So as I live near Hammersmith and so am (pervesely) near Charing Cross Bar. If I use it (I am not a medic and do sometimes venture into it), I would be subsidising medics and not IC?

Maybe given that most of the medics spend their time in hospitals, Engineering/Science/etc. should receive subsidies from the ICU bar on the South Ken campus.

This sounds a bit like Scotland disaffiliating from England.

And next week I will learn English grammar and spelling...

????

Who the fsck is "Atlantis"???

In the good ol' days I could identify the author of every pseudonym author. Sadly, as participation has increased this is no longer the case... (Guess I'm in the same boat as everyone else now, then ;-)

Oh and looks like Monday's Council is gonna be fun. Good luck Barry! ;-p

Well, if we really want to go down this route... C&GCU, RCSU and RSMU each used to get a 20% share of the profits from the ICU shop. This reflected the value of their 'shares' in the venture. Technically the walkway shop is only 40% owned by ICU (centrally) but the CCU dividends have been dormant for about a decade.

(Yes, this was before the ICSM was formed - but it was after St Mary's became part of IC. So the principle of profits from ICU commercial services being directed towards the students using them already existed.)

I *think* the Old College CCUs also used to get 20% of the Union Bar profits. No doubt some Old Git will reply to confirm.

This is the (historical) basis for CCU / FSA representation on ICU's Trading / Services / Retail Commitees.

Zebedee,

Most visitors to this site cannot see it but your IP address is 'gladys.ee.ic.ac.uk' - which is hillarious!

[Gladys' was the (in)famous bar at St Mary's... and home to many erm... 'wet' ICU hustings :-) ]

Just for entertainment I think we should divide the profits from each "Profit center" (lovely phrase) and distribute them according to the number of people from each faculty on campus.

His Geekiness - don't you have a massive project due in on Monday????

If I type "M u s t a f a" in I get His Geekiness... who did that?

After some "discussion" within the Union regarding swearing on Live!, it was decided to implement a profanity filter. This would automatically result in "f***" being displayed in that way.

The idea was to make the moderators' live's easier. The actual effect has been to make our lives a pain because no-one swears here that often and now we have to constantly moderate the rules in the profanity filter to keep out the junk put it in by His Baldiness. (Baldy is still sour about his operating system being inferior and has yet to grow up.)

Hello again,

Hello Mustapha, good to hear from you. Anyway, enough pleasantries. It's worth noting that Sumeet was the only person at Exec (which contains the sabs, reps of the FSAs, Wye, Mines, and other CSCs, as well as a couple of randoms) who voted against this proposal. Surely that tells you that it isn't just the medics trying to make money at the expense of ICU?

I agree, however that council looks 'fun', whichever way you take it, especially looking at the depth of feeling displayed after PA's article.

Didn't I just write a similar article?

Anyhow, the proposal wouldn't be that profits went to ICSMSU Exec activities, rather that they went to improve the area (as well as going to ICU etc). However, if profit from the bar (profit cf. current £12k loss) were to exceed a certain amount deemed sensible for the refurb fund - probably around £10k it could go back to ICSMSU Exec. So only if were to make an enormous pile of money would we see any of it per se.

Sam Sharp

Mustafa

Didn't work for me. I put Mustafa in and Mustafa came out.

The guilty regex in the profanity filter appears to have been removed :-).

I want to make sure the money I spend in the bar is only spent on Union activities that I am involved with. I don't want somebody else benefitting from profits that I personally have generated! There should be a system that ensures that the money each student spends in the bar goes directly to the club/society/small animal of their choice. This would be the fairest method of keeping track of these things and would give futher incentives to students to spend their money in Union outlets.

Of course in order to set up such a system everyone's spending habits would have to be monitored. I think the Union shop & bar should start taking people's swipecard numbers with every transaction (an incentive for the customer to do this might be in the form of a small discount).

Maybe we should swipe our cards when we buy beer, just like we do in the JCR!

Then we could allocate the profits (if there are any) to each Faculty.

That would go down well!

PS - ICU could implement a differential taxation system along with the swipe card system!

Nia...

TO my knowledge, very little of the money spent in the bar goes towards student activity.

Student Clubs are funded directly from the college subvention.

