Vote YES and these changes will be the results

The Key Changes the new constitution would bring:

Essentially, the proposed constitution is clearer, easier to operate under, more accessible and regularly involves more students in its activities. The main change from the current structure is that it would reinstate the Student Meetings at the top of the decision making structure such that any student, regardless of their prior involvement in Union activities or support from elected officers, can propose policy and have their ideas discussed in an open student forum.

1) It would re-introduce Student Meetings: an open forum where all members of the Students’ Union can vote and make collective decisions that would sit at the top of the Union power structure. These would take place at least twice a term and would be required to be promoted for 3 weeks in advance.

How it is now? Only Elected Officers have the right to vote on Union matters in Assembly meetings. This means that a meeting with 12 people can decide the direction of a Union that represents over 8,000 people

Why are we changing it? The idea that a handful of Elected Officers can decide on behalf of over 8000 students what their Union looks like is Top-Down, unrepresentative, disempowering to ordinary students, leads to a centralisation of power and elitism.


2) Remove the Veto Power of the Trustee Board: So for example, if the Student Meeting (which has a 1% quoracy, so over 83 students needed) voted democratically to do something, the Trustee Board can overturn it.

How is it now? Currently the Trustee Board (consisting of 8 students) has veto power can overturn the democratic decisions made by other Officers on the Assembly.

Why are we changing it? The democratic and collective decisions or mandates of students should not be allowed to be over-ruled by a smaller body. Students should be the sovereign voice of the Union.


3) Referendums WILL STILL EXIST: A Referendum may be called by a two-thirds majority of a quorate Student Meeting or a majority vote in the Executive Committee combined with a petition of 1% of the full membership. The process of calling a referendum under this proposed constitution is easier than under the current one

How is it now? You can call a referendum with the signatures of over 300 students or a two thirds majority of the Student Assembly. Meaning there's a disparity between how easy to is for students (300 signatures are very difficult to collect) whilst it's incredibly simply for the elected Assembly.

Why are we changing it? Because currently it is too difficult to call a referendum, so we are making it easier.


4) SMITHS and WIRED have explicit information: in this constitution, maintaining their autonomy and purpose.

How is it now?

There is no information in the current constitution about our Union media.

Why is it changing?
Because we value our Union media and need to reaffirm its importance.

Vote YES in the referendum on democracy (Feb 2nd - 5th)

Since the start of this academic year Goldsmiths Students’ Union has
operated under a governance system that only allows elected Officers
(sabbaticals like me for example…) to vote on matters within the Students’
Union. That means 20 of us have decided on behalf of 8000 students what
their Union looks like. Because I am elected does it make my views
sovereign? No. Does it mean I am representative of all students? No, this
would be an impossible task. Why should an Officer, simply because they
have been elected, hold sole power over every decision that effects
students, whilst excluding all other students from the democratic process?
This is not parliament and I do not aspire to be an MP.

Last year we had Student Meetings, where every student could vote, debate
matters and decide whether they were For or Against any given motion. The
sizing down of democracy has been incredible - this year it has been 20
Officers making those same decisions. Out of about 30 motions submitted to
the Assembly (the body that has replaced the Student Meetings) 28 were
submitted by only 3 Officers; the new governance has proved to be a system
open to exploitation by a dominant few who are not guaranteed to represent
the majority. It has effectively centralised power and homogenised the
political climate of the SU (albeit now acclimatised to the Left, I am
still not in favour of simply debating with myself). It has failed in such
a glorious style that not even I (someone against it from the beginning)
would have predicted.

One Course Rep on the Assembly was elected by a single vote (their own) –
so out of everyone in Visual Cultures, one sole student can vote within
the SU on behalf of their entire department of hundreds of students. Last
year, by contrast, all Visual Cultures students were allowed to vote in
the Student Meeting.

Twleve Course Reps/Officers were uncontested in their elections. Is
allowing any elected individual (myself included), however well
intentioned, to have absolute power on all aspects of a Union, a decent
form of democracy? No. Should we, a small elite, be able to determine
every aspect of your Union? I would argue it is absurd.

