Harry Giles for Director of Representation

[Harry Giles]

http://electharrygiles.wordpress.com

Hallo folks,

Been a while since I was around here. Well, it's election time again, so it's time to make a visit. Partly, of course, 'cause all publicity is good publicity -- but mainly because I think the vicious "Someone is wrong on the internet!" arguments that can come out of these threads are good for the elections process. It's another part of that whole democracy thang.

Right, here's my 250 words. Says most of it:

-----

After three years of working with the Students' Association, I still want to do more. I'm a dedicated and experienced political campaigner with a passion for real democracy – not just the business of casting votes, but the direct democracy of campaigns, lobbying, protests, action, and empowerment. I'm not standing in this election to get power -- I'm standing in this election because I want to organise empowerment: I want the opportunity to try and empower every student in this university to be able to call for and fight for the changes that matter to them.

I've developed policies on each of the representation areas, and you can check
out my campaign website – electharrygiles.wordpress.com – to read more, but I'll mention two of the key ones. I've been involved for over a year now in the Lower Rents Now! Coalition, demanding more affordable accommodation in St Andrews and for the University to stop pricing students out of an education. That campaign is now mounting, and residents' rights are an issue I really want to push. The other area is workers' rights – we're currently a Union missing a crucial union aspect: advocacy for student workers who are exploited and who have no control over their employment. I'm calling for affordable homes and decent jobs.

Do check out that website – it's interactive, so you can tell me what you think of my policies and read about the crucial issues for St Andrews. I hope you'll join the fight and cast your vote for me.

---

Here's a few of the key policies in brief from the website:

* More affordable accommodation
* Protecting hall residents’ rights
* Supporting protest against landlords
* Revitalising the class rep system
* Arguing for new and flexible assessment methods
* provide advocacy for exploited student workers
* develop a “How to Work” guide and workplace equivalent of the Landlord/Tenant Charter
* equip student workers with the skills for organisation in the workplace
* Hold weekly sabbatical surgeries
* Enforce planning and reporting of SRC Officers and Members
* Hold general meetings at least twice a semester
* Establish a weekly print and electronic representation newsletter and keep an interactive DoR blog
* Hold a series of open forum discussions on key student issues

---

Right, any questions, comments, criticisms? Have a go at me here! Alternatively, head over to my website and leave your thoughts there.

http://electharrygiles.wordpress.com

[Jono]

Unionizing the Union... Nice one.

My question regards apathy. Election turnout last year was less than 10%, It'll probably be about that this time around. The great Irony of the DoR is that around 90% of the student body don't want to hear about student advocacy, democratic participation, or anything else. They don't want to be, and don't feel they are, represented!

With this in mind; What will your tenure next year offer the majority of students who are non-active, and want to stay non-active?



[hr]

Jonathan Davies for SSC Societies Officer

[classydriver]

For information -

Election Turnout in March 2007 was 1939 voters which equates to around 28% of the student body (the highest percentage turnout for student elections in Scotland and probably the rest of the UK)

[Harry Giles]

Hi-aye Jono,

OK, before answering your real question, I'd like to be cheeky and say something about apathy first. I think there's always going to be some people who aren't interested -- so many people are over-involved at St A's, and a lot of people just don't have the time! -- but I do think there's a lot of untapped energy out there. I've got a lot of representational policies (check the website) that I think can improve that, but there's an overarching attitude here as well: for people who don't want to get involved, a motivator is often that they just don't think it's worth it. So one thing I can offer them is empowerment. That means showing people that their involvement has meaning and makes changes. I think that as DoR I can offer a challenge to sceptics.

