A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
The first motion of the night was to ratify the Union Council minutes from October to January. This was proposed in the last UGM, but did not reach quoracy.
Next was a constitutional amendment proposal, proposed by the Union Council and seconded by acting Council Chair Tom Langrish.
The proposal is to approve the new constitution, which has been amended by Langrish. In his speech Langrish said: “Governance has to be flexible, it has to change to suit the changing needs of the student body.”
If the motion is passed, it will complete a number of changes made by the union, including rebranding the Athletic Union’s as York Sport, reviving the York University Media (YUM) Committee and splitting the Academic and Welfare Officer position into two roles. Langrish added: “Please vote for it, otherwise I’ve wasted quite a bit of time.”
The proposed changes to the constitution can be found at this link.
Next up was the first of Jason Rose’s many motions, which was seconded by YUSU Officers Jamie Tyler, Alex Lacy and Charlie Leyland and Labour Club Chair David Levene. If passed, YUSU will be mandated to oppose any attempt by the government to increase the tuition fee cap.
Rose said: “At present, I will be leaving university with £35,000 of debt, including £12,000 of tuition fees. If the cap is lifted to £7,000, this would increase to over £50,000 of debt.” He added that the current system is “very dodgy and unfeasible for over half of all students”.
The fourth motion of the evening was submitted by Jonathan Krasner-Macleod, and seconded by Amit Sinha, Charlie Leyland and Therese Hermann.
Krasner-Macleod put forward a proposal whereby provision marks would be returned within four 'term' weeks, and adequate feedback returned within six 'term' weeks. If this motion is passed, YUSU will be mandated to campaign for this.
Krasner-Macleod said: “If they [exams] are meant to help us learn at all, to engage our understanding of a topic, to see where we need to refocus our attentions then we need feedback when we can still remember sitting them.” He added that he’s “not asking for the impossible, the ridiculous or even the overly optimistic” but didn’t think his proposal was “unreasonable”.
Next was Jason Rose’s second motion of the night, seconded by Chris Northwood. If passed, YUSU will be mandated to lobby Sinclair Properties and other landlords in York to bring all of their properties up to the standard described in the Code of Best Practice.
Rose said: “There have been allegations of theft, allegations of breaking contracts, allegations of poor management, poor assistance, problems on a variety of levels.”
Though he did not give a speech last night, YUSU Societies and Communications Officer Rory Shanks has expressed his support for the motion. He said: “This is a great chance for students to let us know what they think about some of the local companies with which we deal.”
Rose then took the stage again to submit a third motion, seconded by David Levene and YUSU Student Activities candidate Ella-Grace Kirton. The proposal requires YUSU to label vegetarian and vegan items on the menus when they need to be replaced, and to make more vegetarian and vegan meals available.
The union would also have to consider other dietary requirements and, where possible, provide full ingredient lists for their menu items. Rose defended the union in his speech, saying: “This was obviously an oversight, because so much was going on at the start of term.”
The seventh motion of the night was proposed by Ralph Buckle, and seconded by Anna Appleton, Matilda Sheppard, Craig Martin and Sam Westrop. The motion proposed mandating YUSU to campaign against the introduction of National ID cards.
Buckle said: “Even if you do support ID cards, still support this motion. This motion is against the forcing of ID cards onto students.” He then explained that the current proposals would mean students needed ID cards to apply for their student loans, and all international students would require cards.
The penultimate motion was proposed by Daniel Renwick, and seconded by John Nicholls, Freddy Vanson, Jason Rose, Sanja Bilic and Farzana Khan. The motion called for YUSU to speak out against events in Gaza, and lobby the university to issue a similar statement.
If passed, the union would also be mandated to lobby the university to offer assistance to the Islamic University of Gaza and to lobby the government to investigate Israel’s conduct and recognise the Hamas government.
Renwick said: “I do not believe that YUSU will bring an end to the humanitarian crisis... but I do believe that the small victories and changes matter.”
The UGM ended on a humorous but controversial note, with a motion proposed by ex-Derwent Chair Oliver Lester and seconded by Jason Rose.