Let’s not pretend that a Referendum (like the one about to commence) is as
democratic as Student Meetings. Unless you do as we did and gain the
support of 500 students before taking action, the former are largely
top-down affairs, where students cannot change the content of what they’re
voting on. They must simply register a Yes or No reference, whereas in
Student Meetings all are free to interact, discuss and alter any part of a
motion.

Over 500 students last term signed a petition in support of bringing back
the Student Meeting at Goldsmiths, triggering this referendum. Vote YES in
the coming elections to re-instate the Student Meeting and let’s have a
Student’ Union that reflects not simply elected Officers, but the
political diversity of ALL students.

Scolarest: A Campaign on Two Fronts

The Students’ Union is currently working with consultants from Jamie Oliver’s 15 Foundation to create a realistic model for in-house catering (college runnung it themselves rather than out-soucring to a private company like scolarest). This would include local sourcing, a Living Wage for staff and a training scheme for apprentice 15 foundation chefs from Lewisham College.

Also from January, a branch of Cafe Crema, called Gold en Creme will be opperating out of the new Common Room on the 1st floor of the Students’ Union. This is to pull students away from Scolarest ran Loafers and the Canteen to a cheaper, ethical alternative.

We intend to drive away Scholarests profits and make remaining at Goldsmiths a financial impossibilty for the company.

The Union as part of the contract with Crema has ensured they will undercut Scolarest’s prices - we’re effectively subsidising student food whilst maintaining it as an organic and far more nutrious option.

Inexpensive & ethical. Exactly what Scolarest are not.

Bye Bye INTO

STUDENT AND STAFF DELIGHT AS COLLEGE WALK AWAY FROM INTO DEAL.

In a statement made to the Academic Board at the end of last term Goldsmiths Warden Geoffry Crossick said “INTO are an option no longer worth considering”.

The Students’ Union SAY NO TO INTO campaign conducted an online referendum last month with results showing out of 475 students voting, only 4 thought INTO would be positive for Goldsmiths reputation as an academic institution. Resultting in 471 (over 95%) voting that any proposal to sell off our land to INTO would worsen the colleges status.

Campaigns Coordinator James Haywood gave us this statement: “I think it’s fantastic that joint campaign work between the staff UCU branch, Goldsmiths UNISON and the Students’ Union, all working together has paid off so well. This also really shows what can happen when we engage students in our campaigning and how much they respond if asked their opinions on matters and that management are moveable on issues when real opposition is galvanised”.

The SU will continue its Goldsmiths Not For Profit campaign into the next term, focusing more on support for the on-campus nursery and anti-scolarest work, now that all possibilities with INTO appear to have faded.

INTO the black? Why the Student Union opposes plans with INTO

Goldsmiths has a fantastic reputation. It’s been hard-won and our status as one of Europe’s leading creative universities reverberates around the globe attracting international talent. A deal with private company INTO would be against everything Goldsmiths stands for. Education and the development of thinking and creativity of our students should come first, not second to profit margins. But aside from an ethical view point, here’s why the Students’ Union believes plans with prviate company INTO would be terrible for Goldsmiths:

The 500 students INTO promise to deliver onto our campus would be taught English at a much lower standard than our current Language Department offers. The staff in our Language Department have not been told if their jobs would be secure if a deal with INTO were to be struck. INTO then promises a 65% conversion rate into the host university (i.e Goldsmiths) and that’s how senior management are hoping to make some cash. There are however a few drawbacks to that plan:

1) INTO are rumoured to be in over 1 million pounds worth of debt. If they sink, they’d take Goldsmiths with them.

2) INTO teach international students to a lower standard of English than in our Language Department. This could seriously harm the international reputation of Goldsmiths if it becomes known that Goldsmiths offers sub-standard language learning. Apart from ripping off the students being taught by INTO of course, our association with a company like them doesn't look good.

3) At UWE and Newcastle, their Student Union has reported students feeling alienated on campus due to being taught separately from all the other students. They’ve also said plagiarism levels and drop-out records have sky-rocketed due to students not being able to cope with the host universities course demands. This isn’t their fault, but the fault of INTO for providing inadequate education.

