51¸£Àû

51¸£Àû/934ÌýÌý 22 March 2019ÌýÌý

University and College Union

Carlow Street, London NW1 7LH, Tel. 020 7756 2500, www.ucu.org.uk

ToÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Branch and local association secretaries

TopicÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Interim report of the democracy commission

ActionÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý For adoption at Congress 2019

Summary ÌýÌýÌýÌý The interim report of the democracy commission created by resolution of Congress 2018, for adoption by Congress 2019, including two rule changesÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý

 

Interim report of the democracy commission

Congress 2018 resolved that a democracy commission should be established to review the union’s democratic structures and report back to Congress. (The text of the relevant motions is set out in full in appendix 1 of the attached report.)

In order to enact this policy, the national executive committee has submitted the following motions to Congress:

Congress adopts the interim report of the democracy commission as set out in 51¸£Àû/934, including recommendations other than rule changes (rule changes to be voted on separately).

Congress approves recommendation 2 of the democracy commission’s interim report, rule change: delegation of general secretary powers.

Congress approves recommendation 6 of the democracy commission’s interim report, rule change: dispute committees.

It is the commission’s intention, as described in the report, that this interim report be adopted by Congress 2019, with final recommendations made to a one-day special Congress proposed for November 2019.

Information about the commission’s work can be found at /democracycommission. Comments can be submitted by branches and members to the democracy commission using the email address demcom@ucu.org.uk .

 

Yours sincerely

Paul Cottrell

Acting General SecretaryÌý

Interim report of the democracy commission

 

1ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Background

1.1        The democracy commission was established by motion B19 passed by annual Congress in May 2018. Motion L9 set further stipulations around the election and operation of the commission. These motions appear in appendix 1.

1.2        At its meeting on 22 June 2018, the NEC agreed how the commission should be composed, encompassing regional and devolved nation representation, members from the equality standing and employment special interest group committees, and branch representatives by sector. Elections were held in September 2018 and the list of commission members is set out in appendix 2.

1.3        The commission held its first meeting on 25 October 2018 and elected Vicky Blake (NEC and University of Leeds) and Elane Heffernan (NEC and Hackney Community College) as its co-chairs. All commission members received a folder containing the union’s rules and standing orders, and additional information about the union’s structure. It was clear, from debate at this meeting, that the potential scope of the commission’s remit was very wide, and shaping this into areas for discussion and recommendation was a formidable task. Issues relating to the timescale for reporting back to Congress were also noted from this early stage.

1.4        At the commission’s second meeting on 7 December 2018, five key areas in which work would be developed were identified (referred to by the commission as ‘working groups’):

A: Recall (of elected members and general secretary) and triggers (for recall)

B: Accountability (other than recall) and transparency

C: Structural issues/implications, including the role of paid officials

D: Conduct of disputes

E: Engagement and representation.

1.5        This meeting also agreed that an interim report, including recommendations and rule changes where these were complete, should be made to the annual meeting of Congress 2019. A special one-day conference should then be held in November 2019 to discuss the commission’s final report and recommendations. The commission have noted that its report might include recommending a further democracy commission or similar be elected to progress more areas work, though the commission will try to do as much as possible in the timeframe available. In the event that the special Congress in November 2019 is inquorate, the commission proposes that all of its motions and business will be debated and voted on at Congress 2020.

1.6        The commission has held five meetings. At its third and subsequent meetings (11 January, 22 February, 8 March), proposals under the five headings have been discussed and shaped. It was agreed at the third meeting that that matters under working group A (recall) and working group B (accountability and transparency) would take priority for the interim report to Congress 2019.

1.7        Confirmed minutes of the commission’s meetings have been placed on the democracy commission’s webpage, and members have been able to pass comments on to the commission via an email address publicised to branch officers and members in December 2018 and January 2019 (and continuously appearing on the webpage).

1.8        In addition to its meetings, the commission has worked via an on-line document sharing space, bringing forward papers for discussion. The recommendations in this report reflect decisions made by a majority of commission members, present at the commission’s meetings.

