This is Stupid.

Prospective Sabbs decide where to live very late, and they may not know by the last council of the previous academic year what their arrangements would be.

It's therefore finalised during summer, when Council does not meet.

As Council Chair i was certainly aware of Mr Ganesh and Ms. Munir's living arrangements at the beginning of the year, but no-one pointed out that it was subject to council approval - so it wasn't brought to council.

In my opinion, that part of the constitution (no offense Hamish) sucks. I don't see why Sabb living arrangements should be at the whim of ICU Council, i certainly valued not living in halls during my tenure, as i suspect did Etienne. If sabbs want to live outside college, and are prepared to pay the considerable differences between the "honorarium" and realistic rent costs - then good luck to them.

I agree with Mr Heeps (for it is He) it's a pointless and petty argument - go home.

I suspect the point is that while Sabbs can live anywhere they want (obviously) the Union benefits from having them live in hall, so it is left up to Council whether the Union should subsidise their living expenses out of Hall.

Just a thought.

Trust me, sabbs are much better off living offsite, where issues can't follow them 24 hours a day. The Union doesn't pay sabbs enough to expect to own them all the time.

Besides, they all look so thin- think it's time for a pay rise.

More money for Sen & Co!

Given that a lot of Union volunteers are expected to be "on call" 24 hours a day most of the time, it seems a bit odd to suggest that the sabbs shouldn't be...

Hmmm?

I should think that the Sabbs should get just the annual pay rises expected of them. When sabbatticals have the option in one of the best halls on campus (and, one of the best in this part of London), they should not be funded to find accomodation elsewhere, especcially to escape what they were paided to do. They have been elected to represent the students, and they get paid what amounts to a fair chunk of money to do so, so it is only fair that they should be "on call" 24hrs a day.

I agree with Oliver. Many Year Reps/Dep Reps expect to be called upon any time of the day for advice. This is one of the best qualities you can find in the Union at the moment, considering they get SFA for their work. When Sabbs complain about their workload, they diminish what a large number of students, who give up their time for free, do.

John, They get paid holidays to "escape" what their paid to do. After all, isn't this what ordinary people do.

There is nothing wrong with this. As I understand it, the union either pays their hall rent, or gives them the equivelent amount to spend as they choose.

I suspect my understanding is flawed - else this really wouldn't be news.

At least they are not as bad as one Cambridge Sabb who made the following suggestion:

"salary to be regularised at a level commensurate with the demands and responsibilities of the office (FT 30-60 hpw) and in nominal recognition of the opportunity costs associated with the position; performance-pay incentives should be incorporated into the package."

Link to Source of the above

Surely the point here is that a rule, or procedure hasn't been followed. Whilst Mr Heeps may think taking action against this would be "petty" it would be nice to think that our officers follow the rules, and if they think they're wrong, they change them.

This led me to look at the Constitution website, and there are dozens of points which are petty, but I bet they haven't been followed. For example, the Register of Officers Interests, supposed to be kept up to date by the President and the Council Chair - you don't see Andy Heeps complaining that that hasn't been done, do you?

The rules may be stupid, but I bet they are there for a reason (and Council will have agreed to them all at some point).

So John Clifford and Richard Taylor have missed the point. The sum is irrelevent. But by not following procedure Sen has proved that he holds the Union in contempt; or he's stupid; or some combination of the two.

Protohack said:

"When sabbatticals have the option in one of the best halls on campus (and, one of the best in this part of London), they should not be funded to find accomodation elsewhere"

I presume you are talking about Beit, so i'll just clear this one up...

Traditionally the rooms are located as follows:

President: Nice room in Linstead with a partial lounge.

Finance: Beit Hall, because he is responsible for the day to day running of the Union.

Education & Clubs: Southside, i seem to remember one is in Selkirk, one is in Tizard.

Felix: Beit, because that's where his newspaper office is... duh!

ICSM: Actually i don't know about historics for this, the current one is in Beit, but it's also been in Southside and Wilson House.

• ----------

To Summarise, Sabbs don't have the option of Beit hall, or indeed any hall in particular. The union is allocated a fixed number of places in hall by college - and it (well the DPFS) allocates the rooms as he sees fit. Not all sabbs have nice rooms.