But aside from that -- well, this is a representational post, so it's like a corollary to posts like DoSDA who really concentrate on non-representational stuff. But for DoR I think some of the policy areas affect everyone. Everyone is affected by the jobs and housing problems in St Andrews. Extending the support, awareness and advocacy here isn't just about democracy -- it's about ensuring rights for everyone, even if they don't have the time and energy to fight for them themselves. The welfare aspect of the DoR position -- helping the EOW Officer look after Raisin Weekend (a tradition i want to staunchly defend!), helping raise sexual awareness, that also affects everyone, as do environmental issues -- something which, as the person who built up the current E&E system over a year and a half, I've more experience in than anyone else in the Association.

So yeah, there's more to representation than simple representation, and I think I've got plenty to offer in both areas.

[Harry Giles]

Hi-aye Jono,

OK, before answering your real question, I'd like to be cheeky and say something about apathy first. I think there's always going to be some people who aren't interested -- so many people are over-involved at St A's, and a lot of people just don't have the time! -- but I do think there's a lot of untapped energy out there. I've got a lot of representational policies (check the website) that I think can improve that, but there's an overarching attitude here as well: for people who don't want to get involved, a motivator is often that they just don't think it's worth it. So one thing I can offer them is empowerment. That means showing people that their involvement has meaning and makes changes. I think that as DoR I can offer a challenge to sceptics.

But aside from that -- well, this is a representational post, so it's like a corollary to posts like DoSDA who really concentrate on non-representational stuff. But for DoR I think some of the policy areas affect everyone. Everyone is affected by the jobs and housing problems in St Andrews. Extending the support, awareness and advocacy here isn't just about democracy -- it's about ensuring rights for everyone, even if they don't have the time and energy to fight for them themselves. The welfare aspect of the DoR position -- helping the EOW Officer look after Raisin Weekend (a tradition i want to staunchly defend!), helping raise sexual awareness, that also affects everyone, as do environmental issues -- something which, as the person who built up the current E&E system over a year and a half, I've more experience in than anyone else in the Association.

So yeah, there's more to representation than simple representation, and I think I've got plenty to offer in both areas.

[Jono]

My mistake. I was referring to the turnout for the November elections. I think that was the figure in the openness and communications motion.

Quoting classydriver from 16:42, 8th Mar 2008
For information -

Election Turnout in March 2007 was 1939 voters which equates to around 28% of the student body (the highest percentage turnout for student elections in Scotland and probably the rest of the UK)

[hr]

Jonathan Davies for SSC Societies Officer

[JohnQPublic]

Harry,

A few questions.

1)Have you ever taken a course in economics?

2) Accommodation
Your first stated policy is to make the University, and I quote,

"stop pricing students out of an education"

...through their accommodation pricing policy. The University's hall system is designed to break even as a system. What do you propose to do to lower prices? How do you propose to force the Uni to do it short of a lawsuit?

Additionally, much of the pricing of private housing at St. Andrews is linked to the appreciation of real estate in the UK in recent years, and the landlords' need to pay off their mortgages, which are simply more expensive than they used to be because the LLs have to borrow more money to purchase the house, meaning their payments are higher, meaning they need to charge more in rent. Very simple math there.

Also: considering the fact that a majority of students in St. Andrews live in private accommodation, doesn't your claim to be able to provide "affordable housing" smack of empty pandering? I'm not seeing that proposal solve anything for people out of halls- much less those still in halls.

More on this below.

3) Environment and Ethics.

You propose to fight for:
100% green energy provision
Ethical Catering, and
Ethical Banking.

All of these policies involve the university spending more money than it currently does on electricity and food. "Green electricity" comes from the same grid as regular electricity, the nuclear electricity and the coal and the gas. "Green electricity provision" just means that the extra bit we pay goes toward "green electricity" projects elsewhere which generate electricity... elsewhere. We pay more for it, kind of feel good about it, and aren't quite sure if we're actually being carbon-neutral. What we're really doing is giving some tech company a sh**-ton of capital to play with. The environment doesn't get much benefit, there's no immediate (or guaranteed future) CO2 offset because we're all using the same oil/coal/gas turbine plants to run our lives and there's the possibility (a pretty good one) that the tech firm will fold, or that renewable energy won't take off, or something, or anything. If you had your way, we students would be stuck paying the tab for that.

