On Thursday the 16th May, an Open Meeting and Emergency General Meeting was held on Teams. This was organised having received notice that the requirements of section 11 of the Constitution was met, and more than 60 students had called for an EGM. The motion was submitted, alongside a request for there to be an open discussion regarding the transfer of the Robbins venue to the University. There was an additional request that the Chair of the meeting be an elected student officer, external to the organisation. 

After discussions between staff responsible for organising the meeting and the proposers, it was agreed that there would be an Open Meeting with the Board of the SU and any interested students. Due to the timing, this would be held as an on-line meeting and that an agreed Chair had been identified, Reem Walid, Co-President of Democracy and Education at SOAS Students’ Union. 

To better facilitate the Open Meeting, a sign-up sheet for questions was shared, and a number of questions submitted. In discussions with the Chair of the meeting, it was agreed that the format of the Open Meeting would be for the Board to answer those questions entirely, before opening the floor to further questions and follow ups.  

14 questions were received prior to the meeting, and these were grouped into subject areas as many were on a similar topic. 11 further questions were taken from the floor, and 5 more submitted via chat after the meeting that could not be reached due to time constraints.  

Questions and answers – including those submitted previously - can be found at the Robbins FAQ document here. 

The Chair closed the Open Meeting portion of the meeting and confirmed that enough ordinary members were in attendance for the EGM to be quorate and declared a short break before starting the meeting. 

Chair opened the meeting and clarified the process that was to be followed. The proposer would have a 2-minute space to introduce the motion, followed by the opportunity for clarification questions to be asked. Speeches for and against would then be offered, starting at 2 minutes and then shortened to allow time for voting. Finally, there would be a short summation from the proposer and voting would be carried out via a Forms link. 

The details of the motion proposed can be found here. 

Chair invited the proposer to introduce the motion, and one clarifying question was taken. There were three rounds of speeches for and against, and then a procedural motion was raised to split the question into two parts. The procedural motion was accepted and passed, and voting was opened via Forms. Vote one was on part one of the resolves and vote two on part two and three of the resolves. 

Voting was opened and the outcome was that part one relating to the vote of censure of the officers did not meet the 2/3 requirement. The vote on part two and three relating to Vote of No Confidence processes and accountability passed, and plans will be announced on the necessary processes for the next academic year.