two-thirds majority for the proposal to pass. Therefore, Council will remain as it is.

The proposal moves to final speeches.

Carroll says that it needs more thought as it currently constricts the membership making it more BNOC-y.

Cole’s response is that Loughborough is a very different University from others so we need a unique system for Loughborough and this is it.

This will now be referred to a vote.

Guillotine is extended to 9:30 so that this discussion can continue.

Nandha suggests moving this to a sub-committee.

Cole pleads with Councillors to just push this through.

Councillors vote against it being taken to a sub-committee.

A question from the floor asks how Cole expects to fill a Congress of 80 members when they currently struggle to fill Council currently.

Cole says that the accountability will help this.

Carroll contests whether there is any actual real accountability anywhere in the Union. There is nothing to say for certain that where people are elected from is going to increase enthusiasm.

Nandha asks why this proposal changes how people are elected.

Cole says that this election from committees will mean that the representatives have a direct accountability back.

Carroll questions whether including people who already get involved in the Union means that Council will be any better representing those students who don’t take part.

Read says that she is concerned that those who don’t have anything to do with the Union can have a say in how sections run.

Carroll disagrees and says that we shouldn’t shun those who only want to get involved in the Council.

Cole moves onto his proposal to change Council to Congress.

He says that the new system will guarantee that Councillors know who they are accountable to and who they need to report back to.

He says that we need to use a system which plays to our strengths.

Carroll speaks against the motion. He agrees that Council needs to change but when he first came to Loughborough, Council was based on Halls representation rather than departmental.

Carroll says that there needs to be a great deal of discussion with students about why they are currently disinterested in Council and that we should take the same amount of time over the next year as the rebrand has required.

Read speaks for the motion and says that as long as we keep delaying change, the Council remains unrepresentative. She says that we’ve spent enough time on this.

Heskett speaks against citing that the problem is that Council meetings at the beginning of the year are not welcoming and that there could be more information about how to change agendas which could increase presence and usefulness of the current format.



While the votes for the contested Development Officers are counted, Carroll and Valdez both run for the two available Board of Trustees vacancies. This is passed.

The last position is Enterprise and Employability DO  to be  contested between Maz Haider, Nanchella Makokha and Lemuel Valdez.

Makokha goes first. Citing how important employability is to students and her participation on the Employability Award Scheme.

Haider is really passionate for the role. He has had a variety of experience with different sections. He wants to promote workshops with the Careers Centre.

Valdez is currently on placement so Haines reads his manifesto. Valdez’ emphasises that a 2:1 is no longer enough and that employers now look for experiences. He also has experience looking at CVs while on committee with Bright Futures.

A question from a FREEC rep asks how both candidates would provide support for fellow FREEC reps.

Both say with meetings and Minnett also would like to promote cross halls environmental projects.

Heskett asks what outside of the E and E role they would like to change in the Union.

Minnett would like the Union to commit to some sort of renewable energy.

Wazir would like to emphasise Green Impact.


There are two candidates for Environment and Ethics.

Yara Al Wazir has been on E and E committee this year. She wants to advance connections with Engineers Without Borders and Time 4 Change.

Sam Minnitt who was chair of Landscaping and Gardening which has merged with Time 4 Change. He cites his passion for the environment as why he will be good in the role.

Both want to increase awareness of the role.


Marsh points out that Exec aren’t allowed to hold a position for more than two years for fear of stagnation in the role. Tingle explains that that’s why he didn’t run straight away.

With 8 in favour, 7 against and 1 abstention, Tingle is re-elected.

Dave Tingle is proposed for Alumni Development Officer.

He has held this position for two years.

He was hoping to find someone as equally enthusiastic and passionate to replace him which is why he didn’t run in the original election. However failing that, he has decided to put his name forward again.

Essajee asks whether this year round, Tingle will be able to achieve the previous manifesto points which he has failed to tick off.

Cox asks if his course has advised him not to run again. Tingle clarifies that was advice given in a job interview.

Cox questions whether Tingle has actually been responsible for Bill Mo alumni weekend and points out that he didn’t attend the Media Alumni conference she held.

Tolulope Ariyo-Sanyaolu has just been voted onto Council for the Maths department.

The motion to remove treasurer from Community committee and add Sports Sec is passed.

Cole responds to Essajee’s request to have this presentation uploaded online five working days after Council by citing fears that that will mean devaluing the reveal at Freshers.

Lindovic asks if Essajee would want this to be released in “dribs and drabs”. Essajee points out that people have already tweeted the logo.

Haines points out that Council isn’t supposed to be a secret meeting.


The new logo will have Loughborough Students’ Union and then section variations.

Carroll asks Cole how this rebrand will be more than just a fresh coat of paint over a Union that fundamentally doesn’t change.

Cole says that the new Exec will be having various training sessions to help keep them up to date and able to implement greater changes. The Union staff are also having training sessions.

Cole says that the success of this project will possibly have to be taken on faith currently.

Heskett adds that the Board of Trustees are also aware of greater issues with staff and atmosphere so these will be worked on.

In response to Leedham’s question regarding when the new website will be revealed, Cole says Freshers 2013.

Goller, Epinal Executive News Editor, asks whether Student Voice will be included in the new LSU logo. Cole says that that is still to be examined.


New slogans for the Union will be:

“Time of your life”

“More than your course”

“Always on your side”

The motion passes with a majority.

Agenda moves onto the Strategic Communications Review.

Cole cites the higher fees as increasing student expectations of the Union.

Currently the Union is “better than we look” and the rebrand will aim at reflecting this.


The motion to change the Code of Practice for External Speakers is now being addressed due to the fact that it is the only topic that doesn’t require a presentation being set up.

Read says that it is about being proactive rather than reactive.

Essajee speaks against it because he is concerned that societies haven’t had the training or the information to respond to the policy.

Read says that this is to prevent any situation in the future rather than as a reaction to any issue recently raised.

A question from the floor asks what training will be required. Read says that it will primarily fall to head of security because although this is an NUS policy, it doesn’t follow that the Union will stick to the their guidelines.

Carroll and Heskett propose rearranging the agenda.

The Union rebranding has been moved to the end of the meeting because it has already been passed by the Board of Trustees due to the deadlines involved in the project.

Council is off to a slow start with it taking a while to register everyone’s attendance. However,we have reached one above quorum with 15 people.

Guillotine is proposed for 9:18 and passed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s