Latest News
Union Review
Union ReviewLatest News
marketing & advertising opportunities click the media pack button.
Policy development groups
Membership – Officers, Students, Staff
Frequency of meetings – to be decided (monthly?)
Officer / Staff roles – Facilitated (Chaired) by officers, other officers in attendance, students with an interest or proposal may attend / speak but not vote. Staff secretariat
Review survey data showed a desire among students for UBSU to address student related issues (+8.40) through campaigns led by students (+6.64) and were more inclined to believe that campaigns should focus on raising awareness (+7.91) rather than larger national or international campaigns (+3.87). There is however a greater strength of feeling towards international campaigning activity in both EU (+4.65) and International (+5.44) students.
View: The Students’ Union has had a positive effect on my time as a student (SWS 2007 Data)
The four policy development groups give a direct relationship between the activities of UBSU and the total student experience. By being understood to work in these areas UBSU can easily be seen to be acting in the appropriate arenas, and held to account by all students for our activities.
Following advice / lobbing / proposals put forward from the various student forums, elected officers with staff support formulate policy and advise UBSU on desired outcomes that meet the needs of those groups of students proposing action.
• UBSU only has 4 areas of policy – these collectively encompass the entire student experience
• Policy proposals are put forward to policy making committee (council) for approval / amendment and action
Any policy proposal should demonstrate:
• That it is a real issue and has an impact on students at the University of Brighton
• That there is a reasonable injustice
• That the proposal has collective support amongst Brighton students
This should in turn be supported by a proposed action.
The policy making committee receives proposals on policy and action from the four policy development groups. Membership of this committee is not yet agreed, however it would need to ensure that there is provision for the diversity of student interests to be represented. Understanding student views on this issue should cause us to reflect on any proposed officer roles and how UBSU can best meet the perceived need in students to have named officers representing their interests Once policy is developed and approved it must be implemented. These groups are concerned with UBSU delivering on the policy objectives of students. This encompasses all areas of our activity, across all service areas. This would include, but is not limited to, marketing & communication, trading, advocacy & research, campaign, training, student development, environmental assessment, equality and diversity. These working groups are also responsible from policy impact assessment.
Policy Making Committee
Membership – Officers Frequency of meetings – to be decided (monthly?)
Officer / Staff roles – Elected Chair, all other officers attend and report, students with an interest or proposal may attend / speak but not vote. Staff secretariat
Data showed that students do want to be involved in selecting the best leaders of UBSU (+6.19) but overall hold a slightly negative opinion as to whether elections actually produce the most effective leaders for UBSU (-0.11), again with negative feeling being expressed corresponding to age or level of study. (PG research -2.78). The sense that once elected officers can be trusted to make decision on behalf of students was not overwhelmingly positive (+1.51) and the idea that the current AGM is something that is desirable to participate in , again is not well received (-2.16).
Looking at attitudes to current officer ability to effectively represent student needs, 17.5% of students did not have a view. Of those that did express a view the result was a less than comforting (-0.23), with the lowest perception being felt in students over the age of 30 (-1.79). There was higher, if not huge support for the idea that UBSU should be run by officers (+1.61).
There was a very strong preference for the Chair of Council, or a similar role, charged specifically with holding other UBSU officers to account (+5.28). There also seems to be preferences for named representatives reflecting either School +3.2 (range -1.59 Chelsea to +6.25 Service Management), faculty (+3.06) or campus (+4.45). There was specifically not any appetite for a Religious Affairs Officer (-1.8). With the exception of Women’s officer -0.08 (male -0.49 female +0.12) officer roles that reflected specific communities were most desirable for members of those communities. Specifically Mature students +1.66 overall rising to + 5.18 in those aged over 30 and Ethnic minorities rep +1.55 overall rising to +5.45 in the Asian community and +8.33 in the black community, International students rep +2.98 overall rising to 7.92 for EU students and +8.03 in other international students or Postgraduate rep +2.12 overall rising to +5.87 with PG taught students and +10 (small sample) in post grad research students.
Referenda
Referenda can be called either by students or UBSU to create policy on any issue affecting the student experience. Referenda were not discussed in the review surveys. However, as previously discussed, students have indicated a strong preference for UBSU activities to be student led. A referenda facility clearly meets this need.
Working groups / service areas
Bookmark with:
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
reddit
StumbleUpon
|