2018 Annual General Meeting Minutes

2018 Annual General Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Demon TV (Chris Leach), LSTV (Rebecca Kusznir), GUST (Patrick Simpson)

Forge TV (Ed Ireleand-Jones), CUTV (Elizabeth Mills), NSTV (Joseph McGeeman), LSUTV (Craig Searle), NSU/TV (Victoria Potter), Stag TV (Max Marroni), SUSU TV (Danny Richard), TrentTV (Lauren Clemson), LA1:TV (Siri Hampapur), NUTV (Ava Forbes), YTV (Hai-Ling Phillips)


Key: CO – Chris Osborn (Chair), TM – Tom Mason (Host Officer), AC – Avneet Chauhan (Industry Liason Officer)


1. Introduction from Chair and Notices to Meeting

  • CO: Quorum was not hit, so nothing was able to be voted on or ratified, motions will be discussed and then voted on at the OGM
    • CO invited the stations to read the officer reports, before moving straight to the motions.
  • CO and TM: The shortlist was the top five entries in the ranking

2. Ratification of minutes from previous Meeting

  • Postponed to OGM due to lack of quorum

3. Declaration of Interest

  • Not carried out due to lack of quorum

4. Association Annual Report

  • Postponed to OGM due to lack of quorum

5. Executive Officer Annual Reports

  • Postponed to OGM due to lack of quorum

6. Non-Executive Officer Reports

  • Postponed to OGM due to lack of quorum

7. Motions of Censure

  • None

8. Constitutional Motions

Motion 1:

  • GUST proposed the motion and explained that they didn’t feel there was any formalised procedures for the rule break and appeal procedures, which resulted in multiple entries disqualified.
  • The Chair made two POIs, as laid out in the motion document
  • ForgeTV: Approved of the idea, but pointed out that it would require moving submission deadlines sooner, potentially by two or three weeks
    • GUST: The end result would be a more efficient system overall
    • NSTV: The current deadline was very close to the exams, which caused issues
    • TM: This is why submissions are open way in advance, to allow people the time to work around events, and there should be a focus on submitting earlier
    • CO: The submission deadline week is decided by the host
  • GUST: All entries should be sent to the judges when submitted, and then disqualifications happen after
  • STAG TV: There was a lot of uncertainty with the appeal procedure, and it happened a lot in the background
    • CO explained that the appeal procedure was laid out in an email sent by RA
  • LSTV: The appeal procedure needs to be standardised, as if it changes every year this can cause confusion
  • LSTV: It was great that the submission was open early, but closing submissions earlier might prevent work from new members being submitted
    • CO suggests the idea of proposing a motion to formalise deadline dates
  • GUST: The lack of appeals were more because of uncertainty of how the appeal procedure worked, rather than lack of desire to appeal.
  • NUTV: There is an accessibility issue – the only reason we felt we knew what was happening was because a member of the NUTV committee sat on the NaSTA exec
  • GUST: The exact grounds of appeal needs to be clear as well as the procedure, which helps the station understand the chances they have.

Motion 2:

  • Callum Isaac (LSTV) proposes the motion, explaining the need to remove personal connections between the judge and current members of the station.
  • The Chair presented two POI as laid out in the motions document
  • LSTV: Get judge decisions checked and verified by a judge from another category to look over.
  • YSTV: The idea is good, but sourcing judges is difficult enough as it is. In addition, the two year time is arbitrary as some stations frequently reconnect with alumni.
    • LSTV: Don’t feel that knowing a judge is alone an issue, but simply close connections are an issue.
    • CO and TM: The judge for Best Broadcasting graduated three years ago but already has a substantial role in industry
  • TM: Some categories already had a board of judges shortlisting categories before they were then sent on to the final judge.
  • DemonTV: It might be worth consulting with SRA, to hear how they use a panel system for judging
    • AC: This discussion already has occurred, SRA’s panel system works due to their sponsorship system which NaSTA doesn’t have
  • YSTV: Our connections with alumni from many years ago are very close despite the time passed.
  • TrentTV: Ensure that there are a few judges for each category that are all from different stations to remove bias
  • DemonTV made a request for clarification on who STAN are, which CO explained.
  • ForgeTV: Before the motion is voted on at the OGM, it is probably worth running a consultation on what time frame a judge should have been out from student TV to make them eligible, as well as consultation on panel.
  • LA1:TV: How does this affect postgraduates who have a career in industry but then come back to student TV.
    • LSTV did not feel the exact wording of the motion would cause an issue here.
  • YSTV: Would the panel system cause an issue organising communications
    • CO: In the past, judges have just combined scores, but finding enough judges would be an issue
    • AC: As well as the cost of bringing all the judges to the Awards.
  • DemonTV: Combine all the judges across the categories into a single or dual panel to judge all the award.
    • CO and TM point out that every judge would then have to watch all videos across all the categories, which would be infeasible
  • LSTV: The two years rule would not cause much change to how NaSTA currently source judges. Also Host stations could use the network of other stations to track down judges.
  • LSTV: The point of the motion is to find the balance between ease of finding judges and having some ‘emotional detachment’ from their station – we believe that two years is enough to cause this detachment.
    • CO: Dan Orton (Chair of STAN) had said to him that a lot of the core of the ethos of judging student TV relies on integrity and trust in the judges, and that is how it has been.
  • DemonTV: We know alumni who only have a passing connection with our station that would not feel comfortable judging due to personal bias.
  • CUTV: Definitely in support of the motion, but there needs to be a variety with where the alumni come from.
  • GUST: In support of the motion: two years is arbitrary and connections don’t necessary fade much, but the motion is a gesture towards reinforcing the integrity of the judges and encouraging trust from stations.

9. Annual Accounts

  • The Chair presented the current account balance.

10. Open questions from the members of NaSTA

  • Clarifications were requested on Awards feedback, Tom Mason explained how stations could receive feedback.
    • NSU/TV: Some of the feedback has scores or writing missing
      • TM: will look into it
    • GUST: What will happen with successful appeal entries’ feedback?
      • TM: will look into it
    • TM: Will send out an email with links to feedback
  • ForgeTV: Is it clearly defined what the Host Station’s responsibilities are in the new documentation?
    • CO: There is the Hosting Agreement that has been brought in this year, in particular with regard to the new obligations the Association will have as a charity

11. Returning Officer’s Report

  • Not carried out due to lack of quorum.

12. Confirmation of Election Results

  • Not carried out due to lack of quorum.

13. Returning officer election

  • Not carried out due to lack of quorum.

14. Trustees election

  • Not carried out due to lack of quorum.

15. Any other business

  • CO apologised for not being able to vote on motions today, and that an OGM will be convened to vote on motions and elect the remaining positions.