1.9        The commission has received administrative support from Paul Cottrell (acting general secretary/national head of democratic services) and Catherine Wilkinson (head of constitution and committees).

2             About this report

2.1        This is an interim report. It reflects work of the commission up and including its meeting on 8 March 2019. The commission has asked the NEC to submit this report and related motions to the annual meeting of Congress 2019 in keeping with the timetable for motion submission.

2.2        The commission may also produce a further collection of papers or proposals to be circulated to Congress as a discussion document (not for adoption or decision). Noting that many decisions of the commission have not been unanimous, the co-chairs have, over the course of the commission’s work, invited any position papers, including minority positions from commission members, to be submitted for discussion and to be made available for wider feedback.

2.3        As part of the process leading up to the commission’s final report to the November special Congress, the commission will actively seek feedback from branches and regions. The Democracy Commission will also encourage branches and regions to hold meetings specifically to discuss the issues raised by their report and for members to discuss content and motions they might send to the Special Congress.

 

 

3             Working group A: Recall (of elected members and general secretary) and triggers (for recall)

3.1        The commission decided to prioritise consideration of a process for the recall of elected NEC members and the general secretary, noting the explicit reference to this in motion B19. The ‘recall’ rule that exists for branch officers and committee members in 51¸£Àû’s model local rules was noted. The matter was discussed at length, unsurprisingly, given its seriousness. Whilst the principle of having a recall process was agreed to be important by the majority of commission members, it was not envisaged that frequent use would be made of the provision.

3.2        The commission noted that, under current legislation, a vote to recall could not constitute disciplinary action by the union, and therefore could have no investigative process or adjudication attached. The commission characterised it as an expression of political will.

3.3        At its fourth meeting on 22 February, the commission’s discussions focussed on recall as it applied to the position of general secretary. The commission agreed in principle that all NEC members should be subject to recall, but noted that there were very specific issues relating to NEC constituencies, if recall by Congress was being considered. The position of the devolved nations, whose NEC positions are tied to devolved nation positions (such as honorary secretary 51¸£Àû Scotland, president 51¸£Àû Wales etc), was noted.

3.4        The commission noted that the term for all NEC members (other than the presidential run) was two years, shorter than the GS term of five years. The commission intends to return to the issue of recall for NEC members in its report to the November special Congress.

3.5        Legal advice on the issue of recall was received by the commission at its meeting on 22 February which presented the difficulties of creating a lawful recall mechanism via Congress. The commission agreed (though not unanimously) the following statement:

This meeting of the democracy commission notes that trade unions have to uphold the principles of natural justice and operate on that basis.

We therefore note the legal advice provided to us in line with this and recommend that proposed changes to rule be drafted in line with the options for lawful recall arrangements.

3.6        The commission drafted questions and proposals on which it requested further legal advice.

3.7        The commission also agreed (not unanimously) that, if it found itself in the position of recommending to Congress that an appropriate recall is not legally possible, the way to have more accountability would be through a shortening of the general secretary term of office, requiring a fresh election every three years to shorten the term.

3.8        At its meeting on 8 March, the commission considered further legal advice provided in response to its questions. It also noted the NEC’s decision, following the resignation of Sally Hunt, to call a general secretary election at the earliest possible opportunity, using an essentially unamended contract of employment for the position of general secretary.

3.9        The commission has agreed that the role of general secretary should be subject to a recall process subject to the endorsement of Congress. In order that the law is fully complied with, it is proposed that the precise details of this process be put to the special Congress in November. It is expected that this will involve rule changes and consequent amendments to the contract of the general secretary. Should this be accepted it apply to all future post holders and will apply to the current post-holder subject to their agreement and that of the staff union.

3.10     If the November Congress proves to be inquorate, the matter will be put before the next Congress. In the meantime, we have asked the nominees for general secretary to agree to a statement prior to their election.

