Strap yourselves in. It’s a bit of a lengthy report this month…but I hope it’s pretty interesting!  

The semester’s third and final Union Council (UC) meeting was held at 5 PM on Thursday, December 5th, in Lecture Theatre 3.   

The meeting lasted three and a quarter hours and featured much vigorous and varied debate amid a packed agenda, including four new motions and the proposal of an emergency motion.   

Members had a somewhat jovial start to the meeting, with Chair Syed Muhammad Hamza announcing, “Somebody has rightly asked where the November meeting minutes are [previous meeting minutes are put to the vote of approval at the beginning of each UC]…I have been told that the Minutes aren’t ready yet (by a non-student staff member) – so that’s why they aren’t attached to the agenda…I will make sure they are ready before the next meeting [in February].”  

(More) Democracy Review Drama… 

The announcement was promptly followed by a statement from the Chair regarding a last-minute emergency motion proposed to him by Model United Nations (MUN) UC Representative Ben Stannard, which “stated that this council expects bylaw changes, now and in the future, including reform of the Union Council structure, to be democratically passed through Union Council, rather than forced through the board of trustees.”   

Stannard explained to Concrete: 

“On the morning of the fifth of December (the same day as the Union Council), a video was posted on the uea_su Instagram account in which an SU trustee proclaimed they were “leaning towards starting this in January” in reference to the Democracy Review – a complete overhaul of the democratic bodies of our Student’s Union. After confirming that there was indeed no Union Council in January, I realised the only way the Democracy Review could be passed for implementation in January was through the board of trustees – a group of around 11 individuals, six of which were not elected by our students. I came to fear this was a signal that the board of trustees would be used to bypass legislating changes to the democratic structure through our democratically elected Union Council – which is why I brought the emergency motion forward.”  

Offered a response to this, Chris Kershaw, the SU’s Campaigns and Democracy Officer, told Concrete: 

“As with any large change to the structures of an institution like the Student Union, it takes time prepare the organisaiton for fundamental reform like the Democracy Review. It’s clear from the video posted on the SU instagram that I’m talking about beginning this preparation work for this future implementation, not the front facing changes that the “emergency motion” assumed. Sometimes, people like to build strawmen so they can knock them down and feel important” 

The move came a week after the Democratic Procedures Committee (DPC)—a student-led body (elected unopposed at the first Union Council of the academic year) that oversees democratic procedures within the SU—voted four to three against allowing the Democracy Review to proceed to December’s Union Council meeting as a motion for representatives to vote upon.  

Those members who voted against quoted Bye-law 1.42.2 – “[DPC is to] be responsible for development of and promotion of the Union’s democratic procedures, with particular reference to elections and Union Council”* – as justification of their stance. One member emphasised that they were not ultimately against the Review proceeding to UC but believed additional points of operational clarity should be given to the DPC (and any subsequent amendments applied) to be considered a credible policy proposal for UC. 

In response to this, C&D Officer, Chris Kershaw, told Concrete: 

“Unfortunately, the DPC are not doing their job. The byelaw that has been quoted to you speaks about DPC being “responsible for development of and promotion of the Union’s democratic procedures, with particular reference to elections and Union Council” – The Democracy Review text was sent to members of the DPC more than two weeks before the DPC meeting with explicit requests for input, comment, critiques, and offers to speak to me about any changes they may think appropriate. I did not hear a single word from any of the DPC members who voted against it. I’ve also been publishing videos on Instagram, asking for student input, and holding open door office hours since late September to speak to students about the Democracy Review; not a single member of DPC who voted against it has engaged with these multiple avenues of discussion.” 

The UC Chair stated to the council that he would not be accepting this emergency motion as he had “received a personal guarantee from the CEO of the SU [Jumara Stone] that there will be another Union Council in February”, amid fears by Stannard and others that any perceived attempt to implement the DR ahead of this time, would mean December’s UC meeting would be the last.  

Hamza emphasised, “I would not be saying this unless I was 100% sure of this guarantee. I’ve also asked the CEO of the SU whether the trustee board could make any changes before the next UC meeting, and the answer I have received is no…I would have accepted the motion if there hadn’t been a UC meeting in February, but since there will be a meeting, the point of emergency does not stand any more.”  

Stannard responded: “If we can 100% guarantee that this Council, in its current form, is still in place by February to discuss the changes proposed by the Democracy Review and vote on them, then I will drop the emergency motion.”  

Next on the agenda was the approval vote on the proposal of five new societies. Art and Wellbeing, Cosplay Society, East African Society, Quaker Society, and UEA Kilimanjaro Society were all approved and are now official UEA SU Societies.  

This was followed by the Chair notifying the UC that neither a Student Officer Committee (SOC) report nor a Trustee board report had been presented, as is the precedent. No justification for this was provided.  

