A while back I, along with the rest of the NEC, received a letter from student union officers across the country concerning the political priorities of the NEC and the prevalence of controversial (and often divisive motions) we discuss to the detriment of more consensual and student-focussed issues.

I sent a joint response with Kat Stark, Richard Angell and Steven Findlay as the Labour Students’ group on the NEC. Critics and detractors will no doubt claim that this was because we are incapable of independent thought; in fact, we wished to highlight that our response does not detract from our firm commitment to political organisation through groups and factions, but rather our belief that factions are a good thing, especially when they get their priorities right and organise openly and transparently.

We responded past the constitutional deadline, but I did send a holding reply so that we could send a more considered reply and outline the action we wished to take, rather than simply soapboxing around the issues raised.

As ever I’d welcome feedback. I have a lot more to say about the NEC’s sometimes muddled priorities in the future. I will, however, finish this blog by making the same point I made in my speech to National Council on introducing a priority ballot into NEC meetings: under the guise of ‘democratic transparency’ and ‘openness’ some members of the NEC opposed the motion. The truth is, that while these officers are elected at annual conference that are typically elected off the back of their own block vote alone. Independents and Labour Students have to seek support outside of our own constituency and I felt it was my job to represent those independent delegates and officers who voted for me and, who I feel, have been unheard and unrepresented in the political priorities of the NEC for too long.

Wes

Also via email to president@ubu.bristol.ac.uk

Dear Ben,

Thank you very much for your letter dated 9th October 2006, signed by a number of other student officers. We sympathise with a number of the issues that you raise and wish to raise some points and concerns of our own in reply.

There are a wide range of issues that both affect and interest students. Student life is probably more broad and diverse than it has ever been and the issues that are brought to NUS NEC meetings and annual conference reflect some of that diversity.

While we do not believe that the issues brought to NUS democratic events can – or should – be restricted, we do believe that with limited resources and finite time, NUS must focus its energies and priorities more strategically than ever before.

We are frustrated that the overwhelming positive, united and relevant work than we do as NEC members is consistently undermined and overshadowed by rancourous debates that fail to resonate with the priorities of our constitent members.

Despite improvements to NUS’ financial situation in recent years, we believe that the organisation is not out of the woods yet and that, in a bid to highlight those improvements, too rosy a picture has been presented about the state of NUS’ financial position.

In the face of organisational constraints and in light of the significant challenges that face us NUS needs to stop adopting a ‘splattergun’ approach to the issues confronting us and instead focus ruthlessly on campaigning priorities than can maximise our potential to win for students.

NEC members also need to be clear about their priorities and accountable for them. The hard left occupy only a few positions on the NEC, but so long as moderate, independent members are prepared to vote with them – safe in the knowledge that the membership who put them there probably won’t notice – fringe issues will continue to dominate the headlines around the movement about NUS.

In order to focus NUS’ priorities and strengthen the accountability of your National Executive Committee, there are three specific things we intend to propose to the National Executive Committee as a direct result of your letter:

i) Prioritising NEC motions – we can’t stop individuals submitting divisive or meaningless motions, but what we can do is make sure that these do not come at the expense of discussing more relevant issues to reach meaningful outcomes. We have submitted a motion to the next NEC meeting that resolves to introduce a priority ballot before every meeting to discuss the priority of motions submitted. We will propose that these ballots are recorded and published so that you can hold your representatives to account.

ii) Recording votes more frequently – recorded votes are those whereby the voting behaviour of NEC members is recorded in the minutes. Any NEC member can request one. We have already been doing this more regularly following our own concerns about the lack of transparency in the way that NEC members cast their votes. It will also prevent independents and other moderates offering sops to the hard left in the hope of horse trading votes in elections at our Annual Conference.

iii) Publication of NEC agendas, papers and minutes – agendas and supporting papers (including motions) should be placed online in advance of meetings so that you can see what we’re discussing and lobby on any particular issue that might affect your union. Minutes should be published online soon after NEC meetings so that you can hold us to account.

We do not hide the fact that we organise within NUS as members of Labour Students around our common values in pursuit of an effective, strong and politically powerful National Union. We believe that such a union can only win for its members if it remains in touch, relevant to and successful on the priorities of its membership, whatever their political perspective.

Best wishes,

Wes Streeting

Vice-President (Education)

Kat Stark

National Women’s Officer

Richard Angell

National Executive Member

Steven Findlay

National Executive Member

The motion on prioritising NEC motions was not actually discussed at the most recent NEC meeting (on Thursday 23 November). This is because we had also submitted it to the last National Council meeting on Tuesday 14 November in Loughborough, where it passed. It read:

Title: Priority Ballots in NEC Meetings

Submitted by: Wes Streeting, Vice-President Education; Kat Stark, National Women’s Officer; Steven Findlay & Richard Angell, Block of 12

NEC Believes:

1. That there is no boundary to what the NEC can or should be talking about but there are competing pressure on NEC time and very diverse opinions on what the priorities should be;

2. The recent letter from a number of members led by the President of the University of Bristol Union calling on the NEC to de-priorities our focus on the middle east and some international issues if not stop discussing it completely;

3. That the order motions appear in NEC meetings is random and not determined by the NEC itself;

4. That if we talk about one issue early in the agenda that is controversial, complex and divisive then it can prevent discussion about later, potentially more pressing or important, items;

5. That because the final motions that we passed are not published the membership don’t see the other issues we discuss, resolves and action.

NEC further believes:

1. That the students movement is an internationist movement and should focus on the struggle of fellow students around the globe;

2. That with students from over 200 countries around the world studying in the UK, their issues are our issues, and would be legitimate discussion for NEC meetings;

3. That many of these issues can be decisive in meetings and upon our movement.

4. That because of the controversy and diverse opinions in these debates it is perceived by our membership that the NEC spends disproportionate amounts of time on them;

5. That perception is as important as reality and needs dealing with;

6. If there were to be a priority ballot in place then members of the NEC could be held to account on the outcome of the order of NEC motions;

7. It is important for the membership to see all the motions passed by the NEC rather than just hear the gossip form the controversial, often internationalist, motions.

NEC resolves:

1. To add to NEC meeting procedures, a priority ballot that opens at the beginning of the meeting and closes 15minutes in. The ballot can then be counted in time for the motions section of the meeting;

2. To publish all passed motions on Officeronline within 6 days of the NEC meeting.

The Blogs on this site represent the individual views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the National Union of Students.

All links in blogs will open in a new browser window.

The permanent URL for this specific blog entry is: http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/wesstreeting/273488.aspx