3.11     The co-chairs of the democracy commission will write to candidates in the GS election 2019, explaining that the democracy commission has discussed across several meetings and agreed that the GS should be subject to recall and ask them to agree the following statement:

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Subject to the decisions of Congress and special Congress, and negotiations with the staff union, I accept that:

·         should Congress agree a recall process, related to the membership expressing that it has lost confidence in the general secretary, that my contract should be changed to make that recall process possible. I also accept the obligation to follow union rules means that the general secretary could be subject to recall and termination clause 1 can be used in that event.

·         I would work to implement any other changes, including any that change the structure or roles of officers of the union, that are introduced in response to the recommendations of the democracy commission.

 

3.12     Working group A: Recall (of elected members and general secretary) and triggers (for recall) – recommendation

3.12.1                Recommendation 1

The commission recommends that a lawful mechanism for the recall of the general secretary be incorporated into the rules of 51¸£Àû. The commission intends to bring rule changes to effect this to a special conference in November 2019.

 

4             Working group B: Accountability (other than recall) and transparency

4.1        The commission identified a number of areas in which accountability and transparency could be improved. Whilst democratic structures exist within the union, the processes and relationships involved are not always clear to members. The policy of the union as agreed by Congress is not always readily available either (see recommendation 4 below).

4.2        The commission agreed it should try to audit accountability in its widest sense throughout the union’s structures, including the accountability of the general secretary, paid officials, officers, NEC members, regional and other committees. This is an ongoing area of work which may include identifying where and how accountability can be strengthened.

4.3        Some of the work identified in this area was about making information readily available. In some cases that information needs to be gathered and shaped – such as in the creation of role descriptions for national officer roles. In other cases, the information exists but needs to be made more readily available – such as the ability to find 51¸£Àû policy, as passed by Congress, specific to particular issues.

4.4        There is a specific rule change recommended in this section, which seeks to clarify how the powers and duties of the general secretary may be delegated. The rule change specifically delegates any duties relating to negotiations or representation of the union to the president and president-elect. The intention is to ensure that these roles rest with officers who are accountable to the membership by election (recommendation 2).

4.5        A greater understanding of the roles of the union’s national officers was sought. It was assumed that this was not clear to many members, including at the point of voting to elect the union’s vice president, who goes on to become president. The initial discussion of the issue led to an immediate administrative change in the current year: ballot materials sent out in February 2019 referred to ‘Vice president (becoming president in 2020-2021)’.

4.6        There are now two strands of work for further development: the creation of role descriptions for national officer positions, and a proposed title change to create ‘joint presidents’ (one HE, one FE) for the second and third years of the presidential run. Differentiation between the two joint president roles, and any impact on the current equivalent roles, remains a matter for further discussion by the commission. A means by which members can contact NEC members was a matter included in a 2018 Congress resolution. The commission discussed this, and options such as profile pages for NEC members, at some length, noting that it was a potentially difficult area. The need for openness and transparency had to be balanced with the very real need for some members to limit their online visibility for reasons of personal privacy and security. At the time of writing, methods are being explored to allow contact from members whilst maintaining appropriate levels of privacy.

4.7        The way in which NEC members can bring business directly to NEC meetings was raised, seeking an option beyond a 150-word motion (which NEC members can submit under the NEC’s current standing orders). Recommendation 4 below proposes that the NEC amend its standing orders in this respect, to specifically allow for discursive papers directly from NEC members.

4.8        The commission noted that, over the course of the time in which its meetings were being held, the implementation of other motions passed by Congress 2018 was making small enhancements to the transparency of the union’s structures. Whilst the commission would like to see greater changes, since February 2019, agenda items for NEC, HEC and FEC meetings have been made available to members on-line approximately one week before each meeting. The process for motions from branches reaching the NEC, HEC and FEC is being clarified. The NEC’s recruitment, organising and campaigning committee have considered an ‘infographic’ of 51¸£Àû’s structure, and a ‘plain English’ description of existing structures has been drafted.