Green food is likewise more expensive for the green badge. It's more expensive to produce, and retailers tend to mark it up because suburban mothers and hippies are willing to pay more for it.

What it boils down to is that both of these policies are more expensive than the status quo.

Does this benefit students, or does it benefit your green agenda at the expense of students? Is that right or fair?

How does this fit in with your policy of trying to make halls cheaper?

Does it not appear that you're trying to please everyone at the same time, and aren't really offering any practical solutions to the University's cashflow problem?


...and now on to: Ethical Banking.

"Ethical banking" has been largely discredited as a sound investment strategy, particularly due to the fact that

A) Green funds have performed abysmally in the last 12 months. For an excellent article on the subject read P. 8 of the Money section in today's Guardian (8-3-08; "Red Warning light for dark green funds", by Stefanie Ives and Patrick Collinson.)

LINK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/ma ... nvironment

B) It is a known fact that the current EI scheme the Union is involved in is with RBS; the way a bank works is that they take your money, use it for whatever they want to use it for (Raytheon, Halliburton, whatever) and when you call upon your chose in action (the EI account) they are willing to credit you an amount which is pegged to their "EI Index." So basically, we give them money, they invest it in whatever the heck they want, or by giving out subprime mortgages, etc. (getting a higher return than we do), and they artificially peg our account to an index which they measure with reference to certain "ethical" equities which have consistently under-performed for the last decade.

C) A few conclusions- almost nobody does EI, especially not in a recessionary environment. Signing onto EI isn't "setting an example"- as the above has shown, it's just plain stupid. In certain circumstances (English trusts mostly), implementing an EI policy can even be unlawful (beyond the scope of trustee powers), so destructive is such an investment policy of the fund manager or trustee's ability to meet his duty to invest on the behalf of a beneficiary.

The purpose for being of a university is the provision of a quality education. Money helps the University do that. Green funds perform badly. Why do you insist on supporting an unsound investment policy which does not help students and other policies which are, at their core, expensive "feel good" solutions to very big problems? Would it not be better to let the University try to save/earn as much as it can while developing a plan to lobby Parliament, or maybe joining the NUS so our representation can go through them and be heard by Parliament?

Why not do something effective and useful, rather than useless and expensive?

4) Workers' Rights

Could you please elaborate what you would push for in terms of "workers' rights" in St. Andrews? Students who are "exploited" are currently very well covered by some of the best workforce protection laws on Earth, and most of the work to be had is fairly low-impact, low-paying service sector work (mostly food service and bar service). Is it really appropriate to invoke Marxist rhetoric, used most appropriately in the context of quasi-slave labour in the Industrial Revolution, for students who serve sandwiches and beer 10 hours a week?

5) Education.
You are proposing for a "reassessing the place of exams in our assessment" and how we can "improve how they represent academic ability." Harry: Exams are not meant to assess academic ability- they are, however, meant to assess how well the candidate has learned the material. This is why students don't like them. Most people at St. Andrews are very able; not as many are terribly motivated.

Basically, this idea is patently ridiculous. Almost all reputable universities and higher education institutions in the United Kingdom do what St. Andrews does- except in some places (ie England) they score out of 80 instead of out of 20. What evidence do you have to support a claim that new assessment methods are needed? Do you propose any replacements? Would these replacements apply as much in Biology as they do in International relations?


It sounds an awful lot like you're writing checks you can't cash. I await your answers.

EDITS: Minor typographical errors
EDIT 3: Guardian link

[Harry Giles]

Hallo John,

Thanks for going through the website and giving some of my proposals such detailed consideration. Campaign trail's being a bit exhausting at the moment, so forgive me if some of my answers below seem a bit clipped, though the questions and discussions are important.

1)Have you ever taken a course in economics?

