It is somewhat ironic that our incumbent Sabbatical Officers have chosen to use UGM as a means to destroy itself. Critics of the constitutional reform have defended the UGM’s power as the ultimate means of discussing Union policy; in this case, it is less a case of informed and balanced debate, and more an occasion for Aled Dilwyn-Fisher & Co. to push through a document that few people have had the chance to read through and the Constitution & Steering Committee (C&S) have yet to approve.
“It can’t be stopped” is the curious maxim published on our General Secretary’s Twitter feed with regard to this seemingly inexorable wave of change. Firm. Strong. Almost – dare we say it – dictatorial? One would rather hope that a democratic process would very much have the power to stop something that the electorate might believe to be unrepresentative of their views. This is a document, after all, that was forged after the consultation of just 1,500 individuals, 500 of which took the form of online questionnaires – this from a university of over 9,000 students. A document that was supposedly eighteen months in the making, and yet appears to have been scrawled on the back of a napkin with only passing interest in the suggestions of affected parties.
All these concerns were alluded to in a UGM that once again saw a first-time speaker heckled and repeatedly interrupted, this time by Sabbatical Officers stood barely a metre away. But the childish farce of an on-stage Punch and Judy would not suffice for our dear leaders. “Students are crying out for reform” claimed Fisher. As far as we could tell, the only thing students were crying out for was for their questions to be answered; for the debate to be fair and reasoned. A perfectly valid decision was made by the UGM Chair, to suspend the meeting and carry on with the debate the following week – a decision opposed by the persistently petulant General Secretary. Even the rational judgements of C&S members were disputed by Fisher; the UGM Chair felt sufficiently undermined as to write a letter, printed in this week’s Beaver, defending his decision.
Readers might assume that we were intrinsically opposed to referendum or to reform. We do find aspects of the proposals unsavoury, yes – particularly those concerning the editorial and financial independence of the Media Group. However, that would be to ignore our greater concerns – and apparently the concerns shared by students present at UGM – about the behaviour of the Sabbatical Officers. They have outright rejected points raised during consultations; even cut off suggestions made by students during a Beaver Collective meeting. They have conducted “chats” with those who have raised any opposition to the reforms. If their justified concerns are met with intimidation, strong-arming, and accusations of “lying”, how are society chairs, Media Group heads, and other individuals so deeply involved with the Union, to maintain working relationships with their overseers?
If the Sabbs get their way, eighteen months of dubious “consultation” will no doubt degenerate into two weeks of frenzied leafleting and vacuous campaigning. If this is an attempt to combat poor attendance at UGM, may we ask why there is no minimum turnout required for the referendum to be binding? Could this be, as was intimated by a speaker at UGM, a last-ditch attempt by our elected officials to leave a legacy, and condemn students to faceless bureaucracy?
An excellent piece. These proposals will clearly remove the primacy of the UGM and essentially make the Beaver an advertising piece for the sabbatical officers. I will oppose this referenda as should everyone else. Oh why did we re-elect Fisher & Co?