4.9        There are members of the commission who wish to bring forward the issue of the composition of Congress. This touches on several of the working group strands – accountability (group B) but also structure (group C) and engagement and representation (group E). The prioritising of other issues has meant that this has not yet been discussed. Initial position papers on this are expected for inclusion in the discussion document that the commission intends to circulate to Congress.

4.10     Three other issues were brought to the commission which it was not possible to discuss in detail prior to the publication of the interim report: electronic voting at Congress and sector conferences; live video streaming of Congress and sector conferences; and the audio recording of meetings of the national executive committee, higher education committee, and further education committee, to ensure accurate reporting. The commission has agreed it will return to the discussion of these topics.

4.11     Working group B: Accountability (other than recall) and transparency – ongoing work and recommendations

 

4.11.1                Ongoing work: audit of accountability

The commission intends to carry out an audit of accountability throughout all levels of the union’s democratic structures – including the accountability of elected officers and national committees. The commission will include any recommendations in its final report.

 

4.11.2                Ongoing work: Role descriptions for officers of the union

The commission aims to produce role descriptions for the union’s officer positions (vice president, president elect, president, immediate past president and honorary treasurer, as currently named).

 

4.11.3                ÌýOngoing work: Officer titles and roles

The commission intends to explore how the current president-elect and president years of the presidential run may be re-titled as two years as joint president. This would mean that at any one time there was a joint president from each sector. This ties in to the work on role descriptions for the officers of the union described in 3.9.2 above, and may involve re-considering how some aspects of the (current) president-elect and president roles function. Ìý

 

4.11.4                Recommendation 2: rule change - Delegation of general secretary powers

Delete rule 28.2:

28.2 The General Secretary may delegate any power or duty of, or allocated to, the General Secretary under these Rules to another employee of the Union as the General Secretary shall determine.

Replace with:

28.2 The General Secretary may delegate any power or duty of, or allocated to, the General Secretary under these Rules in the following ways:

28.2.1Ìý Those which relate to negotiations or representation of the Union shall be delegated to the President and President Elect.Ìý

28.2.2 Those relating to day to day running of the union, or pertaining to employees, or other matters not connected to negotiations and representation of the NEC/union may be delegated to another employee of the Union as the General Secretary shall determine.

Purpose:Ìý to create a mechanism for ensuring that, if delegated, the representational powers and duties of the General Secretary would be transferred to elected officers of the union, while powers relating to staffing and the day to day running of the union can be delegated to employees of the union.

 

4.11.5                Recommendation 3: To make Congress policy to available to members, including information on the progress to implement policy

The commission recommends that all Congress policy should be accessible from 51¸£Àû’s website, including information on actions that have been taken to implement the policy, in a form that is searchable by members. This represents a major piece of work – not least because over 2000 motions have been passed by Congress and the sector conferences since the formation of 51¸£Àû. Also, policy development is cumulative and not represented simply by the latest motion passed on a particular topic. How this can best be managed and resourced requires further consideration.

 

4.11.6                Recommendation 4: A change to the NEC’s standing orders to allow NEC members to submit discussion papers directly to NEC meetings

At present, NEC members can submit motions of up to 150 words for decision at NEC meetings – motions which should be consistent with existing Congress policy. Committee papers are written by staff members, often reflecting issues which have been discussed in one of the NEC’s sub-committees or otherwise further the union’s current priorities and policies.

In order to allow NEC members to present more information, and where a more generalised discussion may be useful, a proposal to allow NEC members to bring forward discussion papers is being recommended by the commission.

It is recommended that the NEC amend its standing orders by making the following addition:

3.5ÌýÌý NEC members may additionally submit one report (of up to 1500 words) that they have produced (or have produced in collaboration with other NEC members) to each meeting. Such reports shall be intended to stimulate discussion on a topical issue or provide background evidence for a motion submitted under standing order 3.4. The deadline for receipt of reports shall be 5.00pm on the day that is seven calendar days before the meeting. Reports received after the deadline will not be accepted. A report submitted under this provision is not for adoption or decision by the NEC and the provision to submit amendments does not apply to reports.

