Report from NEC meeting: 15th November 2024

Headlines:

• NEC votes down UCU’s List of Priorities for 2024/25
• NEC votes for hybrid congress - but only just
• Bad behaviour in meetings no longer tolerated - thanks to excellent chairing
• NEC votes for a review of survey of members’ experiences of racism - finally

UCU NEC’s final meeting of 2024 got off to a really strong start. Unlike in the previous NEC meeting, there were no baseless challenges to the chair over the agenda or motions, no demands that motions be addressed ahead of actual UCU business, and the meeting more or less ran according to schedule in the beginning. In other words, UCU NEC proved that it can actually be a functional body when it wants to be. It is a shame that this is not more often the case.

The Honorary Treasurer and General Secretary received a request for a donation to Workers in Palestine and due to the substantial amount requested (£5,000), NEC was asked to approve the donation. The donation was approved by unanimous acclaim, highlighting once again our solidarity with Palestine.

We then held a minute’s silence to mourn the loss of our fellow NEC member, Agnes Flues, whose sudden and untimely passing over the summer has left a void in our organisation.

General Secretary’s Report

The General Secretary’s (GS) report began just 4 minutes behind schedule, which is an unprecedented level of timekeeping for UCU NEC meetings. We must note, however, the request from one UCU Left NEC member that the GS keep her report very quick so that NEC members had more time to ask questions. As the GS likes to record the audio of her report to release to members, she explained that this would not be possible.

During the GS’s report, we were given an update on the Employment Rights Bill. The proposed bill is not particularly promising, but we do not have much influence on Keir Starmer or his inner circle, and the government have made it clear that they will not be taking amendments from MPs on the bill. However, despite these challenges, UCU is continuing to seek beneficial changes to this bill through our existing channels, including ministerial contacts.

The GS also noted the unfortunate result of the US Presidential election, and noted the role played by Elon Musk and the social media network now owned by him, X (formerly Twitter), in influencing the outcome. She noted that there was a debate about whether the union should leave the platform, particularly as we have a paid account. The GS noted that any exit from the platform should be conducted deliberately, with members being informed repeatedly and well in advance, and coordinated with branches so that members do not try to seek support from UCU on the platform, and instead have others speaking for UCU in the union’s official absence.

There were questions for the GS from the members, and there were questions from UCU Left NEC members about UCU’s Building to Win strategy and asking why there was disengagement amongst members when it came to the strategy. It is worth noting that HE members from this very faction voted down a motion at the 27 September meeting of the Higher Education Committee, which would have compelled the union to formally investigate and work on the reasons for member disengagement. It is unfortunate that these members would rather choose to continually harp about an issue, rather than actually work towards a solution.

UCU in the Year Ahead

Mary Meekings, the newly appointed UCU Head of Equality, provided an update on the ongoing review of racism within UCU. Mary noted that she had experience working on a similar review in another union that she had worked at, and she looked forward to making progress on this.

NEC was asked to approve a list of priorities for 2024/25. A parade of speakers from UCU Left proceeded to nitpick the priorities list, and say that they could not support it because such and such was not included, or because such and such was not specific enough.

This was nothing but further bad faith criticism of UCU business, because these priorities were developed by the Strategy and Finance Committee (SFC), which is a sub-committee of UCU NEC. UCU Left members have a current functional majority on the SFC (UCU membership information required to access this site) so these priorities were developed and voted through by UCU Left at the sub-committee stage, but now they were somehow suddenly problematic.

When a vote was taken to approve the list of priorities for 2024/25, there were 21 votes in favour, 25 votes against, and 4 abstentions. As a result, UCU Left votes ensured that the list of priorities was not approved.

Hybrid Congress

Arguably, the most important business of the day was to confirm that Congress 2025 would be held in a hybrid manner.

UCU Congress 2024 had strongly supported the idea that Congress should be hybrid, in an effort to maximise participation. Congress however cannot determine the format of future Congresses, only UCU NEC can do that. What Congress 2024 did do is to change the standing orders of the union to enable the possibility of a hybrid Congress, and this change was voted through Congress by a clear majority. It is worth remembering, too, that as a rule change motion it needed a two-thirds majority to pass, and that it cleared this threshold demonstrates the high level of support for it.

Following Congress 2024, UCU NEC was asked at its June 2024 meeting to approve in principle that Congress 2025 would take place in a hybrid manner. UCU NEC was informed that whilst the decision would be made in principle to have Congress 2025 in a hybrid manner, a future NEC would have the opportunity to overturn this decision if it wished to do so.

Following the June decision by NEC to have Congress 2025 in a hybrid format, UCU staff presented NEC with a detailed outline of how a hybrid Congress 2025 would operate. It was mentioned that input had been sought from the Disabled Members Standing Committee (DMSC) and both Disabled Members’ Representatives on the NEC, Bijan Parsia and Pat Roche, mentioned the strong support given by the DMSC to having Congress 2025 in a hybrid manner.

