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.
Voting on the motions closed at 4pm on Wednesday, and the results were published on the YUSU website shortly afterwards. With a Campaigns Committee meeting scheduled for 5pm that day, the result of the portering motion was top of the agenda. In light of the motion being passed, YUSU Campaigns Officers Chris Etheridge and Jason Rose asked the committee to discuss different ways the union can campaign; these options will be put to Union Council next week.
Layram was present, and read out a statement he had prepared before knowing the results of the UGM. Layram discussed the list of incidents on campus that YUSU are preparing, and expressed the belief that more energy should be put into compiling this list. He wanted the union to ensure greater awareness of the portering@yusu.org email address, and to seek clarification on what the university is looking for from this list.
Layram suggested that the union needs to know what would constitute incontrovertible evidence that portering would have affected the incidents YUSU are keeping a record of. YUSU Welfare Officer Ben Humphrys agreed, suggesting that the union needs broad parameters. Humphrys added that he would be speaking to students in Vanbrugh and Derwent to get their thoughts and feelings, and raise awareness. He also suggested that the union could put pressure on key individuals on university council, to try and get these individuals on YUSU's side.
YUSU President Tim Ngwena noted that he was in the process of designing a portering business card, to raise awareness and list key phone numbers along with the portering email address. He also raised the point that it was crucial to pick up the pace of the campaign at the start of next term, to ensure that momentum is not lost.
Other suggestions put forward at Campaigns Committee included contacting well-known university alumni to try and get their support for YUSU's campaign, and to organise a debate to raise interest. Rose and Etheridge will put these different ideas to Union Council next week, and the council will then vote on what they think is the best course of action.
The portering campaign will no doubt be heavily debated again at Council, given the division of opinion Layram's motion appears to have caused. Though Derwent Vice-Chair Anna Claire Younger seconded the motion, and Halifax President Roberto Powell spoke in favour of it at the UGM, Ngwena and Humphrys spoke against the motion. YUSU LGBT Officer Peter Warner-Medley, YUSU Environment and Ethics Officer David Clarke and Chemistry student Matt Bailey also spoke against the motion, and Clarke was behind a Facebook campaign encourage students to "Vote No to First Stage".
With more students voting on the portering motion than any other motion, and 39% of those students voting against the motion, it is clear that Layram has his opponents as well as his supporters. However with the motion passed, YUSU officers are now mandated to support the motion regardless of their feelings towards it.
Seven other motions were submitted at the UGM – including two resubmissions from the last UGM after an error in calculating quoracy. All the motions were passed, although Nightline's motion to be included in Union Council was also closely contested, after YUSU Democracy and Services Officer Lewis Bretts had spoken against it.
Reforming Equality, Welfare, and Diversity (EWD) Committee: 293 for, 35 against, 74 abstaining
Create a YUSU Disability Committee: 327 for, 60 against, 45 abstaining
Include Nightline in Union Council: 284 for, 113 against, 38 abstaining
Campaign to Reinstate Portering Hours: First Stage: 393 for, 253 against, 17 abstaining
Your YUSU, Your Officers, Your Information: 314 for, 33 against, 57 abstaining
RESUBMISSION: Annual Constitutional Tidy Up: 271 for, 29 against, 80 abstaining
RESUBMISSION: Proposal to change 'Student Action' to 'YUSU Volunteering: Student Action in the Community': 293 for, 64 against, 73 abstaining
Ratification of Union Council Minutes (18th Mar, 6th & 20th May, 17th Jun, 21st Oct): 242 for, 19 against, 117 abstaining
For more details on the motions, click here.
Excellent. A strong mandate to take the fight to Hes Hall. COME ON UNI, LISTEN UP AND DO SOMETHING!
It only passed because the majority of people voting 'for' only read the title: 'Campaign to reinstate portering hours: first stage', and not the details of the motion.
Unfortunately, we're now left in the position where YUSU are obliged to actively discourage people from applying to York, there won't be enough time or resources to campaign actively against bigger issues such as rent banding, and the University will be less likely to listen to reasoned argument both on this and on future (potentially vital) issues.
The inclusion of Nightline on YUSU Council is ridiculous. Surely this means every other society and sports club should now have representation on it?
Totally defeats the idea of Council as a manageable decision making body.
Nightline isn't a society or sports club - it's an internal affiliate, in the same way that every other thing (RAG, Volunteering, YUM, the JCRCs, etc) on Council is. However, Nightline is the only one of those where the chair (i.e., the one that sits on council) isn't elected by cross-campus ballot.
The question you have to ask yourself though, is what does having the Nightline Chair add to the decision-making process? What perspective do they bring that isn't already represented by the YUSU Welfare Officer?
With regard to the portering campaign I completely agree with Anon #2.
I am heavily involved in societies and a JCRC yet I had no idea what was going on. One minute I was being told to vote yes, the next I was handed a flyer saying "Love York,Vote No". If JCRC members don't know what's going on I very much doubt the average student with no YUSU/JCRC connections had any idea. The motion was poorly described and publicised.
YUSU being obliged to actively discourage people from applying to York is simply ridiculous!
"Unfortunately, we're now left in the position where YUSU are obliged to actively discourage people from applying to York"
Realistically speaking, YUSU officers are simply not going to do what this UGM mandates them to. This won't be the first time that a UGM is not really followed to the letter.
#5 - I suppose adding a Nightline voice to council would be useful in cases where the welfare officer is a bit of a tool.
At #7. This is covered in the motion too...
"4) To mandate the sabbatical officers to submit reflexive no-confidence motions if they are not prepared to pursue all mandated portering campaign policies in an assiduous, committed, and unambiguous manner."
The York students have spoken, and while unfortunate, the union now has to follow the rules imposed by this daft motion.
I am embarrassed by the prospect of open day protests. But I guess most people already know my views on this motion, so no need to go into detail. 
This is a truly stupid motion.
It mandates the Students Union to actively attempt to damage the reputation of the University.
A motion that mandates the Union to oppose University policy is one thing, but this is a step too far.
Encouraging students NOT to apply to York is outrageous and WILL cause damage to the University. Less applications equals less funding for the Uni and lower positions in the League Tables, and hey presto a 2.1 from York loses some of its prestige and value. Well done Miles and Anna, we'll all be thanking you when York drops down the league tables.
Oh - and this point number 4 is stupid. A sabb should only be no-confidenced if they breach serious regulations or fail to attempt to pass policy they mandated themselves to - not for failing to damage the University. :@
It's ridiculous that if the YUSU officers don't pursue this campaign the must no-confidence themselves! This has never been a rule for any other UGM motion that has passed so why suddenly has it become one for this one?
Everyone needs to man-the-f*ck-up regarding these portering hours! Oh boo hoo... Vanbrugh and Derwent have to walk an extra 2 minutes to Langwith if they need a porter in the night. What about people who live in Fairfax House or the off Campus properties owned by the University such as those on Fulford Road?! I was all for this campaign until these porter-extremists came along and turned it into a something that's going to ultimately lead to a drop in the league tables for York... making our degrees less prestigious.
Thanks, thanks a lot! :-|
"something that's going to ultimately lead to a drop in the league tables for York... making our degrees less prestigious."
Just how has this come to be assumed? The passage of this motion is not only a clear example of a working democracy on campus, but will also show prospective students that students at this University care are not apathetic about the democratic system - whether they support the motion or not.
As for the "Open Day" issue, such "public-awareness campaigns" will not necessarily happen - only if the motion proposals are not applied. Plus, the motion does not state that we will be "Encouraging students NOT to apply to York", only making them aware of the situation if they do. Many students will still come to York regardless, some because they will agree that the portering campaign is "extreme" and they have no issue with the current situation, but some because they will see the level of student activity on campus and be attracted by a University where the students really can have a chance of making a difference.
And if this worse-case scenario highlighted in #10 and #11 comes about? Well, while we come to University for degrees, league tables ARE NOT EVERYTHING. Every student comes partly for the student life, and late night porters *will* be needed at some point in this student life.
Ultimately, the University needs to care about it's current students, before it begins to think about new ones, and that is one of the reasons I voted for this motion.
I didn't just read the title, I read the entire motion. Please respect my decision.
"Well, while we come to University for degrees, league tables ARE NOT EVERYTHING. Every student comes partly for the student life, and late night porters *will* be needed at some point in this student life."
I think if you ask every student at this university why they first considered York as one of their prospective universities the vast majority would say because it's high in the leagues. Degrees from top 10 universities ARE more highly regarded by employers.
"Many students will still come to York regardless, some because they will agree that the portering campaign is "extreme" "- Great... more activists! Just what we need!
This has nothing to do with activism, this is just Miles and Anna being extremist and trying to delude students into voting for a motion that will effectively blackmail YUSU officers into harming the reputation of their own university.
No need to worry though, this motion can be repealed through a vote next term.
No-confidence motions should be submitted against Anna Claire Younger and Roberto Powell at the earliest opportunity.
The union has done this before - in the early 90s. That time it was in protest at a uni decision to block a central venue. At that time the union actively discouraged prospective students at open days.
"At that time the union actively discouraged prospective students at open days."
Trying to influence people's lives in such a way just to make a point is so despicable that anyone who attempts it again should simply be expelled from the university.
This motion will simply kill the portering campaign. There's absolutely no way that I (and I imagine many other students) will be part of a campaign that is trying to damage their own university. This has gone far enough.
Next term, we can expect to see this motion being repealed and no-confidence motions to be submitted against Anna Claire Younger and Roberto Powell for knowingly trying to damage our degrees.
If even 1 person decides to drop York from their top choice of University for an Undergraduate degree thanks to Protesting students telling them the portering cuts will lead to a diminished sense of security, the University basically lose revenue. This means less money to spend on porters. Do you not believe this is shooting the campaign in the foot? I have an inkling that perhaps a few of those who voted FOR may not have read the motion, or perhaps mused over the concequences.
Winston does not believe this is the way forward and gives a disapproving look :(.
Just a point to a couple of comments in the above that naming and attacking people from an anonymous veil isn't really a great thing to do.
"YUSU being obliged to actively discourage people from applying to York is simply ridiculous!"
Firstly, the people who "haven't heard about the motion" have chosen not to be involved. There were plenty of speeches in either direction and anyone that chose to read the full motion and speeches should be aware of the situation. It was pretty well publicised in the media, too, and anyone in the 2,000 person porter group was asked to read the motion carefully. To say that people just voted based on the title is harsh to the intelligence of York students.
And secondly, YUSU isn't obliged to actively discourage people. They're mandated to tell the truth about the situations at York; I would hope that people told the truth at every university! YUSU should be there to say "guys, York is 2nd in teaching and extremely high in research. We're a beautiful campus, a collegiate university, are competitive with sports and have an historic city - we're one of the top 70 universities in the world and have fantastic democracy, societies, sports teams and charities/volunteer groups. Our facilities, on the other hand, aren't very good and the university doesn't seem to want to spend money on either reparations of asbestos-filled colleges or on porters etc." Extremely fair comments and I don't see how it will negatively affect student opinion.
I've said all along that the arguments are blown out of proportion on both sides. I said that I would have written it differently myself but had no real problems with aspects of it; I stand by that still. This isn't the end of the world; with a massive mandate the campaign can continue along these lines and push more visibly than previously.
There IS no "trying to influence people's lives" other than in trying to get an essential service back to York. For goodness sake guys, don't argue AFTER the motion is passed - if anything, this kind of in-fighting and bickering is FAR worse for opinions of York than anything at open days!
I've heard comments from student ambassadors that they will have to start explaining this stuff to prospective students - but surely they should be doing that already?! Surely students should be asking about facilities and the ambassadors should be answering honestly?! I don't see how this motion changes anything except for mandating officers to tell the truth to future students. Please stop overexaggerating things.
I greatly appreciate Matt Bailey's words and decisions as they have been open, communicated and I would be able to argue them if I chose to. The fact that out of 18 comments, 17 are anonymous seems extremely strange to me when the comments aren't going to get anyone in trouble!
For goodness sake we're the University of York; if you have a problem with it, GET INVOLVED. We have one of the most active democracies in the country - write a UGM and follow it up! If you want any help, email jr543@york.ac.uk and I'll feed you figures. In the meantime, offer support and see what you can do to make the University make a decision before February (when the Officers are to start campaigning)!
I would be quicker to believe that the university is so dangerously situated if there had been some statistics released about the amount of people attacked on or near campus. Last year, a few male students were attacked near Alcuin, and there have been rapes in some of the alleyways over the past few years. However, all of this occurred WITH 24 hour portering. Does anyone know of any more attacks that may have been prevented by porters? It seems that the rhetoric has been vague... How many people have been attacked? Of course, one is too many. But how many attacks occurred that wouldn't have if porters had been in the porter's lodge?
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report