Lester was unable to attend the UGM, but he told The Yorker: “I feel very passionately about renaming the Student Centre to the ‘The Matt Burton Dance Hall’. Burton has tirelessly devoted himself to YUSU; he has given students their own bar and he has brought world class acts to York Balls such as Alphabeat, The Saturdays and Booty Luv.
“But more importantly, on a personal level, Burton has been a father figure to me. This UGM motion was York's way of saying ‘Cheers Burton, we'll miss you and don't forget us... we'll never forget you!’ I'm sure every York student will strongly agree.”
If the motion is passed, not only would the Student Centre’s official name be 'The Matt Burton Dance Hall' for the next three years, but Burton would be mandated to lobby the government for a new national holiday called 'Matt Burton Day'.
Rose spoke on Lester’s behalf at the UGM. In his speech, he noted that this would not cost the union money – the sign will not be changed, but 'The Matt Burton Dance Hall' would be the Student Centre’s official name.
This was the only motion which saw more than one speech given, with Tom Scott and Alex Lacy expressing their support and Matthew Pallas and John Nicholls speaking against it.
Scott said: “Many years ago, the Athletic Union submitted a motion very much like this to change it to ‘The Vaseline Centre’. As a result they won £6,000 for their creative marketing campaign from Vaseline. I’m in favour of this because it may spark off a string of name changes and York Sport may get even more money from its sponsors.”
Lacy added: “Matthew Burton is the quintessential YUSU Officer... He has spilled his blood, sweat, tears and many other bodily fluids in the YUSU building, and you can’t go through the Student Centre without feeling the musk of Burton in the air.”
Pallas had another name for the Student Centre in mind, saying: “This motion is plainly ridiculous. The Student Centre should not be called ‘The Matt Burton Dance Hall’. It should be called ‘The Trevor the Duck Memorial Dance Hall'.”
Nicholls was also in favour of renaming the Student Centre, but not after Matt Burton. He said: “I’m not going to say that it’s silly and ridiculous, I think it’s quite amusing...We should have another consultation as to another, perhaps a wider leader, or a society.”
Rose then opposed his own motion, saying: “Come to think of it, this is a silly motion, don’t vote for it.”
Voting for this motion takes place from Monday at 12pm to Thursday at 12pm. For more information about the motions submitted, click here.
Jason, it is not a compromise to submit a motion to investigate Hamas' actions.
Can't you see that most of us do not have a problem with whose side you take, rather we are annoyed by people acting as baby-politicians? Who are you to solve the humanitarian crisis?
Stick to university issues please. If you want your opinion to be heard nationally, write to your MP, that's his job, and that's what he is there to do.
But enough with absurd motions. It is getting rather tiring having to vote for motions that will not affect our every-day lives at uni. Students have begun abusing the notion of a UGM - originally meant for our voice to be heard when it comes to university issues - and have turned it into a medium for self-promotion and annoying motions.
A.
I'm defending the UGM! How is this a far-fetched or radical campaign? It's up to students to decide what to vote for and I'm willing to second and help write any sensible UGM; as Oliver Lester made use of with the Matt Burton one.
There are others that you haven't mentioned, including snooker tables, a swimming pool, cycle paths, lighting on the edge of campus, environmentalism and the many past UGMs that I read at hustings - but YUSU currently are working on things and most candidates in the elections have policies including the above.
Student radicalism isn't cool, I agree. However Chris and I organised the walk for Gaza that £2,500; I have been in constant communication with the University which helped pass the ethical investment policy at Council; have been present in University Senate meetings and represented students perfectly well.
I am used to talking to university staff at full meetings or one-to-one and will represent students. The petitions and marches have helped certain campaigns in the past so I think that they can work but certainly I have said time and time again that the real decisions are made in meetings and that protests can do nothing by themselves. Hopefully whoever ends up in the position of Campaigns will fairly represent overall student opinion, be respectable but firm and get results.
Now that it's Campaigns and not Policy & Campaigns, results are necessary for a good performance. I would expect anyone in the position to get several results before the end of summer term.
"Students have begun abusing the notion of a UGM - originally meant for our voice to be heard when it comes to university issues"
Aris, not true.
"Your wording here is extremely ironic as what you say preceding 'completely wrong' is, infact, completely wrong."