Objections were raised by UCU Left members that private voting was problematic, and members should be able to see how others vote. However, these arguments were nothing new and had been raised previously at Congress 2024 as well as at the June 2024 NEC meeting. They had been defeated both times.

There was an objection from a UCU Left member of NEC as to why only the DMSC was consulted, and other Equalities Standing Committees were not. The UCU Head of Democratic Services responded that normal UCU procedures were followed, in that the Committees consulted were the SFC, which normally weighs in on anything related to change in practices in the union. The DMSC were sought for their input because historically, whenever there have been changes in policies, the DMSC have provided input on whether accessibility requirements have been met.

It is also worth noting that other Standing Committees did have input on this. Motions from Congress were on the agenda for the meeting of every Equality Standing Committee in September 2024, and members of other standing committees had the opportunity to provide input, if they wished to do so. Once again, this was an example of UCU Left members not doing the work where it was required, and sowing chaos afterwards.

There was then a statement from the UCU Left member verbally abusing a member of UCU staff. The Chair of NEC asked the member to withdraw their statement and to apologise. The member insisted that their statement was accurate. The Chair of NEC once again asked the member to withdraw their statement and apologise, failing which they would be ejected from the meeting. The member responded that they would apologise, but made it clear that it was not a sincere apology and the only reason for the apology would be so that they could stay in the meeting and continue to vote. The Chair adjourned the meeting for five minutes and, upon recommencing the meeting, instructed UCU staff to eject the member from the meeting, in line with NEC’s standing orders.

When a vote was taken on hybrid Congress 2025, the result was as follows: 25 votes in favour, 25 votes against, and 2 abstentions.

Whenever a vote is tied, the result is status quo antebellum. This reflects the state that existed before the vote. NEC had approved hybrid Congress in principle in its June 2024 meeting, and had been informed at the time that it would have the opportunity to reverse its decision if it wished to do so.

As the vote was tied, the result was that NEC did not reverse its previous decision, and therefore, the previous decision of NEC to have hybrid Congress for 2025 stood.

The Chair’s decision was challenged on the basis that status quo antebellum should not be NEC’s June 2024 decision, but the practice that existed before that decision.

The challenge was allowed to proceed despite objections raised that the ruling was not something that could be challenged, as the ruling did not concern an opinion of the Chair but rather the fundamental state of affairs. It is undeniable that NEC had indeed decided in principle on a hybrid Congress in its June meeting and just a few hours earlier in the day, NEC had approved the minutes of that June meeting as an accurate record, minutes that said that NEC had decided in principle for Congress 2025 to be hybrid. And a tied vote meant that NEC did not overturn that June decision.

In any case, the challenge was allowed by the vice-chair, and arguments for and against the challenge were made, and a vote was taken on the challenge. The result of the vote on challenging the chair was 24 votes in favour, 25 votes against, and 1 abstention.

Therefore, the Chair’s decision stood that the status quo antebellum of NEC choosing not to overturn its June 2024 decision meant that Congress 2025 would be in a hybrid format. It is difficult to understand what would have happened if the challenge had prevailed. Would the minutes of the June meeting be edited to say that NEC had decided on something else than it actually did, and NEC asked to reconfirm those edited minutes, in some Orwellian revision?

Going forward, it is important to remember that there are certainly judgements of the Chair that can be challenged, but it is not appropriate to allow a challenge to proceed where it is about established record or fact rather than an opinion, lest it open a new Pandora’s box of contradictions and confusion.

Motions from Members

The meeting did not get to debating and voting on motions submitted by NEC members until 4:10pm. While a total of ten motions were ordered onto the agenda, the meeting only managed to debate and vote on the first two. Motion 1, titled ‘Organising against the far-right’, attracted no opposition and was carried unanimously. Motion 2, which called for UCU to conduct research on members’ experiences of racism, bigotry and xenophobia in all its forms, was amended to include specific timescales for when the survey should go live, and stipulated that its results and proposed actions should be reported back to Congress in 2025 as well as NEC. This amendment also included specific mention of the Black and Migrant Members’ Standing Committees as bodies that should have input to the survey questions, as well as the analysis of its results. The amendment was unnecessary and only served to slow the progress of the anti-racism survey which has already been delayed by a year since UCU Commons member Vivek Thuppil brought it up at the November 2023 meeting. Nonetheless, the amendment passed narrowly and the amended Motion 2 passed unanimously.

Motion 1 carried 46 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention

Motion 2 amendment carried 24 for, 23 against, 1 abstention

Motion 2 as amended carried 46 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention

Close of Meeting

Meeting ended with a statement from the General Secretary apologising to the member of UCU staff for the verbal attack that they had endured earlier, and a reminder that such comments were completely unacceptable.

The Chair of NEC said that this was further evidence of why she believed that a risk assessment of NEC meetings were necessary, and she would ensure that such behaviour would not be tolerated and that changes would be made going forward. We welcome this strong and decisive chairing, and signal that bad behaviour will absolutely not be tolerated in NEC meetings.