At University, never in pure economics. But the interdisciplinarity of Sustainable Development means that we spent sizable chunks of time studying economics – mainly at the applied level rather than the theoretical lecel – if that helps.

2) Accommodation

Mm, the University's hall system is designed to break even, but in fact it doesn't even do that yet. So if I'm arguing for cheaper accommodation, it's fair enough to ask where the money's going to come from. I had a chat with Derek Watson, our Quaestor and Factor, the other day about the 1000 beds campaign, and he was pretty damn resistant to the idea, saying that we just don't have the money. So it is a problem. If we're going to do it, we need more money.

Well, there's two ways of finding more money. The first is to divert it from other sources, and the second is to do fundraising. UK universities, it has to be said, are pretty bad at the latter, and St Andrews is recognising this and is starting to develop a fuller fundraising strategy, planning to use its 600th anniversary as a serious motivator. Now, a lot of that money they're hoping to raise is earmarked for the redevelopment of the University estate. Some plans for redevelopment are already underway – such as the Library – and obviously funds couldn't possibly be diverted from there. But what I want to do with the 1000 beds campaign – one which is, I should emphasise, already being supported by the Students' Association – is to raise the priority of affordable accommodation in the plans for estate redevelopment. If we really are going to be raising as much money as the university plans, then I want to see some of that going towards wider accessibility – either through scholarships, subsidising, or new building.

As for private housing – certainly rents rise due to UK-wide appreciation. But, although we'd have to research the figures to demonstrate this, I think it's fair to say that the acceleration of rent rises particularly in this town is remarkable. We do have the most expensive accommodation in Scotland. So I do think that private rents are also being linked to University rents – and I think if more affordable accommodation starts being provided, we're going to see a healthy competition that encourages landlords to provide affordable accommodation themselves.

3) Environment and Ethics

Before replying to your points here, it's worth saying that each of those three things – ethical catering, 100% green energy, and ethical banking – are all already backed by Association policy, so it's not as if I'm proposing anything entirely new here: I'm just saying that I think these are the key areas to divert my energy towards in E&E.

Your qualms about what is often called green electricity are valid; I'm very wary of what's called “greenwash” -- when companies use a green badge but aren't really offering anything. That's why I'm not just backing buying from a green supplier, but also extending the University's plans to generate its own renewable energies locally. It's researched and is pursuing developing a wind farm on Kinkell, installing CHP woodchip burners on the North Haugh, and pursuing groundsource heating for Andrew Melville. I want to keep pushing for those plans to be pursued and extended. So, again, I'm not proposing anything out of line with current University thinking: just showing where my commitments lie.

On ethical catering – while I appreciate your cynicism about suburban mothers and hippies (“Tesco Organic” is one of my favourite jokes) – I hardly think retail mark-up applies to food bought wholesale or from major caterers, so I think you're rather overegging it there. But yes, there may well be some increase in price, and so again it's fair to ask where the money's coming from.

In green energy provision – well, in halls, an environmentally-friendly energy policy is certainly going to decrease energy costs. As Environment & Ethics Officer, I instantiated the Interhall Energy Competition, which, while not an unmitigated success, has helped save literally thousands of pounds of energy bills. Green energy is of course not just about buying from suppliers but also about energy efficiency. So I don't see any increase in hall pricing coming from a green energy policy (and I think the University makes the same argument).

In ethical catering, if it does cost more (I certainly know that my diet is cheaper than that of my housemates, based as it is on buying from green co-ops and local farms, but that's not, admittedly, a great case study), then yes, the money (not a great deal, I think, but maybe some) will have to come from somewhere without increasing hall prices. I can only say that I think it's worth it – and it's not just my green politics saying that, but also people with ethical and religious commitments to particular diets who currently can't be catered by the University system. There is exclusion going on there which I think needs to be combatted.

3b) Ethical Banking

OK, this is the area where I do think, frankly, you're very much missing the mark.

