Scrutiny Panel

Each term, the Full Time Officers submit reports to the Scrutiny Panel and meet with the members of the Panel. The Scrutiny Panel publish ratings for each Full Time Officer to recognise their successes and highlight areas for improvement.

Please note that these ratings are based on specific measures and do not necessarily reflect the whole of an Officer's output. 

 

Reports and Ratings

Michaelmas Term 2016/17

President

Rating: Good

Positives

  • Active on social media which aids transparency.
  • Timely and pragmatic responses to unplanned issues, e.g. the recent fee rise and the NUS boycott of the NSS.
  • Constructive and worthwhile work being done on implementing a mentor scheme.
  • Cost of living campaign will have a positive impact and directly tackles current problems students are facing with rising accommodation fees.
  • Realistic long term goals that will have a lasting impact.
  • Seems to be working well with the other full time officers and ensuring they work smoothly as a team, as well as building a strong relationship with the university.

Improvements

  • Needs more consultation with the student body, e.g. on cost of living and the mentor scheme; the role can be very behind-the-scenes but the president also needs to engage with students directly.
  • Should be more transparent about activities as the role is not very student-facing.
  • Sometimes more focused on output than on impact – more time should be spent measuring success of work.
  • Problems with time management because goals are so long term. More short term goals would help measure progress and ensure that targets are met this year instead of all being handed over to the next officer team.

 

VP Union Development

Rating: Excellent

Positives

  • Implementation of new democratic structures has been very organised and successful.
  • Upcoming plans for full time officer elections seem more prepared than in previous years and more effort is being put into promotion e.g. Vote Fest.
  • Response to new student housing development near the Sugarhouse was very quick and engaged a significant number of students – adapted extremely well to an unforeseeable situation.
  • Strong work on improving officer training, especially regarding efforts to internationalise Lancaster.
  • Good implementation of both long and short term goals.
  • Some great work on diversity and equality.

Improvements

  • Self-defining elections still don’t seem to be an embedded part of the voting system.
  • Could have sought greater engagement in part time officer, JCR and NUS delegate elections, but has learnt from this and is building on it.
  • More promotion of ‘ideas’ section of the website to engage more students.

 

VP Education

Rating: Good

Positives

  • Done a lot in terms of kicking off a lot of new things
  • Rep system seems to be working well from a LUSU perspective
  • Higher attendance at faculty forums because of improved communication in advance of the meetings, allowing reps time to consult with students
  • There is definitely an improvement in PG representation/consultation this year
  • Worked hard to get student concerns dealt with, for example the campaign around appropriate use of the library

Improvements

  • Need to work on transparency, including working harder on preparing for scrutiny panels
  • From a student point of view there’s not been a huge amount of consultation through the rep system
  •  Should focus more on tangible outcomes for students and seeing projects through where possible

 

VP Welfare and Community

Rating: Excellent

Positives

  • Very thorough report, clearly a lot has been done in a short space of time and has produced tangible outcomes.
  • Lots of consultation: responds to students’ ideas, campaigns and needs rather than just following own plans; deliberately and actively seeks member input.
  • Has made a clear and successful effort to engage with liberation groups and is supporting the part time officers.
  • Very visible to students and therefore approachable for welfare support.
  • Evidently understands policy, its implications, and challenges with implementation.
  • Mental health and green work will have a lasting impact.
  • Seems to be covering all bases despite the role’s very broad remit.

Improvements

  • Could do more work on evaluation and measuring impact.

Working so much with other officers and liberation groups means that the wider student body isn’t always aware of the work being done so transparency and publicity could be improved.

 

VP Activities

Rating: Excellent

Positives

  • Excellent communication and strong relationship with sport and society execs, including creating forums and committees specifically for consultation and feedback, as well as improvements in communication by email.
  • Self-aware of strengths and weaknesses.
  • Laid out a solid plan for the year and has followed it as closely as possible.
  • Very adaptable to barriers faced, e.g. problems with the lack of flat floor space.

Improvements

  • Hasn’t fully engaged with relevant policy.
  • Not enough engagement with wider student body and those who participate in activities rather than being on execs.

 

VP Campaigns and Communications

Rating: Excellent

Positives

  • Good work on funding especially considering how she was thrown into it, as well as budgeting for student media
  • Really good consultation with student media, students wanting to run campaigns, and the wider student body for feedback on campaigns run by the LUSU team
  • Generally one of the most available and visible officers
  • Is aware of the need to have a more clarified feedback and evaluation of campaigns especially with regard to handover
  • We are agreed that Rachel doesn’t give herself enough credit – she’s given people loads of opportunities and run some fantastic campaigns which have truly impacted students!

Improvements

  • Should work on getting more students involved in LUSU campaigns
  • Could centralise system of evaluating campaigns in order to more effectively improve them in future