UCL ACADEMIC STAFF COMMON ROOM
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
MINUTES
Tuesday 22nd November 2011, 6.00 p.m.
Present:
Committee – 11: Steve Miller (in the Chair), John Brodholt, Martin Butcher, Peter Cadley,
Ruth Dar, Roger Flower, Diana Manuel, Frank Penter (Hon. Treasurer), Talvinder Sihra,
Richard Simons (Hon. Secretary), Jane Spender (Manager);
Other ASCR members – 64
Apologies: Committee – Bob Barber, Julie Rolls, David Smith
1. Welcome and apologies for absence
Steve Miller welcomed everyone to the meeting, introduced Richard Simons (Hon.
Secretary), Frank Penter (Hon. Treasurer) and Jane Spender (Manager) and noted the
apologies from absent Committee members. He reminded the meeting that, because of
concerns about a possible occupation, the AGM due in November 2010 had been
postponed. This had turned out to be fortunate: in December the Committee had found
out by the back door that the Masterplan had designs on the Housman Room; there had
then been time for meetings and discussions about it; and there had been a very good
discussion of the matter at the AGM when it was held in February.
2. Minutes of the last meeting, 9th February 2011
There were no comments on the Minutes of the last meeting, and they were approved and
signed as a true record. Matters arising would be dealt with under Any Other Business.
3. Annual Report
Richard Simons’s Report on behalf of the Committee had been circulated at the start of
the meeting (Annex 2). The report covered the Committee’s work over the past ten
months, much of which covered the same ground each year, for example working with
Chartwells, and could be read in the printed Committee report. However, its main
activities, and those of its sub-committees, had been focused on the Masterplan. At the
AGM in February 2011 there had been a lively debate with Andrew Grainger, Director of
Estates. It was clear to all that the proposal to move the ASCR to 25/26 Gordon Square
was not appropriate; this had been put to Rex Knight, VP Operations, with little response.
With David Colquhoun’s help an online petition had been created, which had been signed
by 1,174 people and then presented to the Provost. Its strongest aspect lay in the
signatories’ personal statements stressing the importance of the Housman Room in
furthering UCL’s interests in a wide variety of ways, and in helping in the development of
their own careers.
Effectively there had been little further information about the Masterplan; his own
impression from the latest version to be posted on the UCL website was that it no longer
contained such a clear view on relocating the ASCR. Logic said that the ASCR should stay
in the Housman Room, and members were clear that this was the best place for it and
that relocating it would entail a huge waste of money. The Provost had told him recently
that the ASCR would not be leaving the Housman Room yet, and later, in an e.mail, that
the future location of the common room was subject to discussion, and back with Andrew
Grainger. Further information was awaited.
A minor undercurrent to the Masterplan was the Committee’s proposal to change the
membership criterion. Five years previously, after much debate, the AGM had agreed that
1
membership should no longer be restricted to academic and academic-related staff but
should be open to UCL staff of Grade 7 and above. That had produced some anomalies,
and the Committee was now proposing a further change which would open membership to
all UCL staff.
The Committee had been approached by Development on behalf of the World Olympian
Association, which was seeking a prestigious venue as a base for its members during the
period of the Olympic Games. The request had come from an alumnus who was major
donor to UCL. The Committee had taken the view that it would be desirable to co-operate
on this, and the ASCR would therefore be locating to the Garden Room for the duration.
June Hedges asked whether the ASCR was receiving any payment from the WOA for use
of the room. Frank Penter explainied that as compensation for being co-operative £1,000
would be received from Development; the ASCR specifically had not charged a hiring fee,
and had not therefore set a precedent.
Geoffrey Hosking pointed to the need for constant vigilance: a Masterplan proposal to
relocate the ASCR might come up at very short notice, and the Committee and members
must be prepared. In response, Richard quoted from the Provost’s e.mail: To clarify the
situation, the future location of a staff common room isn’t dealt with in the published
version of the Masterplan because it remains work in progress. I understand from Andrew
Grainger that opinion will be further tested as to the desirable options, and you will recall
that my own ambition has throughout been to enhance, not diminish, the quality and scale
of faciltities available to staff. What the ASCR thought was an enhancement might not be
the Provost’s view, but he himself believed that if the ASCR were to be moved, it would be
to another significant space.