For a start, you're confusing ethical banking and ethical investment. I'll deal with the former first. Yes, the EI scheme the Union uses is a failure both ethically and financially. That's why in 2007 I asked Students' Association Board to revise its approach to its investments. Unfortunately that policy was rejected, and I do think we're reaping the results now.

Societies – which is what my ethical banking policy is directed towards – do not have millions of pounds to invest, and are not looking to bank their money to make a profit. So your worries about ethical investment don't even apply here – all societies want is somewhere safe to put their money. What I want to do is develop guidelines which show that they can do that, have it be convenient, and still do ethical banking. I want to encourage the use of banks like Triodos and the Co-operative Bank, which several societies already successfully use.

So with that said, I guess your points on Ethical Investment become rather moot. But since I've been working on EI for three years, I'd still like to reply to them. “Ethical investment” has certainly not been discredited as unsound – in fact it is on the increase. I've read more studies and meta-studies than I can count (here's a good one: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/ab ... .tb00373.x), and my overall conclusion (in line with that of Rob Gray, who studies EI academically at this University in Management) is that there is no strong or undisputed evidence that EI funds perform, on average, better or worse than standard funds – and that the strongest and least disputed evidence is that they perform roughly the same. It is also not the case that almost nobody does it: the UK's second largest pension fund, USS (the one University employees use), uses EI strategies. And, of course, our own University has adopted an Ethical Investment policy – in fact, last week I was working with Derek Watson to select a fund manager for the new investment strategy. So I guess the picture isn't as black as you paint it.

4) Workers' Rights

I like the idea that I was using Marxist rhetoric! Anyone who I've chatted to about politics will know that I'm just about as far from Marxism as anyone can get.

You're right, we are “covered by some of the best workforce protection laws on Earth” in this country. The problem is, most students don't know that – they certainly don't know the details of the laws. So, to elaborate, as you asked, what I'm calling for is advocacy for the protection of those rights. I know people in this town who work below minimum wage or over hours and who are too frightened or poor to do anything about it. I know people who are harassed in the workplace. I'd be surprised if you didn't do. Providing awareness of rights, and advocacy for people who feel they're not getting their rights, is what I want an Employment Officer and Committee to focus on – just as out current Accommodation Officer and Committee provide advocacy for students with housing problems. Does that help explain things?

5) Education.

This is one of my more out-there idea – looking at assessment outside of exams – I admit. It came from my experience this year of taking a course which was not assessed by exam. In my entire career here so far, it as the course I got most out of academically, and I don't think that's a coincidence. Moreover, I agree with the point of your question, and find that not every assessment method is appropriate for every subject. So I'd like to have a look at ideas other than exams. But because this is a bit more radical than most of what I'm proposing, that's why my language was of “researching” and “encouraging” rather than “demanding” or “fighting for”, as I've used elsewhere. Really, this is just a gentle side-project I'd like to have a look at.

Conclusion: Cheques I can't cash

I hope that my replies above have helped with your worries. I certainly don't expect you to agree with me on every or even most of my points, but I do hope that I've been able to show that I do have the knowledge and experience to back up my policies. None of them are being proposed off-hand or without research and thought. Even if you disagree with me, I hope I've demonstrated that I do know what I'm talking about – and that I can at least try and cash those cheques.

[JohnQPublic]

You answered everything quite well, actually, and to my satisfaction- I'm convinced.

I remain a serious opponent of ethical banking/investment from the perspective of someone who believes in high returns no matter what the cost: I'm opposed to anything but the most aggressive and profit-earning investment strategies being pursued by university officials. There's not much you could do to change my opinion in that regard.

Aside from that your answers were full-spectrum, showed clear understanding of the issues and addressed most of what was (in all honesty) quite a nasty post. And you did so in a polite and non-confrontational way.

Good luck in the polls on Friday!

[Bizarre Atheist]

"Representation is the least sexy thing we do." - Tom d'Ardenne, local magician.

Discuss.

