Talk:Students' Union UCL

message: What is the exact criteria used for founding of UCL Union? There needs to be a common one in order to settle debate about which is the old SU in London etc. Coffeelover 23:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: no idea - i'll try and investigate.--Frankie Roberto 00:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were two unions - a men's union and a women's union. They merged at some point. There was a book published on the history of the union - I think in the early 1990s. Secretlondon 20:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi there - I've looked into it a lot this year. There were originally a Men's, Women's, and eventually, a Medic's Student Society. The first is clearly documented as being founded in 1893 after negotiation between members of College and certain students. The Women's followed as a separate institution four years later. The Men's Union was the first of it's kind, and offered both social and athletic activities. It turned out to be quite rare by offering both in one membership, as most other Universities established a separate Athletics Union. The early history is very well documented, and the records are kept by UCL Record's Office to this day. The Men's and Women's Societies merged in 1954 and the Medic's Society merged with the Joint Union in 1958. And yes, there was a very good and thorough book written on UCLU's history - Billy Street, Sabbatical Officer 08/09.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.114.190 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *needs to read the article*. They used to be External Affairs & Welfare, Education & Representation, Social & Services, Publicity & Communications and Finance & Societies. The Medics President was non-sabbatical. Does anyone know when they changed? Secretlondon 20:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for founding

message: Year of office	EA&W Officer     	E&R Officer    	F&S Officer   	P&C Officer  	S&S Officer
1997-1998     	                 	               	              	             	
1996-1997     	Kavitha Govardhan	Mark Pursey    	              	             	
1995-1996     	Caroline Ford    	Pip Page       	Claudia Bailey	Simon Knowles	Jeremy Elliott
1994-1995     	Mary Basterfield 	Abigail Hawkens	              	             	
1993-1994     	Ed Lyon          	Mark Riddleston	              	             	
This is from memory.. Feel free to fill in the gaps. Secretlondon 20:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Really Past Union Officers

message: *A discussion had been started at Talk:Students Union on whether individual union's page should carry names of current and or former exec. Please go there to provide your opinion if you're interested. -- KTC 03:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Students' Union / Association sabbs list deletion 

message: Basically, as it was before the section read like this:
"It widely believed within the UCL student body, as evidenced by a highly successful petition, that this action was unrepresentative of general student opinion, undemocratic, illegal, and due largely to the intervention of small, but organised groups at the AGM. The conduct of the Union's General Secretary, Samantha Godwin who chaired the meeting, was called into question, though a further investigation cleared her of the accusations made. An in-depth discussion of the issues can be found on the website of a UCL student magazine, the "Cheese Grater"[2].
UCL Union rules state that if a petition is presented with the signatures of 2% or more of the student body then an Extraordinary General Meeting can be called to overturn the motion, and a campaign was immediately launched to that effect. It is highly probable that this criterion will be met."
I don't think that this is up to wikipedia's standards. I think you can't say how widely believed within a student body an opinion is by suggesting that there's a "highly successful petition". What defines what's widely believed? If the petition has over half of the universitiy's 20,000 students on it? There's also no source for the petition. There are no sources for it being undemocratic, illegal or done by the intervention of a group. How do you know how large the group was, or for that matter how well organised it was?
I'm willing to accept that the Gen Sec's actions were questioned, but I've provided a link to a motion passed at the union's representative body, the union council, that states that the allegations against the Gen Sec were unfounded. 
I think that you're right in the 2% no confidence petition, but there's no source for that either, nor can anybody say how probable the success of an EGM will be. The above stinks of a non-NPV.
The changes that I've made are as follows, please feel free to discuss them on here:
"Through a subsequent motion passed through the Union Council, the suspension of the General Secretary was over-turned and the decisions made at the Annual General Meeting were ratified. [2] [this is a link to the motion that was passed through council, on the union's website]
The misconduct of the Sabbatical team in the response to complaints made about the General Secretary was also highlighted, and the team were mandated to issue a public apology to the General Secretary on behalf of the Union. The text of the apology is as follows:
All members of UCL Union, This notice is to update you on the situation regarding the AGM and Union Officer suspensions. Last night UCLU Council had a motion submitted regarding these issues which mandated all suspensions to be reversed. The Sabbatical team has been mandated to issue a public apology for "suspending" Samantha Godwin as General Secretary, this "suspension" was considered an act of abuse of the procedures and the sabbatical officers were found to have acted inappropriately by a vote of Union Council. Sam Godwin as General Secretary, and Jim Hunkin as Acting Finance and Administration Officer have been reinstated with immediate effect. All motions passed at the reconvened AGM are now considered to be UCLU Policy. The UCL Union Sabbatical Team 07/08[this is also referenced to the union's website]"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.37.156 (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies section RE: AGM

message: HAS ANYONE CARED TO MENTION REGULAR NIGHTS LIKE THE EQUALLY POPULAR CLUB POPAGANDA AND GLASNOST??? F*"!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.240.29 (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NEW EVENTS AT UCL

message: I have just been pulled up for trying to introduce incorrect information onto the article. The Union building is on Gordon Street, not Gower Street. I am a current UCL student and I feel that being corrected when I was correct in the first place is wrong. Lingotic (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How silly.  Of COURSE it's on Gordon St! Paulbrock (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Address listed at  Paulbrock (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect caption

message: I'm going to remove all the "General Secretaries" from the section of Sabbatical Officers. There's been a lot of discussion at Talk:Students Union about whether Union officers are notable to start with, but it seems to me that the Secretaries, who are NOT technically Sabbaticals, are definitely not notable.
For evidence, look at the UCLU website list of Sabbatical Officers, which excludes the secretary, and the list of part-time officers, which includes Union Chair (the new name for the position).
Regards from Fish. Say hi! 11:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The names of officers don't belong in an encyclopedia, per WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, nor is the union's daily schedule appropriate. I've removed these lists. Conflict of interest accounts are advised to read Wikipedia's guidelines prior to posting inappropriate and/or unsourced content in articles here. Thanks, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing General Secretary from the list of Sabbatical Officers