Excess Bar profits primarily go towards development of central Union services (via the Development Fund) - one example of this is the recent basement refurbishments.

Alex,

The vote which took place in exec did not have anything to do with profits - It was to do with structure.

Therefore your argument is invalid.

Hey! I wasn't seriously suggesting that we distribute S'Ken profits on faculty lines... Sorry I came across that way Alex. I was just having a memory dump!

But it is on a fundamental level. It seems that we are regressing structure back towards Medics/rest of IC days.

OK Sumeet, fair enough - you've got me on that one. I maintain, however, that the (theoretical) profits are not the most important thing here. What, in the structure, did you disagree with if not the cash?

Zebedee - I really hope that's not the case. I and my collegues at ICSM are getting on better with ICU than our predecessors ever have (except maybe Shaz, but then she's got the looks...). I agree, though, that it'll take both 'sides' to stop that happening.

I agree with the idea of each faculty getting a share of the profits, so I don't see why the medics shouldn't have CX.

Alex,

I did not bluntly disagree with the structure - I simply proposed an alternative.

Also, I disagree that most of what was discussed was based on your side of the story.

Alex,

Your committee may have a better relationship with ICU - However, I think Zebedee was referring to the interaction between the Medic STUDENTS and other faculty STUDENTS.

Sajini, (in response to your previous suggestion)

Persuade the Union to give the faculty's a share of the profits on other Union outlets (I certainly would support it) - then I may be willing to accept Charing Cross profits going to medics.

If the Medics want a slice of the cake, then they will have to manage the bar themselves. Believe me, I dont think the Medics can do this.

I go to the Charing cross Bar occasionally (not very good anyway). And if the paper is passed, the Medics will build a Great Wall around it and refuse entry unless you have the Imperial College School of Medicine Passport.

Atlantis? Who is Atlantis?

Mmmmmmm.........

"This sounds a bit like Scotland disaffiliating from England."

Sounds good to me.

What's all this about Scotland/England?

For god sake. This is a bar that ICU have not put a single penny into.

Funnding was entirely secured by the medics (me), designed by us, filled by us and frequented by us. ICU were offered the running of the bar under a paper that went to the last exec of Hamish's year. There we all agreed, including the current Union President, to put a certain amount of the profit into refurbishment, the next lot into the medics Sabb and the rest back to the ICU 'pot' - to subsidise their other failing bars. Sen, being the greddy little puppet that he is, wanted all the money for himself, at no risk, so illegally threw it out at the first council of the next term.

Now medics hate going to the bar because of the way ICU run it, no IC lot want to go there because it is 'a mecics bar' and it is now making a loss in the true ICU Bar tradition. The ICU motto is 'For us, not you' after all.

Experiment over, it failed now give it back to the people who deserve it and ultimately can run it a hell of a lot better. Just wait and see.

PS You might notice that I use my own name unlike the rest of you who have to hide behind 'nicknames'. Stand up and be counted.

Allow me to stand up and be counted: the other bars are not making a loss. They are making a substantial profit, abeit less than they should be (though this is apparently improving).

tim,

Stop perpetuating this myth of medic separatism. We wouldn't stop non-medics from getting in our bar. in fact we don't have any problem with non-medics. It's just a shame that you seem to have a problem with us.

PS, We have run bars a lot more difficult to run than this one before with no permanent staff - cf Mary's. Our suggestion is based on Wye, which works perfectly well and is quite prepared to make any IC student welcome.

Alex,

You keep focussing on the Wye Bar - However, the one issue you keep failing to inform everyone is that Wye Exec have absolutely NO CLAIM on the profits the bar generates.

ICU have not put a single penny into the Wye bar either - so why should the medics be treated any differently and be given a cut of the profits?

Lorne,

You argue that you raised the funds to refurbish the bar in the first place - hence the medics have a 'stake' (in economic terms) in the bar. This 'stake' you have was removed by ICU in a couple of years ago.

However, the other three CCU's used to hold a 20% share in the ICU shop. So we had a 'stake' in the shop which was removed about 3 years ago.

Therefore, why should the medics be given their stake in an ICU outlet back, when the other three (older) CCU's are not being handed back their stake in an ICU outlet (the shop).

Lorne,

Why should the Union give the medics a source of income for their sabbatical?

