A 66 per cent increase in funding has been allocated to OUSU by the University, prompting celebration from sabbatical officers.
£200,000 will be awarded immediately for the financial year 2014 –15. It will also receive a further £15,000 for the financial year 2015-16, and a final £50,000 for the year after.
President Tom Rutland said that he is “delighted to have successfully negotiated a massive increase in OUSU’s funding”.
“When I ran for OUSU President, I spoke about how years of underfunding for OUSU prevented it from being the Student Union that Oxford students deserved.”
He added: “This much needed funding uplift will propel OUSU on its journey from being a surviving student union to a thriving one.”
However, some student voices have been heard to speculate as to the timing of the inflated budget. Tom Ough, a third-year English student at St. John’s, commented: “I’m putting this down to Trup-gate. It’s quite clear that the university doesn’t want a repeat of an election which was a national laughing-stock, and this is a way of ensuring that students have more respect for OUSU, which has been chronically underfunded even in comparison to other collegiate universities’ student unions.
“But the funding increase is a credit to the negotiation skills of Tom Rutland and co., because the Trup debacle could easily have led the University to reduce its support for OUSU rather than give it a much-needed shot in the arm,” he added.
Some of this money will be used to hire a new Student Advice Service manager, who will allow the union to support more students who feel they have been mistreated or discriminated against.
OUSU will also be funding increased student representation across departments. Rachel Pickering, Vice President for Access and Academic Affairs, claimed that “student representatives are often less visible [than their college-based counterparts], and can lack the support they need to fulfill their representational roles”.
“The increase in funding will allow us to hire a full time Academic Representation Officer, whose job will be to coordinate and support divisional and departmental reps, and train them within their roles,” she said.
Alasdair Lennon, St John’s JCR President, commented: “The OUSU funding increase should be welcome news for everyone. However, due to Oxford’s nature as a federal university people will ask why isn’t this funding going to common rooms? The simple answer is that OUSU does things that common rooms cannot. OUSU’s centralised service offers: a free impartial and confidential advice service, assistance with troublesome landlords, coordination and execution of major campaigns, the support that student societies need, and the opinions of the entire student body. I also know that OUSU offer fantastic support and training to MCR and JCR presidents without which we would struggle in our roles. OUSU have an image problem not a relevancy problem, the increased funding is necessary and required.”
One Lincolnite, who did not wish to be named, hailed the new funds as an exciting prospect: “This is great news for students, and hopefully means that OUSU can do more for Oxford students. It is important that the University has increased its pitifully small block grant to demonstrate its commitment to the interests of students. Now, we need to make sure that OUSU spends this money wisely to meaningfully support the student body.”
The increased grant will also be used to improve communications with the student body by hiring a new Digital Communications Officer in Trinity Term and integrating Single Sign-On into its website.
Over the past few years OUSU has secured students the ability to re-sit Prelims and access the Rad Cam on a Sunday, as well as running the Living Wage Campaign across colleges. This year it also ensured that students who suspend their studies have the right to access University facilities.
Rutland suggested that in the past OUSU “has not been properly able to communicate these wins, as well as the services it offers to students like the Student Advice Service”.
The rest of the grant will go towards developing a digital Alternative Prospectus and permanently funding the OUSU Community Wardens Scheme. It also plans to investigate whether they could provide increased support for student non-sport clubs and societies.
Pickering reiterated her hopes that the increased funding will enable students to be “more aware of what OUSU does and how they can get involved.”
As someone involved in the workings of OUSU, I am starting to get slightly tired of the latest trend in the student press, which involves reeling off ranting comment pieces, slamming OUSU, OUSU Council, OUSU members, OUSU’s campaigns – or in fact, anything else within reach. A recent example of this came in Alexander Rankine’s rant in the Cherwell last week, addressing what he believed to be ‘the failure of OUSU Council to provide a meaningful democratic connection between students and OUSU.’ As current Chair of Council, and former Chair of the Scrutiny Committee, I am well placed to address some of the points raised and can hopefully provide a more nuanced take on OUSU Council.
