I can't see any justification for an SSP if the Union is no longer an employer. Protecting the Union from employment legislation disputes was the whole point of it.

Bloody hell, someone's got too much free time. I thought everyone was happy with the latest changes in the SSP at the last Trustee Board, evidently not, which is sad to see.

Is an employee of College working for say, the Department of Earth Sciences and Engineering, and has the Head of Department as a line manager, although employed by the College not still an employee of the Department of Earth Sciences and Engineering?

C.

No

Are the various parts of the College separate financial entities under any circumstances?

i.e. does the union still have a separate financial entity or is it now inextricably tied to the College financially?

Live! has been informed of a new interpretation of the Staff-Student Protocol by the ICU President. The interpretation stands as follows until new wording can be worked out:

'Union Staff' are those staff which work in the Union's Buildings or Union Services, regardless of the fact they are employed by the College.

Danger, Danger! A member of staff recruited by College and reporting to College finance division is now covered by the SSP? Don't let this creep start, or before long every member of College staff will be immune from public criticism, at which point we might just as well close the union down.

Maybe Paddy Jackman should come and work in the Union building to avoid criticism. At least if he pitches up outside Beit in September 2009, just before Eastside is due to open, we'll know the contractors didn't deliver it on time.

Only members of staff whose sole line of management arrives at the General Manager should be covered (these are the only people the President has control over, via the GM). I'm afraid everyone else in College - to retain some semblance of independence - is fair game.

Day to day operational management of the new position is still the responsibility of the Union General Manager and ultimately the ICU President so the analogy with a member of College staff who is evidently not working to further the business of the Union is not appropriate in this case.

I guess the big question is this: if *College* finance say, over-ruling the President/GM, "you are to freeze the accounts until x occurs", would the accounts get frozen? If the answer is yes, that should not be immune from SSP. It isn't the day-to-day running that's important, it's what happens in exceptional circumstances and who has precedence under conflicting instructions. Not that I'm suggesting it would happen now, but things like the SSP have to be written by thinking of every situation which could occur, and that's a definite possibility at some point.

From what I can remember the finance regs make the procedure for freezing an account quite clear and that the decision rests with the DPFS/President.

If the College really wanted to f**k the Union over I think they have far better cards they could play than freezing a subset of the Union account. For example witholding the subvention is always a nuclear option that the College (as the Union's main funder) has.

Yes, but the accounts being frozen may not be merely those of a subset of the Union such as a club or society, but the Union's accounts themselves meaning ALL accounts would be frozen, that would be just as effective as withholding subvention but involve far less paperwork and would be easier for them to do (they can't easily withdraw the subvention once they have paid it, they could easily just stop us accessing it by freezing all our accounts).

This is precisely the dangerous situation that needs to be avoided. Perhaps the preliminary interpretation should be challenged for clarification.

College cannot freeze the Union accounts.

The finance department can, and the finance department is effectively run by college.

No it isn't it.

Is anybody actully running the finance department?

The subvention gets paid in monthly installments so it is very easy to turn off that tap.

Oh and technically the College can throw the Union out of Beit Quad if it can claim it has a better use for the building. Stop wasting sabbs time with your stupid conspiracy theories that only serve to inflate your own egos. I'm sure that Jen and her team have better things to do with their time than worry about superficial amendments to the SSP as a result of contrived articles written by

disgruntled hacks.

The subvention gets paid in monthly installments so it is very easy to turn off that tap.

Oh and technically the College can throw the Union out of Beit Quad if it can claim it has a better use for the building. Stop wasting sabbs time with your stupid conspiracy theories that only serve to inflate your own egos. I'm sure that Jen and her team have better things to do with their time than worry about superficial amendments to the SSP as a result of contrived articles written by

disgruntled hacks.

Whether or not it is controlled by College is the crux of the matter really, and also affects how the SSP should be modified.

The Union's finance department, according to the previous job advert, reports to both College finance and the Union GM. If College management, for some reason, decided it wanted to freeze the union's accounts against the wishes of the union, could it do so without too much grief? I'm not talking about day-to-day running, where the union is in control, I'm talking about exceptional circumstances. If it couldn't, then SSP should apply to finance as College has no say in what they do. If College could override the union, then SSP should not apply.

The union is *supposed* to be able to run from its reserves if the subvention was turned off in any given month. I can't remember the length of time it should be able to run for, but its at least a few months (if clubs are prevented from spending money). This is covered in the risk register the Trustee Board has.

Eviction from Beit Quad would also generate a lot of paperwork and various other problems with academics at management meetings etc.

It's all very well assuming that things will run in a fair and sensible manner, which they very often do. But what happens when someone decides to screw you over?

I hate constitutions, regulations and the code of practice. They are only needed when things go wrong, and must be written with that in mind - should we just scrap the space agreement because we trust College not to screw us and build a coffee bar where the RCSU office is?

An agreement drawn up on the assumption that everything works ok would be a blank sheet of paper.

The subvention gets paid in monthly installments so it is very easy to turn off that tap.

Oh and technically the College can throw the Union out of Beit Quad if it can claim it has a better use for the building. Stop wasting sabbs time with your stupid conspiracy theories that only serve to inflate your own egos. I'm sure that Jen and her team have better things to do with their time than worry about superficial amendments to the SSP as a result of contrived articles written by

disgruntled hacks.

Freezing of accounts:

In reality, it would be quite difficult for College to effectively halt use of the Union accounts - although the subvention is paid monthly and could be turned off, our staff are also paid through the College bank account and only later does College invoice for the money paid out; if they unilaterally halt subvention payments any effect would be negated by still paying the workers (and if they stopped doing that, ther'd be some serious firewoks!).

However, coming back to the joy of constitutions and the like;

College Statute 10 - ICU shall be treated as an integral part of the College, governed by IT'S OWN constitution approved by College Council.

ICU Constitution - "80. The President is responsible through the Trustee Board to the Imperial College Council for the finances of the Union."

There are provisions for the reporting of potential or actual irregularities in the finances, but nowhere are Finance staff (either Colege or Union) empowered with a general 'freezing' ability.

The important point to remember is that the staff are there to _advise_ nad support the Officers; not to control the Union. If they are taking decisions that are not sanctioned by policy, then they're out of order and acting beyond their job descriptions.