[hr]

[Harry Giles]

Hi-aye there,

OK, so my last couple of posts have been fairly solidly policy-based, so I'd like to go a bit more philosophical (and possibly a bit silly) on this one.

I think Tom is partly wrong and partly right. When I think about what people find sexy, or what I find sexy, power comes pretty near the top of the list. Having power over other people -- which is getting them to do what you want -- is sexy. That's why a lot of people stand for positions. What really isn't sexy, though, is having no power at all (unless you've got a safe word. Um.) Representation stuff in the Union is non-sexy because people just don't think it's worth it -- they don't feel like they're going to change anything. They think the SRC is a elite-geek-clique bunch of hacks in it for their own ends, and that any input they provide is just going to be greeted with a nod and a smile.

Now that is why I'm not into taking power, but rather into facilitating empowerment. What I want to do with this role is to use it to make the student body feel empowered. That means offering opportunities for representation (not to be represented by somebody, but to represent yourself, through interactive online spaces, open forum discussions, meaningful consultation), and then showing them that representation actually means something, through making changes based on your input and then communicating those changes so that people know they've happened. Openness, transparency and accountability -- management words, I know, but they do mean something -- are the key factors here: providing space for input, making changes based on it, communicating the results, and offering an opportunity to be held to account for those results.

Campaigning is sexy. Protests are sexy. Fights are sexy. And I say that all of those are a key part of democracy (democracy is not just voting: it's every way your views are heard), a key part that this Association has been missing, and a part that I want to bring to it, along with the real forms of representation I've talked about above that I also think are sexy -- both sexy to create and sexy to take part in. Empowerment is sexy, and an important part of representation. My campaign is about making representation sexy again.

Er.

I think I've got a new campaign slogan there.

(I hope that this answer's OK. After a huge policy defence I kind of wanted to have some fun with it. It'll probably compare badly to my opponents' answers. But for the more straight policy stuff, read above -- or ask more questions!)

[Jono]

back to solid facts for a minute.

I disagree with your statement about societies just wanting somewhere to store their money! Societies are like women. They're time-consuming, impossible to please, and crucially want various different things! For one thing, there are societies out there like Rocksoc and LGBT that do have considerable amounts of cash in the bank. Perhaps it'd be worthwile to get the best returns possible on that!

Speaking generally, societies bank accounts are a pain in the neck! There's no debit card, or electronic transfer. It's a lot of paperwork, and paying by cheque with multiple signatories. A lot of societies won't want the added hassle of moving banks. In addition, neither of the banks you've listed have branches in St. Andrews! therefore banking would become even more troublesome.

Ethical banking is all fine and dandy. If a society wants to do it, fine. But I'm opposed to arm of the Association imposing agendas on those who do not agree with them!

[hr]

Jonathan Davies for SSC Societies Officer

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2 ... 144&ref=mf

[munchingfoo]

Your tagline on the sinner advertising is "Radically Different".

Describe one thing you will do radically different from the other candidates.

[hr]

“Argue with an idiot long enough and people will fail to see the difference”

[LK Today]

Question to all DoR candidates...

Engaging with students is a two-way process. Discuss.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37102636

[Harry Giles]

Hallo Jono,

I certainly accept your qualms. I'd like to quickly clear one thing up, though: it's certainly not my policy (or Association policy) to enforce ethical banking -- simply to encourage it. That involves drawing up a guide, raising awareness amongst societies, and supporting societies who want to do it. I hope you don't think that's "imposing an agenda"

[Harry Giles]

Hallo foo,

I'm going to be cheeky and give you two answers from different angles: one more practical and one more philosophical.

First, Simple Answer:

I'm the only candidate proposing an entire new policy area for the Union: employment. We've built up a great system of accommodation advocacy over the years, and the environmental, ethical and equal opportunities policy areas are all solid, while education does some good work in ensuring resource access. But work is a huge part of many students' lives, and at the moment our Union lacks any support and advocacy for students who want to or have to work.