Not true, Dan. I was talking about, and specifically stated previously, MILITARY aid. The USA has provided billions in military aid to Israel and none to Palestine. They have given a reasonable amount of other aid to Palestine in the last year but still have given more aid to Israel. I would cite the USA's involvement as the biggest hindrance to peace in the Middle East (obviously elsewhere but in this specific conflict as well).
I'm sorry Jason but I find this attitude absolutely disgusting. YUSU should put student welfare above profits *always*. As you are a student trustee I'm horrified by the suggestion that you think YUSU should advertise companies that are damaging to student welfare.
I completely agree with Chris.
Besides, the fact that we help them advertise their services to almost 12,000 students gives YUSU a lot of bargaining power.
It would be criminal not to use that power to try to secure a better quality of services for York students - students that certain agencies chronically disrespect.
It makes perfect sense to refuse to advertise and support agencies that have not signed our own Code of Best Practice.
Jason, why would any government in their right mind give military aid to Hamas, when you yourself have recognised them as a terrorist organisation?
Your arguments get more and more ridiculous by the post.
Jason, I would expect some justification for any "not true" claims. Believe it or not, your point is not as obvious as to not require any argumentation!
A.
Agree with #64 and #65, but don't expect much to change if the attitude of our campaigns coordinator and trustees is to do nothing.
University making money from unethical companies? Whatever next!
shameless plug: the attitude of our Democracy and Services officer can change however 
My point was rather that a UGM on that couldn't pass without going to the trustee board and that, therefore, I couldn't have brought it up in spring term. I believe that this is an issue that needs a quick resolution so to refuse advertising would be next term - if Sinclair's haven't bucked their ideas up by next term then I will seriously consider submitting for week 8 summer term. I didn't mean to make it sound like I'd veto my own recommendation as a trustee!
I haven't labeled them as terrorists any more than the Israeli government. Both are killing civilians maliciously, both have broken international law, both are acting recklessly and are working against peace. The USA is pumping money into one side of the war, however.
The point of a Union General Meeting in any organisation is to have a vote as the entire body about policy. Though the UGMs are now online, general meetings are common among organisations of all kinds and have been for a very long time. I googled "union general meeting" and the second link was YUSU... but whilst many companies choose to have them annually, we have them (since last year) twice termly. It is a place to pass policy and whilst the vegetarian items on a menu, etc, aren't really policy the Sinclair's, tuition fees, ID cards and Gaza motions definitely are policy motions. I can't find a source that actually states the reasons behind YUSU adopting an internationally standard practice, unfortuantely, Aris.
Hope that's cleared it up - the main point is that the trustees aren't vetoing welfare things on financial grounds (hence spending money on condoms, magic bus etc.) but would take too much time to have a quick resolution on this issue. Cheers!
Addendum: I, personally, don't think that we should advertise companies that don't meet the university's own code of best practice BUT we can still put that policy through next term if necessary. Hopefully the Campaigns Officers and Sabbatical officers named in the motion will be able to get a swift resolution over Easter, however.
So Jason, you're now saying that that brunt of this motion is to call the Israeli government a terrorist organisation in the same vein as Hamas?
Are you really not astute enough to see the difference?
"There is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. They both kill innocent people for political reasons" - Tony Benn
Is it possible to renounce membership of the union?
If this motion passes, I'm not sure I could honestly still be a member of a union which holds views which many would find offensive and biased in a matter over which we have no say.
Robert Mugabe is also elected, yet his pillaging of farms is not legitimate, for example. This motion is divisive, fuelled by hatred and nothing whatsoever about promoting peace.
I've never been to the middle east, know nobody there and despite doing an awful lot of reading on the matter, can't 'take sides' in a conflict which isn't about winners and losers. To collectively attack 'Israel' is grossly offensive to the many israelis who are not extremist, would not like to take over the west bank, and would like to get on with their lives in peace and prosperity.
I'm not sure I could morally justify being a member of a union which takes a biased stance in such an atrocious conflict where indiscriminate damage is perpetrated by both sides.
Being barred from societies or denied the right to vote for president would be a small penalty to pay for being represented only by my conscience.