Firstly, I would like to make the distinction between OUSU – the organisation made up of full-time and part-time officers, office staff, campaigns and committees – and OUSU Council, the democratic arm of the organisation. Council exists to provide devolved democracy, where common rooms have elected representatives to speak on their behalf. They should be consulting the students they represent, but in reality, this doesn’t often happen. Sitting at the front of the room as Chair, I am often dismayed at the attendance, or lack thereof, particularly amongst those who aren’t OUSU reps (especially the ‘3rd vote’ that all colleges have). OUSU Sabbatical Officers do their best to make agendas available, highlight important issues and encourage people to bring motions to Council, but they cannot physically force people to do so. In his piece, Alexander laments at the lack of motions being brought to Council – but these are open to all students to bring forward and in recent meetings, most of the motions have not been brought by Sabbaticals Officers, but by students with an interest in a particular issue. On his criticism that OUSU Council only meets every two weeks, I don’t think that it is realistic to expect students to turn up every week, during terms that only last eight weeks as it is. Perhaps he doesn’t have a lot of work to do, but I certainly do. It is also worth noting that is usually how often JCR meetings take place.
Regarding accountability of the officers, it is not their fault if nobody asks them any questions in Council. Every time we get to that part of Council, I deliberately pause, look round the room and remind people that this is their opportunity to directly scrutinise those who represent them. And I am usually met with silence for my efforts. I also take issue with the derisive remark that ‘the Scrutiny reports read like interviews with the officers.’ Well, they are based partially on interviews with the officers (how else would we conduct the process?), so of course they are going to sound a bit like the interviews that provided their source material! What is important is that whatever ends up in that report does so after careful consideration, feedback from other people working with the officers being scrutinized and a weighing-up of the ‘evidence’, as it were. The Scrutiny Committee’s job is to check that elected OUSU officers are fulfilling the political aspects of their role i.e. carrying out their election manifesto promises, representing students in a proactive and positive manner and interacting well with them. If the Scrutiny Report is broadly positive, then this is because the officers are doing a good job! In the past, I have never held back when I felt someone was not fulfilling their role, and concerns that have been raised in past reports are now actively being taken on board. A good example of this is Part-Time Executive written reports to Council, whose appearance has increased thanks to successive Scrutiny recommendations. When I stood up to present the report to Council last term, I did not mince my words about some of the more unacceptable findings we had, and would reject the idea that we are not holding officers to account.
Finally, I would like to deal with the issue surrounding the ‘atmosphere at Council’, which has become more prominent since OUSU stalwart Jack Matthews’ blog post about his time in student politics. I notice that his quote taken from a Council meeting in 2008 seems to keep being used as though this were the current state of affairs. Yes, it is true that OUSU has a tendency towards left-wing thinking and policy, but this is only a reflection on the fact that most of its members, being students, do tend statistically to veer towards the left. As someone with few party political convictions myself, I have never felt threatened or intimidated by the party politics from either side at OUSU – in fact, they rarely come up or enter the debate, as it’s often more about a clash of beliefs, political or otherwise. I have actually found that it has produced lively debates on all sides, a recent example being of the debate surrounding financing the Oxford Left Review (a motion which fell). As Chair, it is my duty to maintain the atmosphere in Council so that everyone feels able to speak. When I have felt debates have become intimidating or contributions irrelevant, I have said so, as have many of my predecessors (including Jack Matthews).
OUSU, like any democratic institution, has its failings, but this does not lie solely with its Officers. JCR and MCR reps need to step up to the plate, actually attend Council, ask their Common Rooms what they think and make points in the debate. If OUSU appears like a club or a clique, it’s because there are some people who are more passionate about certain issues than others, but the idea is that anyone can contribute to any debate in any way they chose, provided their remarks are not offensive. Sabbatical Officers cannot win – they are criticised for not engaging enough with students or letting them know what they’ve been doing, but are then lambasted for sending ‘self-congratulatory emails’ when they do tell you what they’ve been up to! Every student member is entitled to attend OUSU Council, so here is my invitation to you: come along, propose motions, take part in the debates, ask questions of your elected officers, rather than reeling off comments in the student press.
PHOTO/Nele van Hout
OUSU President Tom Rutland was the victim of an assault last Friday while walking home from a club with a friend. A stranger approached the pair and threatened to rape Rutland’s friend. Rutland defended his friend and in response was punched.
Rutland said: “On the way home from Supermarket, in the early hours of Friday morning, I was the victim of an unprovoked assault by a male by Santander on George Street. [...] I’m fine now, apart from a bit of a sore head and a pair of trousers with an unintended and not particularly trendy hole in them.”