Frances Lefford warned that UCL had its own way of arranging things, and Estates might
closely watch the ASCR’s use of the Garden Room and act accordingly – it was essential
not to take UCL’s word on anything unless it was in writing.
Steve emphasised that the temporary move to the Garden Room was a one-off; there was
no way in which the ASCR could be fitted into the Garden Room except on a brief
temporary basis in August – its membership was far too large for any permanent
residence there. The further point was made that had the Housman Room not been the
home of the ASCR, it would not have been available to the WOA during the Olympics. In
answer to a question about the facilities of the Garden Room, Jane Spender said that it
had a number of advantages over the Haldane Room, to which the ASCR had decamped
for two months during the Housman Room refurbishment in the summer of 2009: there
was a pantry with running water, a fridge and a serving-hatch; the floor area was larger,
and the room opened straight on to the Japanese Garden.
Steve concluded by saying that the ASCR had strength in numbers. He thanked everyone
for signing the petition – 1,174 responses as against 45 to the Masterplan consultation.
4. Treasurer’s Report
Frank Penter said he had nothing to add to his written report. There had been no
surprises, and and he was happy with the 2010–2011 finances. The differences between
the budget line and actual income and expenditure arose from a few payments falling into
the wrong year as the result of problems with the ASCR’s transfer to the new system on
FIS; these had now been resolved. Steve added that the mainstay of the ASCR’s income
came from the subscriptions paid by the membership fees, which had increased in
numbers over the past few years. It was a great space, with wonderful facilities.
The Treasurer’s Report was accepted without further discussion.
2
5. Election of Committee for the year 2011–2012
Steve said that the Committee was hard-working and efficient, with a number of subcommittees, and had put in particular effort over the Masterplan.
The Constitution provided for an elected Committee of 20, including the three officers. All
current members of the Committee were willing to stand for re-election (Bob Barber, John
Brodholt, Martin Butcher, Peter Cadley, Ruth Dar, Roger Flower, Diana Manuel, Steve
Miller, Frank Penter, Julie Rolls, Talvinder Sihra, Richard Simons, David Smith). No
nominations had been received before the AGM.
There were no nominations from the floor, and the existing Committee was unanimously
re-elected en bloc. Members were invited to propose themselves or others after the
meeting.
6. Appointment of Honorary Auditors for the year 2011–2012
This role had been fulfilled by Gordon Kenshole for some years, and although unable to be
present at the AGM he had told Frank Penter that he was happy to continue in it. The
Constitution provided for two Honorary Auditors, and Frank invited nominations from the
floor. None were forthcoming. Gordon Kenshole was unanimously re-elected, and
members were invited to propose themselves as an additional Hon. Auditor after the
meeting.
7. Proposed changes to the eligibility for membership of the ASCR
Motion 1: to approve the widening of eligibility of membership to all categories of UCL
staff (Annex 4):
Steve Miller suggested that the discussion should focus on the principle involved, rather
than on re-drafting the wording of the proposed revisions. Anyone opposed to the
proposal was invited to speak; minor wording changes should be sent to Jane Spender
after the meeting.
Article 1, Definition
from:Article 1, Definition (old):
The Academic Staff Common Room is an association of members of the
academic and related staff, together with the rooms customarily provided for
their exclusive use during hours agreed from time to time with the College.
to: Article 1, Definition (new):
The Academic Staff Common Room is an association of members of
staff of UCL, open to all staff on payment of an annual subscription
fee determined at a General Meeting. The Association occupies
rooms customarily provided for members’ exclusive use. Its aims
are to enhance the academic and collegial focus of UCL and to
promote collegiality at all levels.
Steve explained that the Committee believed that the ASCR Constitution should not only
contain a statement of aims in the Definition, but that this should include the principle of
collegiality. There were no objections to the proposal, which was accepted unanimously.
Article 2, Membership
from: Article 2a (old):
2a. Membership is open to current and retired members of the academic
staff and other staff of Grade 7 and above. Other members of the College
community and staff of other institutions whom the Committee considers to
3
have an equivalent status may be invited by the Committee to become
members.
to:
Article 2a (new):
2a. Membership is open to current members of staff. Members of
the ASCR may continue their membership on their retirement. Staff
of other institutions may be invited by the Committee to become
members.