Ìý

 

5             Working group C: Structural issues/implications, including the role of paid officials

5.1        The union’s current structures have often featured in the commission’s discussions. The issue of structures overlaps with other areas in this report. So far, there has been an emphasis on transparency and accountability in existing structures, rather than on any large scale change to those structures.

5.2        The commission noted from an early stage that some of its discussions had, sometimes loosely, sometimes more directly, a relationship to the role of 51¸£Àû staff. Some discussions highlighted that there are areas where members may not be clear about the role and responsibilities of 51¸£Àû staff, and how the role of staff is distinct from 51¸£Àû’s decision-making structures. For example, the higher education committee might agree the priorities for campaign material; 51¸£Àû staff will then produce that material. A policy document might be approved by the NEC’s education committee; written representations to government departments or other bodies to further that policy might be made by 51¸£Àû staff.

5.3        Three particular areas for consideration have been identified. The first is the possibility of elected deputy general secretaries. The pursuit of this forms a clear recommendation in this report (recommendation 5); the commission intends to bring the detail, including rule changes, to the November special Congress.

5.4        The other areas are: where members might contribute more to the union, but may find themselves limited by an overlap with the role of staff; and the role of 51¸£Àû’s regional officials as tellers at Congress.

5.5        In respect of democratic structures, the commission considered a report on the role and status of area liaison committees, and agreed that this should be taken forward. As far as commission members have been made aware, there is at present only one area committee with a notional existence. In the past, area liaison committees provided co-ordination among unions in consultations and negotiations with local authority employers within a local education authority area. Their relevance diminished after the incorporation of FE in 1992, but some continued in co-ordinating roles in respect of members employed in local authority adult education. They had some relevance to the Learning and Skills Councils that existed between 2001 and 2010. They have never formed part of 51¸£Àû’s formal structure and no longer function within the majority of regional committees.

 

 

5.6        Working group C: Structural issues/implications, including the role of paid officials – ongoing work and recommendations

5.6.1   Ongoing work: Involving members in more aspects of the union’s work

The commission noted that there are 51¸£Àû members who have expertise in areas such as research and analysis, and publicity and campaigns, including design of materials. 51¸£Àû has staff who undertake this work as part of their contracted employment. The commission hope to find a way to allow members to become involved in a wider range of activities where this is within their specialist skills, without undermining existing staff roles.

 

5.6.2   Ongoing work: Role of regional officials as Congress and sector conference tellers

The commission agreed that it wanted to discuss this issue. If the commission agrees to recommend a change to the usual practice of appointing regional officials as tellers at conferences, this will be brought forward in the final report.

 

5.6.3   Ongoing work: Standing orders for area committees

The commission agreed that area committees (see para 5.5 above) should be able to exist where these continued to be useful, and that these committees should have standing orders.

 

5.6.4   Recommendation 5: Deputy general secretaries

The commission recommends that there should be a second layer of elected posts working in co-ordination with the general secretary to oversee major areas of work. The commission is exploring the option of two deputy general secretaries filling these posts. This will include looking at how these roles will relate to existing 51¸£Àû officers and staff.

 

 

6             Working group D: Conduct of disputes

6.1        The background to the commission’s existence sits, in no small part, within the USS dispute. This campaign delivered industrial action of unprecedented duration by a large number of members, including some members who were less familiar with the structures of 51¸£Àû: both new members, and long-standing members who had not previously engaged with the union to such a large degree. Some members were frustrated with processes of consultation and decision-making which they did not experience as transparent, in a dispute where they had made significant personal and professional sacrifices and shown great commitment to the strike action.

6.2        Decision-making as it relates to national disputes is an important issue, and can present challenges for the union as ongoing disputes change and develop between meetings of the relevant sector conference. Sector committees and sector conferences are clearly defined and constituted in rule, but there is currently no reference in rule to disputes committees. The formation of the national disputes committee (NDC) by the higher education sector conference highlights the need to consider what role disputes committees should have in national disputes, and the need for clarity in respect of the duties and powers of any such bodies.