The OUSU President added: “Anyone who witnessed the assault or who has any information relating to the case should call the non-emergency police number 101, or contact PC5537 Ian Lucas to report it. Students should report crimes to the police – whether they are a victim or a witness. If they need support or advice on any issue then they should contact OUSU’s Student Advice Service”
He also tweeted about the incident, telling followers: “Yeah it’s all okay home safe but really crap” and describing the event as “disgusting”.
The event prompted concern and praise from Rutalnd’s friends. David Townsend, a Law D.Phil and former OUSU President, described Rutland as “pretty He-Man” and commended him for “good work”. A first year historian at Magdalen merely commented “legend!”.
PC Lucas can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org. The OUSU Student Advice Service can be contacted at email@example.com.
An OUSU motion to provide funding for the Oxford Left Review journal has been defeated this week.
The motion, discussed at the OUSU Council meeting last Wednesday, proposed a contribution of £150 from the discretionary budget towards printing costs and hosting speaker events.
It is believed the vote was close, with numerous delegates choosing to abstain. Undergraduate Olivia Arigho Stiles, associate editor of the journal and proposer of the motion, expressed her disappointment with the decision: “The OLR offers a platform for high quality articles and artwork from Oxford students and is a highly dynamic and thought-provoking element of Oxford’s diverse journalistic milieu.”
She added that she was, “sure this decision will come as a surprise to the sizeable team of Oxford students who are involved with the journal, and the large numbers of students and the public who attend our termly speaker events”
OUSU currently funds several student journals, having contributed £200 to the ‘Environment & Ethics’ magazine in Michaelmas as part of its funding for the Environment & Ethics campaign. Arigho Stiles blamed the failure of the motion to add the Oxford Left Review to this group on the obstruction of right-wing delegates.
“Unfortunately, individuals with a conservative agenda managed to dominate the debate and prevent the motion from passing. I cannot help but feel this provides yet more evidence of OUSU’s disconnect from the majority of Oxford students, and its refusal to engage with the political views and actions of the student populace.”
James Blythe, OUSU’s VP (Access and Academic Affairs)-elect, denied assertions that the decision was a result of “Tories versus lefties in OUSU Council”. Explaining his decision to oppose the motion despite being a “fully paid-up member of the Labour party and Oxford University Labour Club”, he stated:
“The student union exists to serve all students, and all its activities should be, at least theoretically, open to everyone who is interested. Olivia and the OLR explicitly stated that they would not welcome right-wing comments in the review and therefore I felt it would be inappropriate for OUSU to fund it,” he said.
“I felt it was an important statement about the position of OUSU: we can be political – in fact we have an obligation to be political sometimes – but we should never exclude a group of students from anything funded or run by their student union simply on the basis of their political beliefs.”
The OLR currently relies upon JCR donations, sales revenues and contributions from its own writing team. Arigho Stiles insisted that the journal will continue to operate fully despite the setback. “This will not prevent the OLR from continuing to publish high-quality material from the plural left this term, and to do so we will simply have to seek forms of funding from elsewhere…As a resourceful team with a broad readership, sourcing alternative funding should be feasible but with escalating printing costs, it is an ever-difficult task.”
The OLR is produced termly, and features writing and artwork from students
Online access scheme #OxTweet is set to receive funding after OUSU Council approved plans to raise its profile.
The scheme, which has recently expanded to cover more subjects, is made up of Oxford students who tweet about their social and academic lives, as well as answering questions from prospective applicants. It comprises multiple accounts, which together have over 4,500 followers.
Rachel Pickering, OUSU VP for Access and Academic Affairs, seconded the motion, which she described as a way of publicising the scheme further. It was proposed by Magdalen JCR Access and Admissions Rep Rosie Dickinson.
“We’re thrilled that OUSU Council approved our motion for funding, and that this project is reaching increasing numbers of prospective applicants. We’d like to thank everyone at OUSU,” Dickinson said.
The publicity will take the form of postcard-sized flyers, which will be distributed via Target Schools, student shadowing events and at open days.
The #OxTweet team is currently running a competition for the postcard’s design. One entrant wrote: “As someone who didn’t know very much about Oxford before applying this year, #OxTweet has been a great way for me to learn about my course and student life in general.”
#OxTweet founder Jamie Miles, also of Magdalen, commented: “Being able to take #OxTweet to schools all over the country in postcard form will hopefully solidify the value of the project. As it stands, it is sort of a digital phenomenon. This campaign aims to change that.”
“No one from my comprehensive school had attended Oxford before. Upon becoming a student, the only solution to this was to initiate filling that information gap myself. So I did,” he said.
