What Are The Proposals?
Proposal 3, put forward by Boat Club president Sam Inkersole and seconded by the presidents of 25 other clubs and socie- ties, would get rid of 4 Sabbatical Officers - students elected to run the Union for a year - reducing the total number from 10 to 6, aiming to reduce UCLU’s yearly deficit of about £400k. Proponents say the Union is devouring its £2m cash reserves and putting services such as bars and cafes at risk.
The proposal controversially changes the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Officer to BME & International Officer, and en- tirely gets rid of Women’s Officer, replacing it with an unpaid, part-time ‘Gender Equali- ties’ post. Critics suggest that this will leave already oppressed groups at UCL at a fur- ther disadvantage.
The impetus behind the motion is that the Union will “cease to exist in 5 years” if it continues to run a deficit, and that merging full-time roles and increasing the number of part-time, unpaid executive officers will save - by their calculations - £157,027 per year. Inkersole told The Cheese Grater: “I’ve been told by a couple of Sabbs that [cutting the number of full-time officers] is also what [an] independent, external, advisor sug- gested.”
Proposal 4, championed by BME Officer Hajera Begum and supported by all but 2 Sabbs, aims to safeguard and extend full- time Liberation officers at UCLU by keep- ing the BME and Womens’ Officer roles, as well as introducing Sabbatical roles to repre- sent Disabled and LGBT+ students. It will cut the total number of Sabbs from 10 to 9, and claims to have identified significant sav- ings in the support structure for Liberation officers. Union insiders have stressed that this is a result of months of consultation and debate, rather than a knee-jerk reaction.
One high profile backer is David Dahl- born, Halls & Accommodation Rep. (a part-time role which has not been included in Proposal 3) who said of Proposal 4, “If it kills me to get it past the General Assembly, then let it be so!”
What’s the gripe?
There has been a perception amongst clubs and societies that they get a raw deal in terms of funding from the Union. Sam Ink- ersole objected to funding allocation, telling The Cheese Grater, “I was extremely shocked to find out that the budget for Democracy and Campaigns was nearly double that for Clubs and Societies.”
The Union obliges members of societies to cover costs when Union funding is insuf- ficient. Instead of direct funding, the Union often uses a system of reimbursement to fund travel or extra, unforeseen costs. Harry Robbins, treasurer of Music Society, said: “the way in which the Union frankly forces students to spend £100s of their own mon- ey…is farcical”.
The sometimes opaquely bureaucratic nature of the union means that communica- tion can be an extremely frustrating process for societies, possibly explaining their dis- content at how its run.
Are UCLU’s Finances Really That Bad?
The Union’s deficit of £204k in 2013/2014 has risen to a projected £426k in 2014/2015. With unrestricted reserves at £1.6m, the current deficit could be sus- tained for another 6 years.
According to proponents of Proposal 3, the Union is heading towards financial ar- mageddon and its measures are the only vi- able option to reduce the deficit, but this is disputed by supporters of Proposal 4.
Ben Towse, former Postgraduate Officer, said that the Union running up a deficit was “the right thing to do when it had massive reserves saved up” and that “decimating our union’s ability to fight for students’ needs is not the only or best way [to reduce the deficit].” DCO Hannah Sketchley claimed that “the union is not going to explode”, em- phasising the fact that universities are legally required to have some sort of student repre- sentation.
However, the Union does acknowledge a need to save at least £196k per year and pro- poses several avenues for consideration, such as cutting down on permanent staff and in- efficiencies, and raising the prices in UCLU cafes and bars.
Another Option?
There has been a third proposal - “Dia- logue not Division” - which would abandon voting on governance structure propos- als until collaborative meetings have taken place to properly consider them. 6 club presidents who initially seconded proposal 3 have jumped ship to the compromise proposition. However, were the referendum proposal to pass, there are concerns from Union insiders that little time would be left to organise the elections for the new round of Sabbs, whatever the eventual result.
Indeed, there are concerns from both sides that the decision process has been rushed. With some clubs demanding man- datory appearance from all members, there are worries that the vote might be forced through by whoever can shanghai the most people into turning up.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, at 6pm in Logan Hall at the Institute of Edu- cation. The Cheese Grater believes that this represents a fundamental conflict of what the Union is for: whether it should act as a campaigning body or primarily provide ser- vices to the students it represents. It’s going to be bloody dramatic.
We’ll be live-tweeting the event from @UCLCheeseGrater, and watch out for a news blog afterwards on the result.