The Student Union encourages and celebrates the international atmosphere here at Goldsmiths, but we condemn exploiting international students on the basis of them paying astronomical fees for sub-standard INTO education.

This is PFI (private finance initiative) at its worst, and could seriously damage the reputation, students and staff at Goldsmiths. We’re encouraging students to vote NO in this referendum, go to this link to vote:

http://www.ucu.org.uk/saynotointo

So the situation seems clear, certainly the case against. Senior management are currently keeping quiet about INTOs proposals or whether they’re hoping to sign a long the dotted line anytime soon. Given that ‘lack of space’ is one of the reasons management give for refusing to build a new nursery, the idea of selling land off to INTO seems crazy.

Come a long to the Goldsmiths Not For Profit meeting on the 22^nd of October at 5pm, in The Stretch (top floor of the Student Union) to discuss issues regarding INTO, the nursery and Scolarest and how we take the campaign forward.

For more information see Goldsmiths United Against INTO and 'INTO in their own words':

http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/l/k/goldsmithsagainstinto.pdf

http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/l/j/into_theirownwords_sep08.pdf>

Campaigns for 08/09

Goldsmiths Student Union is famous for its campaigning history, we were the only University in Britain whose students chose to occupy their lecture theatres over the introduction of Top-Up Fees in 1999. Supporting collective action at Goldsmiths is a tradition we’re keen to follow and this year the SU sees itself as a space that unites all students in their struggles.

Our main campaign for 2008/09 is ‘Goldsmiths Not for Sale’ - an anti-privatisation campaign that is made up of several issues and key components. Here they are:

Campus Nursery: This campaign is focused around support for our on-campus nursery that provides child-care for staff members and student parents. College management is currently refusing to provide necessary funding for the nursery and is looking to out-source. The SU rejects these current proposals as the on-campus nursery is of an excellent standard and no alternative nursery yet to be suggested is of equal quality. So whilst a 7 million pound Media building is being built behind the backfield tennis courts, college is selling our student parents down the river, hoping no one will cause too much of a fuss.

Scholarest Off Our Campus: Over the past year students have been campaigning to kick exploitative catering company Scholarest off our campus. Scholarest is part of the Compass group, a corporation listed within the 250 richest corporations in the world. It’s no wonder Compass is so rich when it is made up of companies like Scholarest, who make their money from selling non-nutritional, over-priced food to students, whilst paying their staff ridiculously low wages. We want college to drop the contract and bring all catering back in-house. Remember that channel 4 program 'Jamie's School Dinners'? It was Scholarest who were accused of serving endless amounts of barely edible smiley faces to the nation's youth. So it's not just Jamie Oliver who Scholarest are rubbing up the wrong way, it's Goldsmiths students and this year is the year we're determined to get rid.

Student say NO to INTO: Senior management in college have hinted at plans to sell off land and give a 30 year contract to INTO, a 3 year old construction company that promises to bring 500 international students to Goldsmiths each year. These students will be provided with lower teaching standards than those of current Language Department, staff will be less qualified and paid less, yet INTO guarantees 100% of students a place at a UK University?! Essentially this is farming international students into our college on the basis of teaching them poorly and them paying astronomical fees for such poor quality INTO (not Goldsmiths!) Education. Education is not merely another 'market' as much as the current government and senior Goldsmiths management may have accepted it as.

Halls: This year we’re campaigning for better laundry facilities in halls of residence. Goldsmiths students pay some opf the highest rent prices in the country, so why do they have to put up with medieval washining machines and broken tumble dryers? Internet access was also promised by a few of the now sabbaticals but nothing as of yet seems to be happeing. We also wish to ensure halls rent prices don’t sky rocket with inflation. And one last big issue, we intend to prioritise pressuring the Accommodation Office to do something about the vermin in Batavia. Students (and in fact anyone) shouldn't have to live with rats, especially not for £85 a week!

I will write individual blogs in future outlining each campaign in more detail. Until then, if you want to get involved in campaigning on any of these issues please don't hesitate to contact jennifer.jones@gold.ac.uk