“A special thanks goes out to all the OxTweeters for their enthusiasm, OUSU for their support, the Magdalen JCR Access Rep, Rosie Dickinson, for her precision, and the coordinators of #OxTweet 2014, Eden Bailey and Chiara Giovanni, for their undying commitment to the project.”
Jamie Miles’s Youtube Access channel can be found at http://www.youtube.com/JamoeMills.
Suspended students will ﬁnally gain guaranteed access to University facilities and services after a breakthrough agreement negotiated by OUSU.
The new guidelines, proposed by OUSU and formulated jointly with the University, were passed at the University’s Education Committee last Friday.
Students at some colleges currently face retraction of their University Cards and restricted access to the University Counselling and Disability Advisory Service upon rustication. The changes will mean that access to these facilities can only be denied in exceptional circumstances.
These will include non-payment of fees, serious breaches of conduct relating to the use of University facilities, and cases in which student health and safety may be at risk.
OUSU and the University are now working to implement the changes as quickly as possible, and hope they will be in place by the beginning of the next academic year.
The agreement has been hailed by OUSU as “a great victory for Oxford students”.
Charlotte Hendy, Vice-President for Welfare and Equal Opportunities, said: “Year after year, OUSU’s Student Advice Service supports students who have taken a year out on medical grounds and are expected to sit penal collections on return. These students often have no access to libraries and struggle to achieve the often expected 2:1.
“Under the new guidelines, students facing similar situations will be able to access the University libraries necessary to allow them to prepare for penal collections.”
One anonymous student, who suspended to recover from anorexia, said: “I’m delighted that the University has decided to reverse its policy… If you’re unwell, the whole point of suspending is to take some time to recover so that you can work and enjoy what Oxford has to offer when you return, and it’s bizarre that so many suspended students have been expected to do this without access to counselling or libraries.”
Many would agree that these changes seem intuitive and overdue. Rachel Pickering, Vice-President for Access and Academic Affairs, claimed that practical obstacles rather than resistance had prevented them from being enacted sooner.
“The University has a complex committee structure: the proposal had to go through working groups and then the Senior Tutors’ Committee before it could be brought before the Education Committee”, said Pickering.
“It would be wrong to view this as a matter of ‘us’ and ‘them’: we have lots of friends in the University who really care about students’ welfare, and this victory is the result of a partnership.”
OUSU are now hoping to extend the increased support for suspended students to college level.
The provisions offered to suspended students vary between colleges, with arrangements often the preserve of senior members of staff.
Speaking to the OxStu, another anonymous suspended student said:“Before I decided that I should suspend I gained undertakings from the college that I would still keep my bod card, have access to libraries, and be allowed to come back into college now and again to study and to see friends.”
“Reaching the point where suspension had been decided was however, quite frankly, a hellish experience. The whole process was veiled in college by-laws, many of which were subsequently revealed to have been broken, and made worse by the sometimes obstructive attitude of certain academics in senior positions.
“That is the problem when there is an exclusive jurisdiction invested in one individual: when they mess up, getting past that is unnecessarily difficult. This is particularly true when you are making a decision that has massive implications and are already under medically-related stresses. The transparent application of a proper process would have ironed out many of these difficulties.”
Pickering said that although colleges would still have autonomy, OUSU will work to ensure processes are transparent, and can empower students to start conversations about access to facilities in their college: “The flexibility of colleges can sometimes be of more support to students and their individual cases than hard-and-fast rules. However, we will be meeting with Heads of Houses and Senior Tutors to advocate on behalf of suspended students and get change happening where it needs to. We’ll be supporting student reps to do the same – with regard to colleges, localized conversations are the way forward.”
“We want to ensure transparency to the decisions students considering suspension are facing, and inform and support them in the considerations that must be taken into account.”
Students considering suspension whilst living out, for example, must consider how the decision may affect their rent. Previously, suspended students who have continued living in rented accommodation have become eligible to pay Council Tax.
A spokesperson for Oxford City Council claimed that full exemptions for medical suspensions should be in place by April this year. Until then, suspended students living with current students are liable to pay 75% of the Council Tax rate, which in central Oxford is between £1075.07 and £3225.20 depending on the valuation of the property.
OUSU will be holding an information evening for anyone interested in pushing for similar changes in their college.
For more information, email firstname.lastname@example.org. For any problems, support can always be found at email@example.com.
Oriel’s JCR is set to disaffiliate from OUSU, ending a three-month dispute over its membership.