6.3        A rule change is proposed which, in respect of multi-institution disputes including national disputes, would establish a dispute committee constituted on the same delegate basis as a sector conference in respect of those branches involved – recommendation 6. These committees would be specific to each dispute and would have no existence outside of the period of the dispute. The proposal seeks to ensure that democratic control of the dispute rests with the branches involved. The rule change requires the dispute committee to approve all decisions around ‘tactics, continuation, escalation, or ending of an industrial dispute, including putting to the membership for approval a proposed deal to settle the dispute’. In addition, the commission noted how positive and powerful the bringing together of different branches involved in a dispute could be.

6.4        The commission noted the need for any delegation of the NEC’s power to call industrial action to be clearly and carefully set out, to ensure compliance with relevant legislation. The commission hopes that any issues can be resolved within the framework of the proposed rule change.

 

 

 

6.5        Working group D: Conduct of disputes – ongoing work

6.5.1   Recommendation 6: Rule change - Dispute committees

Insert new rule 35, Dispute committees:

For all multi-institution industrial disputes, a dispute committee will be constituted immediately following a successful ballot from delegates from each branch involved in the dispute, which will exist for the duration of the dispute. Delegates will be elected or nominated by branches, with delegate entitlements as per those prescribed for Sector Conferences in rule 17.2. The committee will be chaired by the relevant Vice President (for single sector disputes), or by the President (for cross-sector disputes). The frequency of meetings will be determined by the committee. Branches may send different delegates to each meeting.

No decision affecting the choice of tactics, continuation, escalation, or ending of an industrial dispute, including putting to the membership for approval a proposed deal to settle the dispute, can be taken without the approval of the dispute committee constituted for that dispute.

(Renumber remaining rules as necessary).

Purpose: To establish in rule disputes committees for multi-institution disputes.

 

 

 

7             Working group E: Engagement and representation

7.1        The need to represent the whole of membership, including members who are less active, members in equality groups, and members in more marginal strands of employment such as adult and prison education, is a theme that the commission has returned to throughout its discussions. Issues of participation and engagement, as well as representation, have been noted and discussed.

7.2        Perceptions that ‘51¸£Àû is not for…’ can only harm the strength of the union and the confidence of members that they will be represented. Representation in formal structures takes on a range of forms within 51¸£Àû (reserved NEC seats, advisory committees, annual meetings, informal networks) – the solution is not the same for every group.

7.3        Due to the prioritising of other areas of work, the commission’s discussions in this area remain at an early stage. The issues raised so far are gaps in representation, representation of migrant and international workers, and protocols for speaking at meetings which reflect and promote equality of participation and oppose aggressive and other inappropriate behaviour. The composition of Congress has also been noted in relation to engagement and representation – this is reported under working group A, accountability and transparency.

7.4        Proposals were brought to 8 March meeting around national election procedures, specifically: the possibility of nationally organised, recorded hustings meetings; finding ways to allow candidates to interact with or make materials available to members beyond their election address. The commission considered the proposal of national recorded hustings favourably, whilst noting that there were potential issues in respect of the current guidance which prohibits the use of the union’s resources for election campaigning. Other proposals intended to increase engagement in elections may be returned to.

 

 

7.5        Working group E – Engagement and representation - ongoing work and recommendation

 

7.5.1   Ongoing work: Gaps in representation

The commission agreed to examine where gaps in representation may lie within the union, both in formal structures and other organising work for example, migrant workers. Ìý

 

7.5.2   Recommendation 7: National recorded hustings

The commission recommends that, subject to any issues relating to the use of unions resources being resolved, the creation of national, recorded hustings (ie available to view on 51¸£Àû’s website) be investigated for NEC elections. The Commission also recommends that a mechanism be found to allow members to submit questions to such a national hustings event in advance.