I'm proposing setting up a new Employment Officer and Committee to work on these issues. I want to create a sort of "How to Work" guide on what rights you have as a student worker, as well as trying to faciliate finding work in this town. I'd like to set up an employer/employee version of the landlord/tenant charter, which will help ensure rights for workers as well as provide a mediation system for disputes. And I'd like to provide legal advocacy for student workers who find themselves exploited or harrassed in the workplace.

I know that's a huge task, but I think it's an essential one.

Second, Complicated Answer:

"Radically Different" is part of a general image I'm trying to get across with my campaign, and that's one of fighting for rights and standing up to the University. For me, those are honestly not empty words. The main thing I think separates me quite radically from the other candidates is the confrontational attitude I'm willing to take to the University.

I have more years of campaigning experience (of Students' Association experience) than any of the other candidates. That's taught me one thing: when a body is more powerful than you (and University Court, for example, is certainly more powerful than the Union), they will get the better of any negotiation with you unless you can put yourself on an equal footing. For an organisation like ours, that means making a big noise: getting the backing of the majority of the student body, getting that body actively petitioning, writing anfd protesting, and showing that we can back our demands with a lot of punch.

The success of this campaigning tactic has been demonstrated by more than one campaign I've helped run. The Ethical Investment Campaign achieved success only after we made a big noise (the University claimed we were pushing on an open door, but Derek Watson admitted to me last week that it was a rather heavy door) -- since then the people we've negotiated with have said they were happiest dealing with people like us who had clear demands than with a wishy-washy conciliatory approach from unconfident sabbs. Then there's the beach bonfires fight -- it took not only leadership on legal research, but also flooding Fife Constabulary and Council with complains about the way the police had treated us before they gave in and gave us our rights back.

Of course campaigning involves negotiation and compromise as well. It involves healthy relationships and mutual understandings. But it also involves strong positions and a willingness to fight. I know some people don't agree with that, and I always knew that fighting my election from this stance would put off some people, but all I can say is that I've the campaigning know-how and experience to back it up with.

This is not just "different" but also "radical" in the true sense -- meaning going to the root. It's not just the root of the problem I'm talking about (and a conciliatory Union is a root, I think), but also the roots of the fight -- the grassroots, and that means the students themselves. Everywhere I'm campaigning this week, I'm trying to get across a vital message: that I am not about taking power, but rather creating empowerment. The fights I want to fight -- they're not my fights, but rather those of the student body. I want to be giving the student body the tools and encouragement to fight its own fights. Grassroots campaigning is always the most democratic and effective -- and really, that's what I'm about, at the root and core.

[Harry Giles]

Hallo LK,

"Engaging with students is a two-way process." Well, the short answer is -- of course! Engagement is a relationship between two entities, and you can't do it if one of them doesn't want to. Let's explore how both ends of this could fail in the process.

First, judging by your question at hecklings, I think I know where you're coming from. There's a worry that the SRC pours its guts into being open and democratic, and many students respond with a demand for us to stop bothering them and get on with our jobs -- that students don't want to be engaged with, so it's pointless our trying to engage with them. Well, repeating what I said at hecklings, the trouble is that the DoR is responsible for doing exactly that -- engaging with the students. If you're looking for a DoR who doesn't want to do that, then you won't be able to vote for any of us! But I understand the worry. I think the best answer I can give to it is: it's worth bothering those students who don't want to be engaged with in order to get to those who do (and I assure you, there are plenty). It's kind of like running a sexual health campaign -- lots of people get embarrassed or offended by talking about and advertising safe sex publicly, but it's worth pissing off a few people in order to get the message out there to those who need it.

That said, I want to go deeper into my hecklings answer and think about why some students don't want to be engaged with. Some just don't have the time and energy, it's true. But I think what we hear far more often is that people don't think it's worth it. People don't feel empowered in the way we engage with them -- they don't think anything they do will change anything, so they stop engaging with us (that crucial second part of the two-way process). So what we need to look at is how we can be more empowering in our engagement.

