[SSC] Notes from the SSC first meeting 24/02/2011 - 6-8pm, Mint Lane, Lincoln

[Joss Winn]

Sorry, I realise that I left out one apology:

Sandie Stratford (Lincoln)

Sorry Sandie!

Joss



On 26/02/11 13:31, Joss Winn wrote:
> Attendees:
> 
> Dr. Nigel Horner (Lincoln)
> Prof. Mike Neary (Lincoln)
> Dr. Richard Hall (Leicester)
> Dr. David Young (Lincoln)
> Gary Saunders (Lincoln)
> Joss Winn (Lincoln)
> Charles Cooke (Lincolnshire Co-operative Development Agency)
> 
> Apologies:
> 
> Prof. Richard Keeble (Lincoln)
> Prof. Pete Somerville (Lincoln)
> Dr. Terry Wassell (Leeds)
> Florian Zollman (Lincoln)
> Jennifer Jones (Leicester)
> Steve Thomas (?)
> 
> We began with introductions and apologies. Mike noted that Prof. Scott
> Davidson (PVC Lincoln) and Prof. Howard Stevenson (Prof. of Education,
> Lincoln) have also expressed an interest in supporting the SSC. Charles
> Cooke also attended. Charles is assisting the SSC (at no direct cost to
> the SSC) in formalising its governance and business model. (see further
> below)
> 
> Mike and Joss provided some background to the idea of the SSC, noting
> that they began discussing it last summer and have spent time since
> then, canvassing opinion and forming an initial statement, which is
> currently on the home page of the website. Time has also been spent
> discussing the idea at Snr. levels in the University of Lincoln.
> Although the SSC is not asking for any formal support from the
> University, Mike and Joss felt it was appropriate to share the idea with
> colleagues at the university to ensure it receives tacit support. Having
> done this, a website and discussion list was set up to take the idea
> further.
> 
> The first part of the meeting began with a general discussion around the
> establishment of the SSC.
> 
> Nigel noted that informal adult and further education has collapsed in
> Lincoln over the years, where before there was a network of schools
> offering night classes, etc. these are much diminished. The Workers'
> Education Association's role in Lincoln has also diminished over the years.
> 
> We discussed the need for accreditation or not, noting that there is a
> £30K/year fee to be able to award undergraduate degrees and £40K to
> include post-graduate degree awards. We also questioned the principle of
> awarding degrees and agreed that authority of the SSC would lie in it's
> academic reputation (including the reputation of its academics and
> students), rather than the formal powers to award degrees. It is hoped
> that the SSC's reputation alone will, for some people, be a compelling
> reason to join. Mike also noted that there are similar organisations
> that have an excellent international reputation for research and
> learning but do not grant undergraduate degrees (e.g. The Architectural
> Association http://www.aaschool.ac.uk grant diplomas at the
> undergraduate level) Joss noted that the original medieval universitas
> was a place wherever teachers and students met. A 'university' can
> therefore be defined by its members.
> 
> We agreed that we need to develop a very clear statement for prospective
> students on what the SSC offers to them. This would need to be developed
> following a clear statement inviting academics to join the SSC has been
> sent out.
> 
> Joss pointed out that because of the governance model we hope to adopt
> (non-hierarchical, consensus based), the offering of the SSC will be in
> the hands of all its members, once the formal governance structure is in
> place. At this stage, there is a need to create the governance structure
> and attract members who support the basic principles of the SSC.
> 
> Gary said that he thought some of his current students were the type of
> students we might expect to join the SSC. He said that his students (FE
> college with some HE provision) were very disgruntled with what is
> happening in HE and the wider economy at the moment and that they often
> don't see the point in continuing along the established route. He
> thought that they'd be willing and interested in doing something
> different. Joss said that in previous discussions with people, the SSC
> appealed more to potential post-graduates rather than undergraduates.
> 
> Nigel thought we should consider what resources the SSC needs:
> Academics, students, access to books, articles, IT provision, premises.
> 
> Joss said that the University Library can be used by non-university
> members, including book loans on special cases. It may be that SSC
> members could have special access to the University of Lincoln library
> with facilities to borrow books, etc. Joss will look into this further.
> We also need to make contact with the Lincoln public library, who
> provide Internet Access and a book search service.
> 
> On the subject of IT, we agreed that much of the necessary IT is now
> ubiquitous and that academics and students are likely to own their own
> devices. Joss assured everyone that a central IT provision could be
> provided at little cost. Mike emphasised that the SSC was not a distance
> learning provision, but was very much tied to place and academics and
> students meeting face-to-face, supported by the use of technology. He
> also said that depending on income at the SSC, some students might be
> able to receive a netbook, etc. if required.
> 
> Joss emphasised the need to work to a tight schedule if we are to hold
> classes in the autumn term 2011. We need to first invite academics and
> non-student members, then advertise for students, recruit students and
> develop outline curricula prior to October. Nigel questioned whether it
> was necessary to work to the traditional academic timetable as many
> academics have more time over the holiday periods and are under less
> pressure.
> 
> On the subject of premises, we agreed that the Mint Lane building where
> we met was highly suitable, but noted that the long-term lease has not
> been decided. It is owned by the County Council and a decision is being
> made very soon about whether to grant a 12 month extension to the lease.
> If this is granted, the users of the building (there are a number of
> local community groups that use the building), would need to develop a
> business case for holding the lease and even then, the Council could
> decide to use it for other purposes or sell it. Charles said that he has
> discussed the SSC with the Executive of the Lincolnshire Co-operative
> Group (among other potential supporters) and that there is an interest
> in supporting the SSC and they will get back to us about how they might
> help. The Lincolnshire Co-op Group also hold a large number of
> properties, including shops, in the city and might be keen to lease one
> at very low cost. The Croft Street Community Centre also has rooms
> available to rent for low cost. The Co-operative Group also have
> 'training rooms' available which we might be able to use on Tentercroft
> Street. Joss noted that it was important to find a premises (like that
> on Mint Lane), where the SSC can establish itself, rather than use
> multi-purpose rooms. He said it was important to establish and develop a
> sense of identify and place for the SSC and for that we need premises
> that we can be identified with. Joss said that Andrew, a keyholder for
> the Mint Lane building, is currently doing an 'audit' of potential
> alternative properties for his community group and we should work together.
> 
> We then discussed membership of the SSC. Who do we initially want to
> invite to become members of the SSC? It was agreed that the SSC would
> benefit from a diverse range of academics, rather than simply creating a
> Centre for academics who shared any one political position. The politics
> of the SSC would be defined by the way we organise ourselves, not by the
> specific subject matter we teach.
> 
> We then moved on to discuss the writing of a letter to invite academics
> to join. It was agreed that we should aim to invite a large number of
> people, locally, nationally and internationally. The idea being that not
> all will join and that we should aim to attract even the very best
> academics working in the Social Sciences, including the 'big names'.
> Mike and Joss explained their idea, that some members may wish to
> support the SSC as 'silent members', simply to support the objectives of
> the SSC. Others may be able able to act as external examiners, receiving
> one or two papers a year to mark. Others may wish to take a more active
> role in the running of the SSC. Some academics in the social sciences
> might soon be unemployed and wish to become members of the SSC so as to
> continue teaching. It was agreed that we should compile a list of around
> 100 academics to invite to join the SSC. Joss will set up an online
> document for people to contribute names to.
> 
> Concurrent with this, we agreed that a letter needs to be drafted. In
> the first instance, we should aim to send it to academics working in HE.
> Membership is open to anyone, but receiving the membership of university
> academics is most urgent at this stage so as to clearly define our
> offering to potential students. Also, the website needs developing to
> show who its members are (biogs, pictures, etc.) and also a form for
> students and academics to join. Membership fees will be based on income
> ranging from £0 to £300/yr (or more?) We also questioned whether we