A referendum last term saw a vote in favour of leaving, but a dispute over procedure led new JCR Vice President Adam Goldthorpe to get a “binding” recommendation from a Law tutor at the college.
The tutor ruled on Sunday that abstentions in the referendum did not count under Oriel’s constitution, meaning that the result stands.
The ruling ends a long-running saga which saw the previous Returning Officer resign after OUSU President Tom Rutland received a copy of the proposition’s arguments in advance.
“There were procedural issues stemming from a lack of concrete guidance in the JCR constitution, from which we are keen to move on in a timely and constructive manner,” Ianthe Greenwood – Oriel’s JCR President – said last week.
“In order to do so the JCR has asked an independent adjudicator to review the referendum and provide suggestions, which the JCR has agreed to accept as binding.”
Tom Rutland, OUSU President, said the move was “a shame”.
“Much of the discussion that took place concerned OUSU’s policy positions – including OUSU’s response to the Vice-Chancellor’s suggestion that undergraduate fees should rise anywhere up to £16,000. OUSU took a strong stance on the VC’s comments on fees – and it was absolutely right to do so.”
“Of the 23 JCRs that discussed the issue, 20 of them voted to condemn the statement and back OUSU’s position. I won’t apologise for representing the majority view of students on this – that’s precisely what OUSU’s here to do,” he added.
The decision will last for the rest of this academic year. Currently, the only other disaffiliated college is Trinity.
A Law Fellow is to intervene to clarify the result of Oriel’s botched referendum to disaffiliate from OUSU.
The majority of the JCR voted to leave the student union in the referendum held last term. Since then the result has not been finalised due to procedural and constitutional issues, leading to the enlisting of a Law fellow’s expertise.
The original motion, which was presented to the college on Sunday 25th November, had been signed by 27 members, as well as a JCR-wide vote having been held to decide on the legitimacy of the referendum itself.
This was despite the fact that no initial vote was required to hold a referendum, given that sufficient signatures under Oriel’s constitutional law (i.e., more than 25) had been amassed.
Further to this, an early draft of the proposition’s arguments, which had been emailed to all JCR members, was forwarded to Tom Rutland, current OUSU President, who spoke out publicly against the proposed split. When hustings were held, Rutland had thus been provided with information which enabled him to bolster his rebuttal during the debate.
Procedural issues continued to cloud students’ understanding of the proposal, given that in return the motion’s upholders were permitted a 12-hour head start in circulating their information prior to the opening of the referendum.
The Returning Officer resigned as a result of these confusions and was replaced by the Vice President of the JCR at the time.
When voting on the referendum was eventually opened on Sunday 5th December, outcry was immediately heard over the issue of abstentions, which are permitted by the election software Mi-Vote, in spite of Oriel’s ruling that referenda must be carried over by a two-thirds majority. As such, abstentions would effectively count as votes against disaffiliation from OUSU.
The result was in fact in favour of the motion to disaffiliate with 60.8% of voters for, 29.6% against, and 9.6% abstaining. This fell short of the 66% needed to actually disaffiliate.
In the wake of this decision, an email was circulated to Oriel members alerting them to “an issue with the referendum results”, with a promise to inform students of the eventual outcome. This has still not been affirmatively published.
Continuing dissent has led to new Vice President Adam Goldthorpe enlisting the help of an SCR member and Fellow in Law. Goldthorpe’s motion, which was accepted by the JCR last Sunday, suggests the Fellow “look into the procedural issues surrounding the referendum with a view to providing formal recommendations, which the JCR will then accept as binding”.
A panel will also be assembled in order to look into Oriel’s general constitutional clarity, with a view to reform.
Oriel JCR President Ianthe Greenwood commented: “There were procedural issues stemming from a lack of concrete guidance in the JCR constitution, from which we are keen to move on in a constructive manner. In order to do so the JCR has asked an independent adjudicator to review the referendum and provide suggestions, which the JCR has agreed to accept as binding.”
Joey Dunlop, a third year PPEist, described the results as “really embarrassing” for the pro-OUSU faction, although made note of the “consistent blunders, blatant bias, and poorly worded rules” of the run-up to vote.
“We’ve sent our message of discontent”, he added.
Eleanor Sharman – a second year Philosopher and Theologian – who proposed the original motion said: “the committee did everything they could in a difficult situation, but of course questions have been raised about the ability of the constitution to cope with referenda amongst other issues.”
“As a result I’m very glad that it’s now subject to review.”