Yeah, I accept that sabbs are on call 24 hours a day, and those who aren't living on campus should make an effort to be there as much as possible. But "ordinary people" get evenings and weekends off as well as holidays, and there are very few jobs where you're expected to be on call *all* the time. Sabbs are only human after all.

Besides, from my personal experience, there were very few things as a Felix Emergency, and although you must be about a lot, you still need to get away more than once a term.

Everyone needs a break, and given the choice between a grotty room in Southside on your own & a nice flat with some friends ten minutes away, it was the only thing Sam, Etienne and I agreed on!

I suspect Sen's made a mistake, but yeah, big mistake. Let's hope that's the worst thing he does all year.

no we don't agree John,

both flats were quite horrible - but at least we weren't in halls.

Hmmmm. Hmmmm indeed.

I remember being at the Council when Mr Ganesh asked it's permission to live out of halls. It was given. I don't see what the fuss is about.

I also should note the line 'details have emerged' in the article give. Surely the minutes of the meeting were uploaded onto the site a long long time ago... why hasn't anyboy checked them?

www.union.ic.ac.uk/council

It seems to invalidate the whole article...

Well, not really, because it's not in the minutes!

And the (former) Chairman has confirmed it wasn't brought to Council's attention.

And the (current) Chairman investigated "a complaint" and found that it wasn't bought to Council's attention. (This included Sen accepting that he hadn't brought it to Council.)

So one has to wonder what interest you have in portraying flawed recollections of a previous meeting.

Are you a habitual liar when it comes to the Union?

Dragon Slayer,

I am a little confused by your message.

Are you actually Hammish Common? If not, has he actually written anything on this 'site'?

I was at that Council meeting.

I did hear Sen ask for permission.

I did hear an answer given.

Just because there was a lack of secretarial support at that time, can Mr Ganesh really be blamed?

Anyway, why is it that this has been brought up now?

Whose responsibility is it to check these things? One would have thought that the responsibility for such things lies with Council. And if Council didn't notice the error in the minutes, then that's Council's fault. Why else does Council approve the minutes of each meeting at the subsequent one?

Could you also show me, please, Mr Dragon Slayer Sir, where it is that Mr Ganesh admitted his 'guilt'? After running into him on the walkway, he seems to deny the allegation against him...

"Suspicious Minds" appears to be being a bit Fran-k, doesn't he?

He'd better "watch" out...

Although it's depressing that people like him who should know how things work are still so naive after a year of such close involvement with the union...

He obviously doesn't have the IQ we thought he did...

I advise anyone in any doubt about minutes to read Neil's disclaimer that appears on the bottom of the minutes of all C&G meetings...

Some suspicious minds really aren't suspicious enough.

Below is an email that was leaked to the press. This is why it has "come up now". (And I don't understand the Hamish Common bit - I haven't quoted him on this topic.)

• -

From: "Heeps, Andrew J"

To: "Edmonstone, Barry D"

Cc: "Ganesh, Sen"; "Hurford, M"; "Parry, D"; "Common, Hamish"

Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 6:04 PM

Subject: Honoraria/Rooms

Dear Barry

Sabbatical Honoraria for living outside halls of residence I have today been sent a complaint that the President has been awarded an honoraria for living in private rented accommodation for the entire academic year.

Union Policy states that: "Holders of sabbatical office are expected to live in halls. They may live out of halls and receive an honoraria to assist with rent, if they receive the Council's permission to do so. No such honoraria will be paid without Council's permission, and such honoraria will not normally be backdated in the event of such permission being given later in the year."

There is no minuted evidence that Council gave such permission this year; Hamish Common denies that permission was granted at the end of his Presidency and in any case makes the valid point that any decision which commits the Union to expenditure (as this one would) has to be minuted for legal reasons.

The complaint is therefore valid. However, I would argue that whilst some degree of blame can be placed at the President's door, it is also fair to say that this just goes to demonstrate why it is important that Council both understands its responsibilities as the legal Governing Body of the Union, and the implications of past policy. This will, I believe, be your biggest task next year.

