Union Council

On the 22nd of November, the Union Council voted to reject a motion forcing the University of Portsmouth Student’s Union (UPSU) sabbatical officers to work regular set hours.

The motion was put forward by a student of the University who had concerns about the accessibility of sabbaticals to deal with student support issues. The motion focused predominately on the role of Sabbs in relation to clubs and societies and the effect that this membership has on sabbatical working hours.

The Union Council voted after a passionate and well attended debate that the motion would not be passed.

The motion aimed “to prohibit sabbatical officers from being members of societies or clubs” because it was believed that this could lead to a conflict of loyalties. The second aim of the motion was “to prohibit sabbatical officers from taking Wednesday afternoons off, unless it is agreed holiday time, to ensure that officers are present when students need them.”

The debate that surrounded this motion had many sportos on a defensive back foot. The arguments surrounded the relationship between Sabbs and students, with some believing that the best way for Sabbs to relate to students was to play sport or take part in activities with them. Others believed that this was beneficial for that small minority of the sports clubs, but left the rest of the student populous with little representation.

Although this motion was not designed to be against just sports clubs the debate focused mainly on them, ignoring any similar debates surrounding societies.

The questions being asked visibly upset some members of the council; some believed that the motion was offensive to the long and hard hours that the team do put in, although this was not the aim of the motion. The motion did not question that many Sabbaticals work above and beyond the hours. Its primary intention was to insure that support staff are available at a time when it is guaranteed that students will not be attending classes.

Through the debate, questions were raised about the privileges of staff. The most worrying defense of the privileges of sabbaticals was offered by both a member of the Union Council and a member of the audience who questioned why, if a sports team campaigned for a particular candidate in the elections, that person cannot now “pay them back”.

This shows a potentially dangerous conflict of interest and has unearthed a previously unknown level of political power held by the major sports teams. Although this motion has failed to become part of the UPSU policy it must raise questions about the role, duties and privileges of Sabbatical Officers.

These questions must be continually asked as these officials, that we as students pay for and expect to represent us, cannot be left to reign without being held accountable.

Although the debate was well attended many of the audience left after the first motion was voted on. In doing this it became obvious that although this debate was the most popular the rest of the important business of Council was missed.

Union Council also voted on numerous other motions including the US sanctions and threat of war agaisnt Iran, Tutition Fees and the organisation of the NUS.