There are three other faculty unions which would be able to function much more effectively if we had sabbatical presidents.

Why should the medics get the support for it when the other three faculties are given no support?

Lorne,

Let me clear up one of the points you made - so that all who read this don't get a biased view.

You comment that Sen wanted all the money from the bar for himself.

To be clear - Sen wanted all the money to go into the central union - so that it can be spent for the good of ALL STUDENTS, not just MEDICAL STUDENTS.

Lorne,

Your argument is invalid.

The medics may have raised the funds in the first place, however you also commented in council two years ago:

'the support of ICU has been crucial in securing funding for the project.'

Which implies - if it wasn't for ICU - you wouldn't have got any funds at all.

Alex,

You comment on this 'myth of medic separatism'.

Can i ask why you organise a packed freshers week for medics - resulting in isolation of medics from all other students?

And don't give me some rubbish excuse like 'not everyone can fit in the union'. In freshers week - halls organise events, and the union organise events - and they are organised in such a way that everyone can go.

BTW - I would like to make it clear that I hope all comments I make do not get taken personally.

I have a job to represent my students - and I hope this will not effect any personal relations I have with those involved.

Why is this paper coming to Council?

Lorne, you make a pertinent point. At the last Exec of 2000/2001 you, as ICSM SU President, brought a paper proposing how the CX bar should be run. I was there with Dinesh's proxy vote (Guilds Pres). Senthooran was there as an Ordinary Member of Exec.

Exec agreed that ICU would arrange staffing arrangements for the bar. (The £600 to ICU for the General and Finance Managers' salaries is part of staffing arrangements and is technicality we need not concern ourselves with.)

Exec also agreed that profits would be ring-fenced for future development of the Reynolds site. Any surplus (over and above a large profit) would go to ICU's Strategic Development Reserve - but could also be used to fund the ICSM SU Sabbatical post (should funding not be forthcoming in future years). A further proposal of yours was that money should be made available to ICSM SU for general use (including distribution to Medic clubs/socs). This was opposed by Hamish Common (then ICU Pres) because if ICSM SU had an additional source of income, it could adversely affect you guys in the thinking of any future Union budgets committee. I remember you accepted this reasoning and withdrew the proposal.

So, the existing policy (passed by Exec 2000/2001) is:

• ICU arrange staffing and management for CX bar
• Profits ring-fenced for Reynolds development
• Surplus profits to SDR (and, if needed, to Medic sabb salary).

At the second Exec (not the first Council, as you imply) of 2001/2002, President Ganesh brough the policy to our attention. He did not 'throw out the policy' but ruled that the bit about paying the cost of the Medic sabb breached a previous Council policy that the Union would not pay for the position.

Last year's ICSM SU President, Shazia Munir, said she would bring a paper to Council to allow the money for the medic sabb to be made available. She never got around to it - presumably because of all the faculty fracas.

So, after Sen's intervention the policy *STILL* states that:

• ICU manage the bars
• profits ring-fenced for Reynolds
• only surplus go to SDR

If this is not happening (and the new paper implies that money is not being ring-fenced for the Reynolds) then the President and DP (F&S) should be given a slap in the face for ignoring Union policy. Not to pass a new policy (which some people on this site don't realise is very similar to the one that already exists.)

Furthermore staffing issues are a matter for the Exec. How ICU allocates staff and whether it has a large pool of bar managers at Beit, or a smaller pool here with a dedicated guy at CX is frankly a level of detail that Council should not concern itself with.

The only other change this paper seeks (against existing policy - not necessarily what our officers are following!) is that some of profits should now go to ICSM SU for general use. I come again to what the Exec in 2000/2001 agreed and standby Hamish's views. While I have no problem with most (not all) of the money from the CX bar being spent on the people who use it most (and contribute most to its success or failure) a 'general' income for ICSM SU would result in it (and its clubs/socs) being viewed unfavourably when it comes to a future budgeting round.

I would be much happier if ICSM SU re-presented the original policy agreed by Lorne with the 2000/2001 Exec (unsurprising as I voted for it). This would not make extra money available for ICSM SU but would help underwrite the Medic President's salary as required.

I strongly agree that there are other faculty unions that could benefit from a sabbatical. Unlike Sumeet, however, I think time would be better spent finding funding for them, not cutting off funding for those who already have it.

Incidentally, the sabb funding issue is the only thing that needs Council approval. The rest is a management issue, best left to the Executive who (in theory) should have a better grasp of the details and can discuss staffing matters without getting worried about breaching the staff/student protocol. Of course, the fact that the matter has come to Council, suggests incompetence on the part of some of those on the Executive.

I shall not comment on the "coincidental" timing with Ganesh's censure motion. However I would have thought that the President's refusal to follow *existing* policy (if is true, as hinted in Tom/Alex's paper) on the CX bar would be a good basis for a disiciplinary motion itself.

Mustafa,

Council has no awareness of such a policy being passed.

Unless you can tell me otherwise, the minutes of such a meeting have not been presented to council.

This brings up a wider issue - As far as i can see, none of the minutes from the end of summer terms execs have been presented to council (for the last few years now).

Mustafa,

If this existing policy exists (I cannot verify this since it has not been brought to council) - Then that implies that the medic sabb is not being funded from the union.

Therefore, the medics do not have a funding source for this which I am trying to cut off.

They are trying to get the Union to fund the sabb - and I am objecting claiming it is unfair that the Union give support to this, given that other faculty unions are not being given the funding for it at the same time.

Hmmm, Mustafa raises a few points. (And thanks for finding the history, i was looking for what had been aluded to but could as always not find the minutes, etc. etc.)

Presumably no oportunity for money to be ringfenced is available as the bar is currently making a loss (If someone wants to actually catagorise that loss in terms of overheads, vs loss on parttime staffing and bear/consumables then please do feel free)

The FoMSA have blurrred what could be a good debate about how bars are run by adding in the bit that makes them money. I personally feel that anyone who is a) so paranoid that people think this is what they want to do whilst b) leaving themselves open to accusations that they are currently boycotting a bar so they can take control is in a really sticky position to try that from.

Like Mustafa says most of this doesnt seem to be the stuff for Council to debate. Exec, or even trading committee should surely consider these things (both boddies on which every FSA of course sends representitives to sit)

It seemed from Exec on Wednesday that much of the argument is staffing based (though i dont know for sure, as i had to leave the room for a long while whilst these matters were discussed.)

Many of the "ideas" i have heard as to how the bar could be made to make a larger profit are things which should be applied to all union run bars! Much of the stuff seems to be general.

There is a solution to the timing thing...

Interestingly, It seems that yet again, it may be a case of comunication being the problem? Surely not....

If you are unhappy that you cannot find past minutes and policies due to the President's poor implementation of the Union's Information Policy then stop whinging and deal with it.

I was looking for previous years minutes, which was proving slightly harder, as it was exec minutes i was after, not council ones.

Time and again we have told Sen to send out minutes. And after the humour of (partially) correcting the last ones one would almost think sen was making them up the day before they were to be submitted to the next meeting. Hmmm....

And as for the 24 hour to web thing, i believe they are all guilty to some extent. though all it takes is a link to a word document to meet the Policy (and then they could stip emailing the damn things out!)

Eddie, (and indeed all)

I'd bet good money that the paper presented to Council has a couple of words scrubbed out. Namely the bit about surplus going to ICSM Exec.

And if it isn't scrubbed by then, my hand is the first to be raised to ammend it. Money to be ringfenced is basically what we want ratified (eg we need to fund Air Con, as temperatures can reach the low 40s in bops) plus the local management arrangement (as Mustafa says, predominantly an Exec issue).

In summary - we won't be wanting to spend the profit on gin&whores for ICSM; just an opportunity to turn a loss-making venture to a successful bar that serves the needs of the customers.

Can't we have a little bit of money for gin and whores though?

Lorne:

"This is a bar that ICU have not put a single penny into."

Not really quite true as you have to a) buy beer before you can sell it; b) pay staff to come and work etc etc I know I'm splitting hairs but given that there is supposedly this whopping great loss over the last term, it seems to me that ICU has actually now put a fair bit of money into it.

Oh also of course, they may have not paid for any of the refurbishments but then however they did absolve the £1.5K loss !!!!!(which occured over the last three days the bar was actually used!!!!, including the final year dinner) from Gladys when it closed and bought the excess stock due to over ordering.

I agree with some of the ideas thrown around here during discussion. The idea of running the bar similar to the Wye bar is a very good one: running the bar like this seems to do nothing but cause severe stress for everyone involved.

Maybe if the Reynolds Bldg toilets hadn't cost £150,000, we wouldn't be in this mess?

If they want a share in the profits, would they be responsible for any losses the bar makes?

Apparently not.

Interesting how an essential argument against medics having their own bits and bobs (sabbatical presidents, bars, fresher's weeks etc, all examples quoted here) is that other constituent unions don't.

A shame then that this sort of attitude does not encourage a culture of initiative, effort and individualism among the student bodies - rather, it serves instead to suppress it.

No it isnt. There are lots of other arguments above ;-)

What is actually important, is some kind of togetherness at ICU. We dont have the resources for every FSA (some people seem to have missed the entire point that Constituent Unions do not exist anymopre) to do there own thing. It seems to some observers that a FoMSA solution to this is to just do their own thing... Maybe there are some good reasons for this (different training format and term times for starters...) but maybe some of the things are just to keep the medics apart.

That last point seems to be ingrained from the first day of the first term of the first year <sigh>

This argument comes up every year as less and less people become aware of the historical precedents.

The reason the then-ICSMSU had a sabbatical President was because Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School had one up until the merger in 1997. At that point, the College agreed that help smooth the transition that ICSM@CXSU should retain a sabbatical president for a year (holding the ICU-recognised role of ICSMSU Deputy President) and that the ICSM@Mary's president would become sabbatical (having not been so in the past) (holding the ICU-recognised role of ICSMSU President).

During that year (1997-98) an analysis of representation across the College was made by the ICU Sabbatical Team. That review (conducted by the ICU President of the day) came to the following two conclusions:

• The total number of sabbaticals at the time (ICU President, two deputies, Felix editor, 2 medics = 6) was appropriate for an institution of ICU's size
• There was a lack of Education and Welfare strategy in the Union
• That the ICSM (as it then was) had approximately 2.5 times the number of committees where student input was essential as compared to the rest of the College
• That were the workload of the President of any medic CCU (as FSAs then were) would comparable to that of the ICU President, and more than the ICU Deputy Presidents

Having taken all those into account, the current structure of an ICU President, three Deputy Presidents (including Education and Welfare), Felix Editor and sabbatical Medic President was created, with the blessing of ICU Council and the Rector and Governing Body of Imperial College.

Now, it seems to me therefore than any calls for change should be backed up by coherent research, and should be constructive and not punitive. If you are then correct, and the difference between the medic FSA and the others is unfair, then lets change the other three instead of dragging one group of students down to the lowest common denominator.

That wasnt actually what i was thinking. i.e. There are good grounds for a Sabbatical Medic President. Wouldnt it be great to have them for the other Three FSA'a too?

At that point one does wonder about our curiously disjointed representetive structure.... There were idea afott to remove a few deputy presidents, and have FSA sabbs insted, but then there would not be the level of specialisation that we benefit from in having Finance/Clubs+Socs/Ed+Welfare sabbs Lets face it, it we could emply a whole load more sabbs and other staff than we already do... if only there was the money.

How about President, Finance, 4 FSA presidents?

E&W and clubs going to the FSAs?

Ok, here is some insight into the location of clubs.... (from a CSC chair point of view!)

Firt of all where do you put the various societies in an FSA structure? Clubs under the CSCs have (with the exception of the depsocs) a variety of members, from all 4 FSA's (even where duplication with FSA specific societies. I accept that clubs and societies in the FSA's care do have members from "outside" that FSA. Mindyou we do seem to have 14 groups of people trying to do the same thing (i.e. administer clubs and societies)

BUT Grouping clubs together of a similer type does help in the transfer of information, etc. and even facilitites collaborations between clubs. This is aided by the structure, that should the clubs and socs be dished out amongst the FSA's would be lost. unless you simply allocate all of one type of club to one FSA... Not at all sure how it could work.

Having said all that, i can understand how many societies prefer to stay with the FSA. Be it a matter of tradition (sometimes this can actually be important to a club) or if its because (and i can only think of this being so in the medics' case) because this gives them the support when they need it (whilst the rest of us shut down for the holiday)

Would it be possible to put E&W into the FSA's (tottally, and have nothing at ICU?) presumably this is how it was pre DP(E&W), so presumably its been trued and didnt work?

From the E&W perspective, in my experience (admittedly not much), problems usually get handled by the year reps or people sort them out themsleves (there is a lot of duplication - personal, course reps, faculties, ICU). In theory it takes failure at a personal, year, course and faculty level before a problem re-education gets to ICU.

Most of the problems could be handled by the faculties. For the big ones (I'm going to get kicked out of college because I...) then it is either handled by the FSA or it goes to el presidente (who has admittedly a lot on his / her plate but who has previously had to handle such things).

The clubs and societies problem is more interesting - where do you stick inter-faculty clubs like football etc..?

C&G and the medics seem to run clubs quite succesfully but running their own clubs.

So all clubs would have to be a member of a faculty - even if they are IC wide. e.g. there would be 4 football clubs (for each faculty) and a IC team - which would also be run out of a faculty of it's choice.

Small clubs e.g. tiddliwinks for begginers would choose a administrative faculty and be run from there accepting members from the whole university.

Great plan but the problem is that it creates more work and you would get a high variation of quality - e.g. if medicine ran clubs really well they would see their workload increase as more and more clubs would try and join. Also you loose a lot of the expertise and end up with duplication which wasn't in the ICU only model.

But if Medics want a sabb, as they always seem to want, then I think we should have faculty sabbs and devolve power from ICU to the Faculties.

ICU would continue to be responsible for the overall running of the faculties and for university wide issues.

I think its a great idea - All clubs used to be decentralised until ICU decided to take everything over (several decades ago if i remember correctly).

Oh no not this AGAIN! We had enough arguing last year...

Right, having a collegiate system of internal sporting competition is a nice idea - but it will only work if the sportsmen (and women) want it to.

Anyway, there will always need to be CSCs to cater for clubs that need to be associated with a particular faculty. People hark back to the decentralised CCU days without realising that ICU was originally set up in 1907 as a bunch of CSCs precisely so that the CCUs could share clubs.

Sabbatical FSA Presidents can be justified. But they should be justified on their own merits - not because you say they can replace two Deputy Presidents.

Of course, if you did have four Faculty sabbs, you may wish to reappriase the workload of the DPs - but I suspect you would only be able to reduce them by one (if that).

Mustafa,

you commented earlier that a policy was passed at the last exec of 2000/2001 - I've checked the minutes of this and there is no mention of the bar.

Unfortunately I can't get the minutes of the meeting before that - since they have apparently been archived - so I have to go and ask sen to get them off his computer.

OK, it must have been the second to last Exec of 2000/2001.

( I can't remember exactly when Dinesh 'gave up' and I started going to ICU Exec in his place.)

Two issues, who runs the bar and where the money goes.

The bar is on a hospital site, underneath a medical library and next to a lecture theatre used for medical teaching. So, that medic sports teams see it as their drinking home of a Wednesday night is foreseeable. ICU management doesn't seem to have worked perhaps because they don't get on so well with the medics teams (not that they're faultless by a long shot), so why not let medics try running it. If that's an Exec decision it doesn't seem like a complicated one. It's a medic's bar because it's in a medic's building but it welcomes all students - no different to say the cafes in the departments at IC. Might as well call a stick, a stick, eh?

As for where the money goes, allocating it to further improvements to the bar (e.g. Air Con & decent real ale perhaps) would absorb so much money that other options probably wouldn't come into it for some time.

But, just to complicate matters a bit - if the medics association running the bar turned a profit whilst ICU didn't, why shouldn't the medics profit?

Just my thoughts on the matter...

Isn't this another example of the medics as a whole chucking the toys out of the pram and throwing a tantrum... we want our bar back! we want our bar back! we're going to boycott it until we get it back so it looks like ICU management are s***. what a bunch of cry babies - give them their bar back, the rest of us don't want to drink there if we've got any sense. But lets ban them from the south ken union. that would be a fair compromise.

Ok so after reading felix yesterday i'm slightly confused...why are icu advertising for bar managers to work at reynolds, i didn't think they were meant to be running that side anymore.

There has been a change in the direct management of the bar only. It remains an ICU bar.

And one doesn't need to be a medic to apply for the position, thus defeating the entire object.