The Graduate Union (GU) are proposing a significant set of changes to the way the GU is funded, managed and run. The GU President, Raj Joshi, presented a paper on the proposed changes to GU Council on 24 June 2002.
It was felt that college MCRs had not had enough time to discuss the proposed changes, so it was decided to ask MCRs for comments at the next Council Meeting which is scheduled for 24th July 2002.
Put very simply, the paper proposes a dramatic increase of the GU's staffing level. The GU currently employs the full time equivalent of 1.2 people to staff the GU shop and perform other duties. The sabbatical GU President is (nominally) funded by the income from the shop. The employed staff are funded by a grant from the University, whilst college MCRs (or equivalents) give the GU £1.32 for each full-time postgraduate.
Under the new scheme, the GU would pay a variety of people of the order of £80,000 per year. Of this, it is hoped that £53,000 would be provided directly by the University, whilst the rest would be funded by an increase in the charge per graduate to £5.00.
The paper is fairly short on details. The main aim (from the 'Resources' section) appears to be increase the number and runumeration of GU sabattical officers, including funding an "Enterprise Director" (at £27,000 for working 60% of full time) who would then raise "substantial additional funds".
The GU's proposal (again in the 'Resources' section) states that the increased charge per graduate will "be met by the colleges in a manner so as not to deprive college graduate bodies of their current and future levels of resources".
It seems very unlikely that either the University or individual colleges will fund the increased charge per graduate, and both policy (as quoted above) and practicalities (they can't afford it: the £3.68 difference between the current and proposed levels is around half of what KCGS receives per graduate per year from its non-entertainment budget) mean that it can't be obtained by increasing the charge on MCRs.
This now gets slightly complicated. There are two sorts of CUSU members: members, and members of 'affiliated common rooms'. Non-payment of the CUSU affiliation charge would result in the members of that common room losing the benefits specified in clause B.5 of the CUSU Constitution: basically, access to the facilities provided by CUSU, such as the the cheap photocopying available at the CUSU offices, and the time of the CUSU sabattical officers. The second of these is by no means non-trivial: the CUSU Welfare Officer spends a significant proportion of their time dealing with graduate issues.
What it would not result in would be the loss of the things specified in B.4 of the CUSU Constitution: the right to vote in CUSU referenda and elections, and for each MCR to send a voting member to CUSU Council.
Fairly simple:
The lack of detail provided, especially with respect to where the new money will be obtained from.
A feeling that the proposed changes move the focus of the GU in the wrong direction. Whilst it is obviously necessary that the GU is on a sound financial footing, the GU should first and foremost be an institution which is there to support students. The paper appears to be focused on money and organisation, rather than students. One clear example of this is the fact that the adminstrative roles of Vice President and General Secretary are defined as being the "senior" members of the Executive, whilst those people who actually relate directly to the students (eg the Ents and Activities member) are the "junior" members.
The question of whether the suggested uses for the money are the right ones: is it right to be paying the GU executive, when many people on MCR and society committees give significant amounts of their time for no finanical reward? Are we actually going to get better people in the jobs by paying them? Along much the same lines, do we really need to pay £27,000 for 60% of an "Enterprise Director"?
Under the assumption that the extra funding would be obtained from an MCR's contribution to CUSU, the question has to be asked as to whether the GU or CUSU would provide a better service for that money. It should be noted here that it is possible to disaffiliate from the GU whilst remaining members in exactly the same way as it is with CUSU.
NB: This is a personal view and should in no way be taken to be representative of that of the KCGS Committee or any other body.
In its current from, the paper would involve giving a very significant sum of money to the GU, with little apparent gain for this money. With the lack of detail present on what concrete gains for us the money is designed to achieve, this seems to be to be close to writing the GU a blank cheque.
Therefore we should oppose the changes.
If the changes are approved and we are forced to make a choice as to whether we affiliate to CUSU or the GU, we should seriously consider our position: it is certainly not obvious to me that the GU would represent a better use of our money.
Philip Kendall, 2002 July 10-11; many thanks to Dave Riley for helpful comments.