|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Is it legal to run a non-payment campaign? YES- provided you follow the advice below. For the Individual Non-payer A student who refuses to pay their tuition fees is in an entirely different legal position to someone who, say, refuses to pay their income tax. Tuition fees are part of the contract made between a student and their educational institution (when you confirm your intention to attend that institution). The liability to pay income tax, in contrast, is not dependent upon any such contract. The only sanctions that can be taken against a non-payer relates to his/her status as student, not as citizen (as with income tax). The laws governing the relationship between student and college are those of "tort"; a student can be deemed, upon non-payment, to have "forfeited" their status as student, having broken part of the contract. This break of contract does not of itself constitute a criminal offence. Virtually the only practical consequences of non-payment are the possible withdrawal of student status, through being 'sent down', denied access to libraries, etc. However, for reasons given elsewhere in this booklet, this outcome is unlikely, and has not occurred to any of the first year of non-payers in Oxford. It is worth remembering that the NUS supported non-payment of the Poll Tax, and that relatively few of the thousands of Poll Tax non-payers were prosecuted. Their act of non-payment was a direct contravention of the law rather than just a breach of contract as is tuition fees non-payment. For the running of a group non-payment campaign The most important thing to remember is not to spend money, which has been in a Charity account, or raised for a Charity, for the Non-Payment campaign. All Student Unions ("SUs"; read "JCRs and SUs") are Charities. This accords them privileged treatment as regards some taxes such as VAT, but also has a number of consequences regarding the use of SU funds. Firstly, the major office holders of the SU (generally defined as the JCR/SU President, Treasurer, possibly Vice-President, etc) are deemed the "Trustees" of the SU. If any action the SU takes has illegal financial consequences, they are personally liable (although they are of course perfectly at liberty to reject any proposed action required of them as unconstitutional, if they recognise it goes against the law- they cannot be "forced" by an SU into signing illegal cheques, for example).  Two laws define which uses of funds are "illegal". •Charities law (as reinforced by the Attorney General's Guidelines to SUs in 1983) prevents SU Trustees from using funds for any purpose which either defeats the aims of the SU, or which is wilfully reckless. •The 1994 Education Act states that SU money can only be used "for students as students". Money used for educational purposes is for students; hence, the SU can sponsor a meeting at which political issues are discussed. It cannot, however, pay for even part of a political campaign which does not affect present students at that college. Such payments would be deemed "ultra vires" since they contravene the law. A non-payment campaign cannot, therefore, be financed by a SU for two reasons: Firstly, it relates to future rather than present students. Secondly, it has the (admittedly unlikely, but) possible consequence of resulting in students not attending university. This might be claimed to go against their "interests" as students in so far as these are defined in terms of obtaining an education. NONE OF THIS, however, need harm the non-payment campaign. There are many easy ways to prevent even the slim chance of being caught out over such legalities. With regard to money used for the campaign: 1. None of it should go through the SU; it is advisable to set up a special Non Payment bank account if large sums of money are going to be involved in the campaign for publicity, letters to Freshers, etc. (This bank account should of course be distinct from that into which non-payers could pay their fees). 2. It must always be explicit that any money donated or spent is going towards the non-payment campaign and not just to the SU as might be the usual case
These points rule out: •the SU voting through a motion to donate money to the campaign; •the SU giving last week's bar profits to the campaign (when punters had been buying their beer believing profits would be accruing to the SU as usual); •the SU President using his/her discretionary powers to donate money from his/her budget to the campaign (if applicable)
But they still allow: •Collections of money for the campaign (even during JCR meetings, so long as its clear what they money is going to); •special Non Payment events (bops, parties, plays, band-nights, etc); •changing the SU jukebox/snooker table into a non-payment jukebox/snooker table with all proceeds (explicitly) to go to the Campaign.  The sources of alternative revenue are as varied as your imagination suggests. With regard to the organisation of the Non-Payment campaign: It might be advisable to separate it from the SU. The SU can obviously verbally pledge its support to the campaign through a motion to an SU meeting, for example. But it could aid the separation of SU funds from Non-Payment campaign funds, if those in charge of the latter (especially if they are to become signatories for a Non-Payment bank account) are not the SU President, Treasurer, Vice-President, etc. All this may seem rather pernickety; it IS improbable that any transgression of Charities or Education Act law would be noticed, let alone pursued in the courts. Nonetheless, when its so easy to ensure the legality of the campaign, it is well worth making sure it has absolutely rock-solid foundations. |
|
|