I maintain that the crucial part of this is showing students that they can change things after all. I'm going to go a bit management speaky here to explain how, in practical terms, we can do this:

- First, we have to be transparent. That means being public about what we do: advertising and publishing changes that are made, votes that are taken, motions that are carried and rejected. This all needs to be easily available, because if you don't know what's going on then you can't change anything.

- Second, we have to be open. That means providing opportunities for inpur on what we do. This is the classic engagement stuff: holding consultations, running surveys, setting up open forum discussions. We try and do this occasionally, and when these efforts fail we take that as evidence that people don't want to be engaged with. But that's because I think we're missing something: feedback, which is the other half of openness. If you're consulted with and then don't hear anything back, that's not engagement or openness -- that's listening with a tin ear. In order to achieve openness, we have to report exactly what it is we've done as a result of that input.

- The third and final thing is accountability. This is the crucial part of any representative system. In order for representation to mean anything, stakeholders have to know what their representative plans to do, how they're planning to do it, and whether they've done it or not. We are, in the SRC, appallingly bad at planning and reporting. This is the biggest and most practical change I think I can make in how we operate. After a year and half's practice as an SRC Officer, and with a considerable management component to my degree, I know how to better systems of planning and reporting. So one of my policy proposals is to ensure that every SRC Member write a proper plan of aims and targets -- aims that can be measured, and that have action plans -- and to hold those Members to account for those plans. We need stricter systems when Members fail to live up to their promises. And the rest of the student body needs to know when there have been failures -- and, more importantly, successes!

So in the end it comes down under the umbrella of communication, I suppose. And this comes down to the second half of the engagement process. Because it's a two-way thing, if one half fails then the other half fails. Our engagement is problematic because, as you've forcefully pointed out, many students don't want to be engaged with. But I counter that they don't want to be engaged with because the engagement we offer is not meaningful -- is not transparent, open and accountable -- and so we're not really currently engaging at all. That's what I want to change.

[Mr Comedy]

Harry,

As former Student Support Officer (which I believe might now be called something different, like Equal Opportunities & Welfare) and a DoR runner in years gone by:

- What do you think are the major issues impacting access to learning for physical and learning disabled students?
- What do you intend to do about these issues?
- How will you work in conjunction with Student Support Services?

I think this is one of the biggest areas that needs impacting, as far as my understanding goes. What do you intend to do about it?

Dave Vinton
Nominated for Milk Monitor at School

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[Harry Giles]

Hallo Dave,

I'm going to be completely honest with you here: I know very little about the issues affecting physical and learning disabled students. It's just one of those issues I haven't yet engaged with, and so I can't offer real insight and original thinking there.

What I can say is what comes from the overarching attitude of empowerment I'm trying to present with my campaign. I know very little about the issues, and so I'm in no position to say what should or should not happen. What I am very good at is facilitating representation, and so my first step in engaging with the issue would be to set up a space in which students affected by the issues could represent themselves and start to think about what solutions can be found. I've spoken a lot on my website about a planned project of open forum discussions in which groups of students can get together to talk about particular issue areas and start to develop solutions together with the Students' Association -- disability is certainly an area which would benefit from these.

So I can only say: I don't know specific answers to your questions, but I do know what steps I can take, if elected, to find out what needs to be done and empower and support people in doing it.

[Mr Comedy]

Does this therefore not count as a massive oversight on your part? As the position of Director of Representation is to be the leading advocate for students and the issues that affect them, surely a strong understanding of the relevant issues affecting students is part and parcel of running for the position?

I would have thought that if you wanted this position then you would have at least done some research - this could be asking the EO&W Officer what this issues are, the incumbent DoR, or canvassing opinions from a cross-section of the student body? From my perspective it would appear that you are ill-prepared.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung