It sounds like a really good idea. I feel pretty bored in front of the TV and think that some direct action could be quite good, actually. Maybe at least it will be a different thing to tell the mates about back home.

What is wrong with having an art department? Sounds like a good thing to me.

What does everyone else think?

yup, i am there!!

did some googling and found stuff..

- an occupation of the square last year:
 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/03/286949.html

-and then that old story below, which relates as a historical background to this story:
 http://www.thescam.org.uk/serco.html (see also:  http://www.lusu.co.uk/scan/letters/serco.html)

5. THE MYSTERY OF THE MISLEADING APOSTROPHE by Nick Bardsley
------------------------------------------------------------
----Remarks on the 'Management' of Lancaster University Students' Union----

Since 1994, and the adoption of a new constitution, Lancaster
University Students' Union has not been truly under the control of
those students it seeks to represent.

The '94 constitution was written in the wake of the 1994 Education
Act, which required students' unions to be treated as a part of a
university's administration. It was a clever piece of work on the part
of the university authorities and the General Manager, Peter Elliott.
It has taken three years for the full implications of that constitution
to make themselves known. Student officers now know that they are
blocked by it from having an effective say in financial regulation,
commercial activities, use of union building space, and working
practices.

It has also become clear that no member of staff can be criticised in
the smallest manner - even if that criticism is constructive. Indeed,
technically one cannot even praise a member of staff in a union
committee.

Of course, it is understandable that staff should feel the need for
protection and certainly should not have to undergo unreasonable
criticism or attacks. However, when staff begin to take an active role
in union and university politics then they lay themselves open to
justifiable comment.

In particular, it is ridiculous that the conduct of the General
Manager, a property trustee of the union, the nominated holder of
shares belonging to the union, and the head of department in the union,
cannot be discussed in any wise whatever - not even in a Union General
Meeting, the so-called sovereign body of the union.

Other faults exist, in particular, due to a rather elaborate
structural relationship, it has come about that the Finance and General
Purposes Committee, nominally a sub-committee of Union Council, is
effectively a more powerful body than Union Council itself. Indeed, no
financial business whatever can be raised at Union Council
independently of F&GP (which, needless to say, has a much more
exclusive membership).

Nobody can say that these faults are unavoidable implications of the
1994 Education Act - I have seen enough students' unions around the
country in the last two years to see that it is perfectly possible to
fulfil the requirements and retain strong student control over a union.
Some of the most effective and well 'managed' students' unions in the
country are highly controlled by students. In these unions the General
Manager is simply the point of contact for relaying policy to staff -
that person does not engage in political negotiation with the
university; that person does not decide financial policy; that person
does not create new staff positions without full consultation.

The faults spelled out, and others, stem from the flawed manner in
which the '94 constitution was written. It was simply wrong that the
constitution was written by university house staff and the General
Manager of LUSU. Yes, there was a certain amount of student
consultation - however an acquaintance of mine, who sat on the
constitutional committee, remembers how their concerns were overruled
time and time again. In the end University House and their friend got
what they wanted.

But now, with student officers seeing the injustice of the
constitution and actively trying to use those few bits that allow some
say in affairs to restore student rights of governance, University
House and the General Manager appear to by trying to plug the gap.

We hear that commercial activities are to be subsumed under a trading
company - which will no doubt have precious few students on the board.
We hear that there are plans for a more formal separation between
political activity and 'service provision'. In other words, money will
flow towards 'services' and the union will be emasculated as a
political force at this university - except insofar as certain persons
can enlarge their empires.

Now we see that the apostrophe following the s of 'students' really is
misleading. We see that unless a real attempt to reform the constitution
takes place; a process involving _all_ student officers and not just
sabbaticals. It is not enough for the Committee on Relations between the
Students' Union and the University to tinker at will - a programme of
reform should come squarely from within the union and involve a majority
of student officers.

Unless we get that reform, and with it real student control of the
union, then the apostrophe will continue to be misleading....

have they thought of simply starting a new union, by collecting cash and using it for neccessary things like printing and buying supplies?

I discovered a leaflet near the reception of University College Northampton, cutbacks are on the agenda, more information to follow ......

Have the students of Lancaster thought of starting a new union, paid for by donations collected around campus/town? The money could be used for essentials like printing, and would be out of the control of the uni authorities.
I also seem to remember that one of the Thatcher administrations' ideas was to allow students the right not to have union fees paid if they didn't wish to be part of the union. Did this happen? If so, just get as many students as possible to disaffiliate from the union. Yes, some clubs and bar subsidies will suffer in the short term, but if every stuent gavesay, £1 a week to the new union (or club etc) you could soon be doing beer runs to Sainsbury's (or Single Step, if you prefer organic wines! and they're still there.)
If you smash yourself against a brick wall, all you'll get is bruised. If you dig beneath the foundations (ie money) the building will topple.
Good luck to you all.

There are many possible approaches in terms of strategies: all things have two handles, beware of the wrong one - but on the other hand any tools is a weapon if you hold it right.

It is true that confrontation in itself does not appear as the most constructive strategy, however it might be very possible that the energy of the proposition "let us resist and confront" is a conducive gathering point around which organisation could spontaneously emerge and creativity be born. Worth a shot, ehh?

The suggestions for an alternative union, or rather "a union for students by students" is one possible avenue and certainly one that is worth exploring in an assembly of students.

Important is to maintain positions, dream up ideas and stay focused on the clear demands, such as, for instance, but not limited to: do NOT close the Art Department and admit to a management scheme of efficiency at the cost of a creative, intellectual and dynamic environment.

And then a link for the historically minded and for inspiration:

 http://www.notbored.org/poverty.html

Featuring the the famous "declaration":

"On the poverty of student life:
considered in its economic, political, psychological, sexual, and particularly intellectual aspects, and a modest proposal for its remedy"
By Mustapha Khayati
Published by UNEF, Strasbourg 1966; trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith/Christopher Gray

I don't mean don't occupy - from what I recall occupations are a great way to get solidarity amongst students, and at least frighten the authorities. But students should be aware that the authorities will send in the bailiffs, and try to recover damages from them. It's worth it, but there is a price. Just also be looking into alternative solutions to long-term problems.

First off, this is a good fight to fight. I am a lecturer and am ashamed by the lack of action by teaching staff. The UK university system is going bad! I hope to join you in solidarity.

I organised an occupation in London in 1994 (against the abolition of grants). This one, as a localised event seems much more important. When we occupied, we were threatened with legal action, but as we got the backing of the Student Union (which opposed the occupation but because of an emergence vote they ended up having to support us), they didn't do anything in the end.