NUS Conference 2008 -> Change Was Not Chosen

The first item on the agenda of NUS Conference was Constitutional Ratifications - more specifically, the delegates were asked to ratify the brand new Constitution and Governance structures that were voted on back at the Extraordinary Conference in December. You can read more about the Extraordinary Conference in my December blog.

Basically, we were starting with the most important debate that would occur during the entire Conference. The NUS were basically trying to achieve what we achieved during our Referendum - only on a national scale!

Upon arriving, the Winter Gardens were swamped with Orange t-shirt-wearers (supporting the change) and Green t-shirt wearers (rejecting the change) - it was like being trapped in a box of tic-tacs.

The new changes would have improved the NUS exponentially and the advantages included the following:-

• We would have had a full-time Vice-President for Union Development and Society & Citizenship - replacing the age-old & expired positions of Treasurer & Secretary.
• Zone Conferences would have been created. Each Zone will focus on a different issue: Higher Education, Further Education, Welfare, Society & Citizenship and Union Development.
• These Zone Conferences would have been smaller and more informal. Students can debate in workshops, gather evidence and construct more careful motions to be submitted to Annual Conference.
• The Zones would therefore have been more accessible to new members, Unions can collaborate on policy and contentious issues can be resolved in debate before the motions even reached Conference.
• There would have been a separation of powers between the political decision-making NEC and the financial/legal decision-making of the Trustee Board.
• Lay members would have been present on the Trsutee Board to provide experience and knowledge of diverse areas of charity and business.
• The new structure would have had a full-time International Students' Officer, part-time roles for Mature & Part-time Students and a taskgroup dedicated to ARAF work.

These changes would have been phenomenal for students everywhere in the UK and most of the delegates (64%) wanted change. However, a Constitutional change such as this requires a two-thirds majority and the changes fell by a mere twenty votes.

Most disgracefully, delegates from certain Universities were mandated to vote 'Yes' yet they voted 'No' anyway. Had they followed their mandates then change would have been chosen. This behaviour was shameful.

Nevertheless, I read the rhetoric of those Green t-shirt wearing students who were rejecting the new Governance proposals and they disagreed with the following:-

• NUS Conference would have been reduced from three days to just one.
• The Trustee Board is comprised of 42% external lay members.
• Decisions at each Zone Conference would be judged by a small group of people called the Zone Committee, which the opposers feel is unaccountable.
• They also felt strongly that delegates should be elected by cross-campus ballot, even in small FE colleges.
• Finally, they opposed their being no liberation representation on the Trustee Board.

But anyway, what is done is done. The changes fell by a mere twenty votes. However, there is no need to go back to the drawing board - because shortly after the ratification fell, there was a motion to decide whether we are still happy with the proposed structures and this motion passed (because we didn't need a two-thirds majority for this vote so the opposers couldn't scrape a win so easily this time round!)

Therefore, the proposal is staying the same and change will have to be put on hold until 2009.

A lot of us would have moved on by then - but delegates of 2009... Choose Change!