Article 2 related to membership, setting out who might join. On the basis of the purpose
now incorporated into Article 1, the Committee believed that all staff employed by UCL
who wanted to be part of the ASCR should be able to join. The current limitation to those
on Grade 7 and above was anomalous: there were staff members on lower grades who as
part of the academic community clearly wanted to join and should be able to do so.
A number of points were made from the floor. There was a request that the wording of the
revised Article 2a should make clear that Honorary staff members were also eligible to
become ASCR members, and this was agreed. In response to a question about the
implications of the proposed change in terms of increased numbers, Jane Spender said
that currently just on 26 per cent of those eligible to join were ASCR members, many of
whom came in irregularly or only rarely; on this basis, although there would be some
increase the Committee did not expect a significant change in the culture of the room and
the way it functioned. Richard Simons added that Estates had set up a working group on
the provision of social facilities; if more people joined the ASCR, Estates would need to
ensure the provision of social space for them.
The proposal on Article 2a, to be amended to clarify the status of Honorary staff members,
was agreed, with 1 abstention.
Article 3, Guests
from: Article 3b (old):
3b. Except by permission of an Officer of the Committee, guests shall not be
members of the College community who are either not eligible for
membership or who have declined membership. However, members of the
College community, except for undergraduates and those who have declined
membership, may occasionally be invited as guests in the evening only into
the Housman Room.
to:
Article 3b (new):
3b. Except by permission of an Officer of the Committee, staff
members of UCL who choose not to be members of the ASCR may not
normally be admitted. However, non-members, with the exception
of undergraduates, may on occasion be invited into the Housman
Room as guests after 3.00 pm.
The point was made from the floor that the phrasing of the revised Article 3b was difficult
to grasp. Martin Butcher said that the lack of clarity had been by mistake: the
article had been revised in light of the proposal, just agreed by the meeting, to open
membership to all staff employed by UCL. It was intended to state quite simply the
principle that those staff members, now all eligible to join, who chose not to do so should
not then be able to use the facilities. The word ‘normally’ had been included to allow for
the very rare occasion when it was felt necessary to allow such a non-member in. It was
agreed to delete the second sentence.
In answer to a question about guests who could be invited in, Steve confirmed that these,
as always, could include academics and colleagues from outside UCL, and that the rules
allowed each member to bring in up to 6 guests at a time. Sally Price suggested that
4
post-docs, until now only able to come in to the Housman Room as guests, should be
encouraged to join.
The proposed revision of Article 3b, incorporating the clarification earlier agreed, was
passed unanimously.
Motion 2. To bring the wording of the Constitution into line with current practice (Annex
5):
Changes were proposed to Articles 2b, 2c, 3c, 4, 5a, 5d and 6
The proposed changes were set out in Annex 5, which was among the papers distributed
to the meeting, and were an attempt to bring the wording of the Constitution up to date;
it was hoped that none of the revisions deviated from the intentions of the Constitution as
it now stood. Steve Miller again requested that the discussion should focus on any major
objections; suggested improvements to the wording should be sent to Jane Spender after
the meeting.
This was agreed, and there being no objections to the principle of the proposal, it was
unanimously accepted.
8.
Motion 3:
To increase subscriptions from £25 to £30 per year (Annex 6):
Frank Penter reminded the meeting that, as he had mentioned in his written report to the
February 2011 AGM , the proposed increase was essentially an increase in line with
inflation over the past five years: the Committee believed it preferable not to increase the
subscription bit by bit over the years. Lesley Bugden suggested an amendment doubling
the subscription to £50, which would enable the Committee to give the membership better
value for their fee; this was seconded by Debs Furness. It was pointed out that such an
increase would discriminate against the very people the meeting had agreed to open the
ASCR to. Frank said that such an increase would bring in too much money: it was
essential to retain a certain level of reserve as a matter of prudence, but beyond that
funds needed to be spent, and while no one yet knew what was going to happen to the
ASCR it would be unwise to allow them to build. Once it was clear what the future would
hold, major expenditure might be needed and in that case additional funds would be
sought from the members. He would be preparing a 5-year budget for the Committee to
consider during the summer term, by which time it was hoped to have more information
on the future.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the Motion carried, with 1 vote against and 3
abstentions.
There being no other business, the meeting closed at 7.10 and was followed by the social
event.
5