> should send out a preliminary invitation to join and ask for a pledge.
> However, it was generally felt that we need to send out a full letter of
> invitation with a convenient method to join and pay there and then.
> Therefore, the SSC needs a bank account and to be formally set up as a
> co-op first.
> 
> We discussed what the SSC would provide. Would it also be a place for
> skill sharing, etc. Joss and Mike both said that they intended the SSC
> to focus specifically on the provision of higher education although
> accept that will eventually be the decision of all members. It was
> agreed that at this stage, it is important to focus on higher education
> and do it well.
> 
> It was agreed that the drafting of a letter would be done online and
> that members of the discussion list would be encouraged to help write it.
> 
> We then moved on to discuss the setting up of the SSC as a co-op and
> governance in general.
> 
> Charles said that having listened to our meeting (and having met with
> Mike and Joss previously and read our statement of intent), he thought
> that we should initially set up an unincorporated co-operative. This
> would reduce the level of admin required and although it would mean that
> members would be liable for the SSC (i.e. not limited liability), we
> have very little to insure ourselves against and there are no paid staff
> either. This can be changed at any time in the future, but offers a
> simple way to set up and begin.
> 
> We discussed the different between a 'workers' co-op' and a 'consumer
> co-op'. Charles said that there is no such distinction in law and that
> arguably, we are neither of these. He said it is is more important to
> develop a well defined constitution which details the governance
> structure we wish to have, our statement of intent and objectives.
> 
> We also need to define the types/qualifications of membership and
> whether we wish to have a management group or whether there should be a
> flat structure. There was a strong agreement among us that we should
> have a flat structure, based on consensus decision making among all
> members. Charles said that the Wholefood company, SUMA, work this way,
> with  all decisions made by consensus, everyone receiving the same pay,
> and a rotation of responsibilities rather than fixed posts. We agreed
> that this was our preferred model.
> 
> It was agreed that Joss would be the main point of contact for Charles
> while setting up the SSC as a co-op and that all decisions would first
> be sent to the discussion list for comment.
> 
> The meeting ended at 8pm.
> 
> =================
> 
> Joss, Mike, Richard, Gary, David and Richard then went to the pub where
> we discussed matters further.
> 
> We talked about the types of membership and whether membership fees
> should be fixed to income or profession (i.e. a Prof. pay £300-500/year,
> a lecturer pays £100-200/yr, low/no income pays £0/yr, etc.) I think we
> felt that its best for people to provide a self-assessment of their
> income and choose the membership payment themselves.
> 
> One way of thinking about the money we need is to think about what we
> need it for. Mike thought that maybe we will need to establish a paid
> admin post before too long.
> 
> We talked about getting the website developed so that people can join.
> Richard said that he'd contact Jennifer Jones and Steve Thomas, who are
> on the discussion list and have offered to help with it.
> 
> We need to develop some example 'offerings' so that people can get an
> idea of what they might get out of the SSC. This will partly be defined
> by the academics and other members that join. We therefore need to make
> sure that the membership form asks people what they can offer to the SSC.
> 
> After a couple of drinks we left the pub.
> =============
> 
> So, there you have it. Our first proper meeting. I hope these notes have
> been useful and stimulate you to pick up one or two issues for
> discussion here on this list. Also, if you were present at the meeting
> and think my notes are inaccurate, please do tell us.
> 
> There is a need to focus on the letter of invitation to academics in HE
> initially. Once we get the widespread support of members, this will help
> define what the SSC can offer and what it might become (it will also
> give us a lot of encouragement to make this thing work).
> 
> I'll send a note to the list soon about how we can jointly author the
> letter and list of invites. Please do speak out about anything mentioned
> above.
> 
> Cheers
> Joss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SSC mailing list
> SSC at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc