The LSE SU is embarking on a fairly radical programme whereby it will share some staff with SUARTS, the SU for the University of the Arts, London. Details of the proposals can be found on the LSE SU website and a brief comment from me is at the end of this post.
LSE SU General Secretary Aled Dilwyn Fisher, who also contested the North-East constituency for the Green Party at last year’s GLA elections, kindly agreed to be interviewed. My questions are in bold.
DC: What’s wrong with the existing structure? LSESU was branded as ‘the worst managed students’ union’ (Your Union, p5). What was wrong and how does this fix things?
ADF: There were many things wrong with the Students’ Union internally. Fundamentally, the staffing structure was completely wrong – a fact that no-one, even critics of the new structure, have tried to despute. Almost all staff resources were focused in commercial services – and, while commercial services are important, they are there to support the primary aims of the Students’ Union, which are to campaign, organise student activities (societies, sports, media, RAG and so on) and provide welfare services.
The structure was also compromised in terms of the ‘dual line management’ that had evolved over time for a variety of reasons, none of which were logical. This meant staff were reporting to two members of staff, which led to unnecessary duplication and conflict.
Beyond the structure, there was a shocking lack of basic HR procedures and policies. There was no performance management and a host of other problems. It became quite clear as the year went on that things needed to change.
DC: Why merge staff with SUARTS instead of (say) KCLSU?
ADF: We considered a number of options but didn’t approach anyone other than SUARTS. NUS originally suggested SUARTS to us for a variety of reasons. We are similar sized Students’ Unions (although they cater for many more students), we are both focused on membership services (with different strengths and weaknesses) but, above all, they are years ahead of us in terms of their management and financial functions, and they are the best managed Students’ Union in London. This means we can really benefit from the collaboration in terms of becoming a professional and well organised Students’ Union. KCLSU are a huge and very different Students’ Union – I really don’t think collaboration would ever work (let alone be palatable in terms of our rivalry with Kings!).
DC: If SUs are merging like this, what’s the point of ULU?
ADF: ULU offers services that Students’ Unions in London cannot offer on their own, such as specialist sports teams. Our collaboration with SUARTS is not seeking to do this – SUARTS students won’t be able to join LSE Students’ Union societies or sports clubs, and vice versa. ULU has been hit year after year by funding cuts, poor management and lacklustre student involvement. Eventually, I think ULU will probably die and be superseded by some sort of NUS London function that covers all London HE and FE Students’ Unions. I would favour the unity of all students in London over the confusing structure that currently persists. There will also be a need for pooling resources across London, and the collaboration with SUARTS is in that spirit, although the form is different.
DC: Do you know of any other unions where this is happening or has been proposed?
ADF: A number of other Students’ Unions are in very different collaborative arrangements, and others are considering collaboration. This is the first of this kind or on this scale. NUS has been doing a number of events on collaboration recently, drawing on experiences in the Third Sector. I would therefore expect a lot of similar ventures, particularly in urban-based Students’ Unions, in the near future. Our experience in just a few weeks shows how immensely positive this is.
DC: Will this be going to the UGM and SUARTS’ equivalent?
ADF: Because of employment law, we could not consult more widely on the exact details of the proposal with students other than our elected trustees. It had to be a confidential process , as many positions were at risk of redundancy.
We did, however, use student feedback gathered in surveys, focus groups and other forums to inform our actions throughout this process. The final decision was taken by democratically elected officers who, as trustees, have the responsibility for developing the Union and ensuring it is well run. The trustees shoulder the legal liability for actions taken by on behalf of the Students’ Union. All of the officers involved in the decision were democratically elected by cross-campus ballots and elected on manifestos promising improvements and changes. After all, we elect officers to get on with the day-to-day running of the organisation.
DC: Is LSESU going to be moving to the X-Y-Z island site, as has been mooted? Do you know when? What facilities will be there?
ADF: The New Students’ Centre project (as it’s known) is already up and running. For the last year or so, we have been working hard with the Estates Division to draw up a detailed brief, and I’ve been around with LSE staff to see other Students’ Unions and university buildings. It really is amazingly exciting to be getting a completely new building (which we only share with the Accommodation Office at the moment!).
We are nearing the appointment of the architect. After over 100 architects applied, we are down to a short-list of 6. Check out the website at http://www2.lse.ac.uk/studentsCentre/Home.aspx, where the 6 short-listed architects’ designs are displayed. Students, staff and alumni will be voting on their favourite designs, which will inform the work of the panel that selects the winner. This will happen at the end of June.
As anyone can see, the designs are really, really exciting. We are just so lucky to have this opportunity! The building will be ready in 2012.
DC: How much has been spent on consultants? What are the one-off costs?
ADF: There are significant one-off costs associated with the reorganisation. I can’t go into details but we have paid for them out of our enormous reserves, which have been allowed to build up for years without any policy for how they are spent. This is exactly the kind of one-off thing the reserves are useful for. We have kept costs to an absolute minimum and spent a lot less than we could have.
DC: What should students look for in three years’ time to see if this has been a success?
ADF: In three years, I’d expect a lot of changes. For societies, I’d expect full training programs developed to help them run committees, organise events, submit budgets, gain sponsorship, and achieve for their members. In terms of sports, I’d expect to see massive development in terms of funding, training and facilities. I’d like to see RAG go from strength for strength and for us to be raising tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pounds for charity. We are developing a strategy for participation and political engagement to make LSE the archetypal political Students’ Union again. I’d expect to see us win on a lot of the issues within LSE that have been lingering around for years, like Wednesday afternoons, resits and so on. I think in three years there will so many successes that people will see the Students’ Union as something positive to be associated with, a successful organisation that they identify with and enjoy being a part of.
DC: What internal changes have occurred or will be occurring at LSESU as a result of these proposals?
ADF: If you mean governance changes, nothing needs to change necessarily. The UGM is still the sovereign body, and mandates the Officers to execute policy – we just have more staff to help us! However, I am very keen to make governance changes, and I think the staff changes do have implications for operationally-focused roles, such as Treasurer. We will look at these in due course.
DC: What does the LSE think of this? What about the University of the Arts?
ADF: LSE are very positive about it, although they are keen to respect the independence of the Students’ Union and not interfere. I think the same is true of UAL.
(ends)
By way of comment, I was quite involved with the LSE SU during my time at the LSE. For what it is worth, I am supportive of the plans for four reasons.
- Many SU’s up and down the country have found financial difficulties, not including the LSE SU. However, LSE SU on its own is not large enough to pay for the dedicated staff to drive commercial activities; together with SUARTS, the possibility opens up and future financial strictures can be avoided.
- It will improve support to student societies
- It frees up officers for ‘political’ activities and allows staff to do ‘technical’ or ‘administrative’ activities. I was involved in changing the post of Entertainments Sabbatical to an employed position (and bringing in a Communications Sabbatical) for that reason
- It is also sorting out some problems with staffing and so on (that, never having been on the exec, I wasn’t particularly aware of)
There are various other reasons to support the process, which you can find on the lsesu website.
You can see other things I’ve written about my alma mater here.
xD.