 

Appendix 1: Congress motions

B19 Ìý Democracy review

Congress notes:

1.        concerns from many branches and members about the processes behind the consultative ballot on the USS offer of 23rd March

2.        the lack of inter-election mechanisms by which to recall or hold elected union representatives  to account.

Congress resolves:

a.        to undertake a review before Congress 2019 of 51¸£Àû's democratic structures via a democracy commission

b.        that the commission should be elected by and from branches, regional committees, devolved nations and advisory committees of the union

c.         to empower the commission to recommend changes to 51¸£Àû's democratic structures at  a one day special Congress, for discussion and voting on by branch delegates.

 

L9  ÌýÌý Democracy Commission

Congress notes Congress 2018 has resolved to set up a Democracy Commission to review our democratic structures.

Congress resolves:

1.     that candidates for election to the commission must be nominated by their respective branches, regions or advisory committees

2.     that the commission must be elected and have held their first meeting by 31 October 2018

3.     regional committees, devolved nations, branches and advisory committees must be strongly encouraged to organise specific meetings to discuss the issues that are to be discussed by the commission

4.     the Commission shall draw up recommendations to put to a one-day special Congress to discuss how our democratic structures should function and what they should look like.

 

 

 

Appendix 2: Membership of the commission

 

Co-chairs: Vicky Blake (NEC and University of Leeds), Elane Heffernan (NEC and Hackney Community College)

 

Regional and devolved nation seats

Alan Barker (University of Nottingham), East Midlands

Sharon Broer (FE central group), West Midlands

Alison Chapman (NEC and City College Plymouth), South West

Lindesay Dawe (Ulster University), Northern Ireland

Nina Doran (City of Liverpool College), North West

Geraint Evans (Bradford College), Yorkshire and Humberside

Jeff Fowler (Sunderland University), Northern

Ann Gow (NEC and University of Glasgow), Scotland

John Hadwin (Guildford College), South East

Dr John Hogan (Anglia Ruskin University), Eastern and Home Counties

Chris Jones (NEC and NPTC Group), Wales

Denis A Nicole (NEC and University of Southampton), South

Keith Simpson (City, University of London), London

 

Branch seats - Further education

Cecily Blyther (Petroc)

Jacqueline D’Arcy (Warwickshire College Group)

Martha Harris (City of Liverpool College [Arts and Mulberry])

Margot Hill (NEC and Croydon College)

John James (Coleg Gwent [Newport])

Kerry Lemon (NCG - Newcastle College)

Rachel Minshull (Leeds City College)

Justin Wynne (NEC and East Sussex College Group [Hastings])

 

Prison education

Brian Hamilton (NEC and NOVUS Prison Education)

 

Adult and Continuing Educators (ACE)

Naina Kent (Hackney Adult Education)

 

 

Branch seats - Higher education

Mark Abel (NEC and University of Brighton [Grand Parade])

Dr Caitlin Adams (Open University)

Dr Douglas Chalmers (President elect and Glasgow Caledonian University)

Rachel Cohen (City, University of London)

Jane Harvey (University of Wolverhampton [Walsall])

Pat Hornby Atkinson (NEC and Edge Hill University)

Kirsty Keywood (University of Manchester)

Jess Meacham (University of Sheffield)

Lesley McGorrigan (University of Leeds)

Christina Paine (NEC and London Metropolitan University [City])

Sean Wallis (NEC and University College London)

Saira Weiner (Liverpool John Moores University)

 

Equality standing committee and employment special interest group committees

Martin Chivers (City, University of London), LGBT members standing committee

Elane Heffernan (NEC and Hackney Community College), Disabled members standing committee

To 13 February 2019: Rhiannon Lockley (NEC and Halesowen College), from 13 February 2019: Annie Jones (Sheffield Hallam University) Women members standing committee

Sam Morecroft (University of Sheffield), Anti-casualisation committee

Nita Sanghera (Vice president and Bournville College), Black members standing committee