Last week’s Union General Meeting (UGM) passed two motions. Questions were also posed to the Beaver about its executive editor elections.
A quorum call was made at the beginning of the meeting, conducted by the sabbatical officers and members of the executive committee as the Constitution and Steering Committee (C&S) had a vote of no-confidence passed against them several weeks ago. The meeting was found to be quorate after another count was done by an LSESU staff member.
Following reports by the sabbatical officers and the executive committee, Beaver Executive Editor Shibani Mahtani announced that the collective meeting to elect the new executive editor would be held that evening, as the previous night’s meeting was seen as null and void.
But prior to Mahtani’s report, LSESU Returning Officer Shanti Kelemen stated that she will not certify Thursday night’s elections as she believed that an online voting system should be implemented.
A member of the audience raised a question, stating that he was “confused” as to whose version was the correct one.
Mahtani said that a decision was still pending from the LSESU and the editorial board.
The first motion entitled ‘iCan and iWill Enforce the Constitution and The Codes of Practice’ resolved to “request the Returning Officer to re-declare the results of referendum based upon the super-majority criterion”. Keleman’s report referred to this motion, stating that even if the motion was passed by the UGM, she would not overturn the results of the referendum.
Sajjad Hassam spoke for the motion, stating that it had been tabled in Week 5 and that it would be “more constitutional” if the referenda had to pass by a super-majority. Further, advice was sought from a Public Law professor at the LSE.
LSESU General Secretary Aled Dilwyn Fisher then spoke against the motion.
“It isn’t because I don’t want a resolution, but the Returning Officer cannot do it constitutionally,” Fisher began his speech. He further believed that a “practical solution” can be found, as this motion “will not change anything”.
The seconder of the motion Frank Magennis called the referenda a “constitutional crisis”, that as he was a member of C&S, “it was not my fault they messed up” as “it was not conducted correctly”.
Member of C&S Sebastian Steinfeld, spoke against the motion, presenting legal letters that would have the case thrown out, if the proposers of the motion were take the case to court. He also believed that as the “student have voted” and they should “respect wishes of the voters”. He further alleged that Magennis “made constitutional crisis”.
Mira Hammad asked Fisher that if a meeting with the LSESU executive committee could be convened in an hour, why is it that her request has taken so long. Fisher replied that her complaint was very long, and that it would take 21 working days to address. He went on to say that since they were all friends of his and campaigned with him, his “office door always open”.
A student asked the proposers of the motion why they had not just proceeded to table another referendum as that is “how mature people would do it”.
Hassam responded: “500 people signed the petition, the constitutional crisis term was suggested by Jo Murkens…this can result in Charities’ Commission revoking the Union’s status.”
This is now rebutted by Fisher, “It is utterly false to claim that the Charities Commission will revoke our status. The Charities Commission will look at our Constitution, which passed by 89% using the Charities Commission’s own model document”.
The motion was passed, which also resolved that the “Sabbatical Officers and the elected Executive Officers of the Union to book a room for one hour before the end of LT 2010 in which no other business is transacted other than the aloud complete reading of the Constitution and the Codes of Practice to members of the Union”.
Further, the motion mandated sabbatical officers to attend “a thirty minute-long student-led ‘Etiquette and Interpersonal Skills Refresher’ session” in which “basic etiquette and email-response skills are covered”.
When asked how he felt about the motion’s mandate, Fisher commented: “The motion made some sarcastic resolutions to ask the officers and staff to waste their time doing frivolous ‘refresher sessions’ that the proposers of the motion obviously found amusing. What is not amusing is that the UGM has once again become hostage to minority interests – which further evidences the need for reform.
“When the quoracy call was first made on Thursday, myself and others counted no more than around 125 or 130 in the room…This again shows how barely 150 students can pass resolutions that claim to speak for all students – it cannot continue this way and that is why we proposed reforms that widen the scope of the UGM towards the majority of
students.”
Second motion, ‘No to summary suspensions, no to police brutality on university campuses – support Sussex students’ was proposed by Fisher, but one of the five Sussex students who were suspended, Simon Englert, spoke for the motion.
Englert spoke about how riot police with dogs were called by the management of the university to break a peaceful demonstration. Further, he felt that the community was telling the demonstrators to “fuck off”.
The motion was passed without any opposers, resolving the Union to “sign a petition calling for the suspension on the Sussex students to be lifted, due process to be followed and an official condemnation of the police response to the protest released by the university”.
Related posts:
- Reforms passed amidst complaints regarding constitutional validity
- Motion to let Othman study passed at UGM
- UGM: Underwhelming General Meeting
- The Aled Dilwyn Show
- School and Union call for calm on campus