This motion is primarily intended to offer help (scholarships, aid) to some of those affected by the conflict.
Secondly, it is symbolically condemning violence from BOTH sides (read it more carefully) and calls for a cease of hostilities and for dialogue between the two parties.
Some people are trying to hide their own unbalanced view of this conflict behind supposed 'criticism' of the latter function of this motion.
The real problem for some (that is, Coen, Taylor and Merry who started a shameful propaganda against it) is the fact that Israel is being criticised, not that it is being 'criticised unfairly'.
The only 'fair' criticism from the point of view of those right wing extremists is a criticism of Hamas and no-one else. Everything else is unbalanced prejudice from 'niche' left wingers.
Dan: how dare you speak about enforcing one's views on an apathetic campus? Weren't you the one who kicked out Grace based on a difference of 8 votes? And how can you speak about extremism where you are the campus symbol of a radical nutcase?
"Robert Mugabe is also elected"
Not in free and fair elections. Indeed British weapons helped him win the 'elections' through arms, violence... and even then he still lost but kept in power! It's not the same thing.
And you think that Hitler was elected in 'free and fair' elections? You drew the comparison earlier in this comment thread, Jason.
The fact is that this motion would mandate YUSU to give preferential treatement to certain individuals over others as far as admissions go. Israelis are legally required to serve in the IDF because Israel has concription.
My problem, anon. (typically spineless) #75, is that this motion is horifically biased against Israel; it's a veil for more deep-rooted opposition to Israel as an entirety and you know that. You only have to look at the people that proposed and seconded the motion to see it's the same old radical, out of touch individuals trying to force what borders on discriminatory ideas onto our Union.
You seem to paint this as being some 'right wing conspiracy' against the motion. Well you couldn't be further from the truth (just look at menbers of the opposition FB group) and it further highlights just how out of touch you extremists are with the 99% of campus that want a Union that involves itself with university affairs that affect them; not trying to make ridiculous geo-political, UN-like resolutions on polarising political issues that a collective body cannot possibly claim to represent everyone on. By all means hold your anti-Israeli, self-flagelating ideas. Just don't put them onto the rest of us or scream them at our faces down a megaphone on campus.
I think the motion wont even have the chance to be voted on. There was already correspondance from Burton, Shanks and co, regarding it being pulled for reasons we have given already.
..and no one is trying to legitimise the PRACTICES of Hamas anyway.
First of all, keep in mind that 'legitimate' and 'horrible' are not mutually exclusive.
Secondly, who has even heard of an 'illegitimate' government? Who are we to arbitrarily decide when the outcome of a free and fair elections is legitimate? Is democracy invalid when it is not going 'the right way'?
It is common sense that Hamas should be recognised as the government of Gaza and it is also common sense that it has employed and employs terror. This does not make it 'illegitimate' - it makes it 'aggressive', 'terrorist', 'horrible' and so on and so forth.
Equivalently, Israel occupies land that it does not own and has also used terror and violence against the Palestinians - some would argue in far greater amounts. Should we also not recognise the Israeli government then? Is there even such a notion as 'not recognising a government'?
Do you seriously not realise that only through dialogue can there be a solution to that conflict? Because this is what RECOGNISE means - don't confuse it with SUPPORT and don't try to act as if you don't know the difference.
The kind of vile propaganda that has been employed by the opposition (deactivating the wall, deleting discussion boards that were trying to correct factual inaccuracies etc.) is simply revolting.
Who would ever expect that kind of shameless propaganda from young students?
"So Jason, you're now saying that that brunt of this motion is to call the Israeli government a terrorist organisation in the same vein as Hamas?"
Wow, that's an interesting opinion you have there. I hope you enjoy it in solitude.
Both sides are using terror to win the conflict. Both sides are using illegal means of attacking each other and both have broken not only their own laws but international laws. Both sides are identical in their actions except that Palestine are killing less people and Israel are using much more advanced weaponry, with US approval. Israel, recall, also asked the USA for permission to use weapons against Iran.
"Who would ever expect that kind of shameless propaganda from young students?"
Are you kidding? The bastion of hypocricy speaks.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report