Chair calls for FTOs to present verbal reports…  

The newly elected Chair then impassionedly requested that the five Full-time Officers actively present their own reports to the meeting. Having been the former precedent until the end of the 2023/24 academic year, the FTOs have not presented their reports to the previous two UC meetings of this academic year, suggesting that this process had become too lengthy and unnecessary. Instead, they have begun submitting reports as written attachments to UC agendas for representatives to read in their own time.  

Hamza stated:  

“As chair, I will ensure that there is free and fair debate and that people who should be held accountable are held accountable. I was told that this decision to change this process was not taken in the Union Council but rather implemented without it…so my approach to this issue would be that the student officers should come and present their reports verbally also.” adding, “If the student officers would like to bring a motion that the reports should not be presented and submitted just in a written manner, and the issue is debated, and this UC agrees that the student officers should just submit it in a written form, then I’m more than happy as a chair to accept this change.  

“And as it stands, I would like to follow the precedent of last year and ask the Officers to come and present their reports.”  

Following the request, Campaigns and Democracy Officer, Chris Kershaw suggested that it was not within the Chair’s remit to request this, stating, “I have had no time to prepare a statement for you…I also think you’re adults and can read these reports in your own time and if you then wish to ask me questions, you are more than welcome to”.  

The Activities and Opportunities Officer, Olivia Hunt, agreed with Kershaw’s views and welcomed any questions submitted to her based on her written report.    

The Chair then refuted these remarks, saying, “As it stands in the bylaws, it does not say that the Chair of the Union Council is not permitted to request the officers present their reports… I do ask, therefore, that in the next UC, all the student officers would present their report unless a motion is brought against it” and added that he had been approached by “various Presidents and UC reps who think reports should be presented during UC”.  

A debate between the two parties evolved from this, culminating in the Chair pledging that he would resign at the next meeting if either the FTOs did not propose a motion or, if not, verbal reports were prepared for the next meeting in February.  

The Conservative Association’s UC Representative and Democratic Procedures Committee (DPC) member, Cody Butler, briefly relayed previous DPC discussions calling for UC meetings to be more accessible to those with disabilities. This was followed by a brief discussion between members on various accessibility issues reported to them across the university campus. Butler also called for voter turnout for each vote with UC to be published once the vote had been cast, followed by a brief discussion by members on the extract terms of this proposal.   

Now, the moment you’ve all been waiting for…the Motions!  

1. ‘Credibility from Day One—Seriousness in Student Union Politics’ was proposed by Campaigns and Democracy Officer Chris Kershaw and seconded by Activities and Opportunities Officer Olivia Hunt.  

Motion summary:   

“To mandate training for candidates to Full Time Officer and Part-Time Officer roles at the Student’s Union to improve the competency of candidates and clarify rules around the UEASU campaigning process.”  

The motion was debated and ultimately passed by UC on the condition that a specific element be removed.  

2. ‘Support the Collaborative Transition to a Sustainable Plant-Based Catering System’ was proposed by Fin Mead, UC representative for the Plant-based UEA Society and seconded by Oscar Welchman, Part-Time Environment Officer.  

Motion summary:   

“This motion seeks to align UEA’s catering practices with its sustainability  commitments by supporting a transition to a fully plant-based menu. The aim is to  reduce the university’s carbon footprint, promote inclusivity, and support  students and staff in making environmentally conscious choices. By collaborating  with catering staff, external organisations, and the campus community, we aim to  ensure a smooth, accessible transition. This initiative builds on national and local  momentum for sustainable dining, demonstrating UEA’s leadership in climate  action while enhancing menu quality and variety. The motion provides a  foundation for systemic change, fostering a culture of sustainability on campus  and beyond.”  

The motion was debated and rejected by UC. 

3.  ‘Gender Identity Fund’ was proposed by Nathan Wyatt – Welfare, Community and Diversity Officer and seconded by Matthew Shields – LGBTQ+ PTO.  

Motion summary:   

• “Just recently Student Officer Committee approved a bid by myself, Thea Glover and Matthew Shields to create a gender expression fund, designed to aid students who wish to transition while at UEA. This is a one-year program, however, we would like to codify this going forward so that future students can benefit from this.”  

There were no debate points on this motion and it was swiftly passed by UC.  

4. ‘To rename the sabbatical role of ‘Welfare, Community, and Diversity Officer’ to ‘Communities and Culture Officer.’’  

Motion summary: Renaming the Welfare, Community, and Diversity Officer role to  Communities and Culture Officer to better reflect the role’s focus and  responsibilities. Eliminate misconceptions about welfare duties handled by  trained staff and emphasise community building, cultural engagement, and  advocacy for inclusivity. This motion seeks to align the role with evolving  student needs and sector trends while ensuring all students feel supported,  represented, and connected through the Union’s work by updating the role  description, implementing a communication plan, and providing appropriate  Training.”  

The motion was debated and passed by UC.  

The meeting then terminated at 8:15 PM. The next Union Council meeting is planned for Thursday, February 6th, in Lecture Theatre 3.  

Full details of UC motions, agendas, minutes and other details can be found here.  

*You can read the UEA(SU) Constitution (bylaws) here.