However - with the case in hand - can I recommend that you raise this as an item of Chair's Business at the first Council in the 2002-2003 session? The policy specifically requires Council's permission. Therefore, you could recommend as Chair that Council both approve the payments for the last twelve months, as well as agreeing to the President (and any other Sabbatical Officers, including Tom Evans) receiving an honoraria for the new session. Although clumsy, it should satisfy all requirements for the auditors, etc.

For the record, I will not be taking any action under the Disciplinary Procedure against the President over this (it would seem petty), but it would seem to be yet another example of officers of the Union having little regard for 'the rules'.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Heeps

ICU Council Chair

It appears that all writers are anonymous.

But some writers are more anonymous than others.

I suggest Mr Arif reads the last page of Orwell's Animal Farm before he becomes more powerful then he could possibly imagine and tumbles from grace in the same sycophantic manner which has plagued his predecessors.

Obviously Mr Francis has been reading a different version of Animal Farm to me...

In the REAL version, the animals looked from the pigs to the humans and back to the pigs - and realised that they couldn't tell the difference.

Like looking from the Sabbs to the College Management and back to the Sabbs - and now we can't tell the difference, as Sen and his Deputies seem to only exist as apologists for the Rector.

Never mind the hopeless, failed, Francis-cursed LEQ - I think it's time for a SEQ - a Sabbatical Evaluation Questionnaire.

One final point - if the Sabbs were paid on a performance-related basis - how much more or less would they have earned this year?

George,

I am a little bemused by what you write. You speak of the relationship between the Union and the College as something that should be desicated rather than nutured.

Personally, I would have thought that students would have appreciated the £20,000 gift for the Summer Ball, or the decrease in rents in a third of the halls of residence, or the continued funding of all of ICU's Clubs and Societies, or the Union's ability to join with the College and obtain nearly £300,000 of public funding in order to boost volunteering, or the funds to pay for staff to facilitate student activities, or the landscaping of the Quad, or the increased opening hours of the Library, or the new Charing Cross bar and ajoining area, or the new student area to be created in Elec Eng, or the relationship built up bewteen the Career's service and the ICU Career's Fayre, or the planned new Sports Hall?

Maybe it's just me.

Call me an optimist if you will, but I'd have thought a policy of 'one hand washes the other' would be far more beneficial to the students here than one of constant objection, pesimism and narrowmindedness.

One hand washes the other? Would that be so both can help each other wash the dirt off before anyone else notices it?

Oliver, I understand that after using one's hands for gratification purposes, washing them is generally considered to be a "good idea". We can only wonder what the sabbs have been up to in a group situation...

A bit late, but nevertheless...

"It appears that all writers are anonymous. But some writers are more anonymous than others."

No. Some anonymous writers are just crap at disguising themselves - making it easy for others to deduce their identity from their language.

"I suggest Mr Arif..."

They also have a knack of making incorrect assumptions about however deduces their identity.

"...reads the last page of Orwell's Animal Farm before he becomes more powerful then he could possibly imagine and tumbles from grace in the same sycophantic manner which has plagued his predecessors."

My recent predecssors have:

• relected, graduated and ended up working for Playboy
• graduated, ended up working for Deloitte + Touche
• graduated, ended up working for McKinsey (x 3)
• failed, then got a 2:2, become ICU President, on to Law School...

Which fate are you condemning me too? ;-)

Becoming ICU President.

Sabbaticals' salary scandal?

Sounds oddly familiar.

It used to be the case that incoming Sabbs needed the consent of Council to live outside halls, WHEN they were claiming an honorarium to part-pay for their private accomodation. This was subject to Council becuase, as pointed out earlier in the discussion, Sabbs needed to be on-hand at short notice from the College's main site (ie: Union building).

That was the dicussion when Sarah White was president at Council. If there is a problem with the current arrangements, perhaps the Council Chair should have been granted Chair's Action at the last Council Meeting to handle this... it's not as if this is a one-off, it happens every year!

Still, you could always two-third fund the honorarium for not submitting before the deadline :)