Students dissatisfied with the way the recent referendum was run protested outside a Court of Governors meeting last Thursday, in an unprecedented move condemning the Union’s actions.
Approximately thirty students were gathered outside the Wolfson Theatre before the Court of Governors meeting commenced, where the governors were having their tea and biscuits. Protestors were holding banners saying “Reclaim your Union”, and shouting chants such as: “We cannot believe their cheek, save the Union from this clique”. They were also able to talk to some of the Governors present before the meeting itself, airing their discontent with the Union and referendum process.
According to the current Structure of School Governance, the Court of Governors “discusses the major questions affecting the development of the School”. It also “receives reports from the Director and Council” and “authorises the Articles of Association”. 5 members of the Court of Governors are students nominated by the Students’ Union. Two of the Union’s Sabbatical Officers, General Secretary Aled Dilwyn Fisher and Treasurer George Wetz, sit on the Court of Governors.
This move comes after an official complaint was filed by Mira Hammad against the constitutionality of the referendum, the way in which it was run and the conduct of Union officials. Dissatisfied with the Union’s suggestion of 21 days to address the complaint, a motion was further put to last week’s Union General Meeting (UGM) weeks after it was first tabled. This motion resolved to “request the Returning Officer to re-declare the results of the referendum based upon the super-majority criterion”.
Members of this campaign have been arguing that the referendum was passed unconstitutionally by a simple majority rather than a supermajority, a debate that has been played out in the UGM and the Beaver over the past week. This controversy resulted in a motion of no-confidence passed against the Constitution & Steering Committee at the UGM a four weeks ago.
Voicing his thought on the protest, Fisher said: “Protesting to university management against your own Students’ Union goes completely against the principles of collectivism and student self-organisation. Students have a right to protest but I have no idea why they chose to protest outside a meeting that has no power over the Students’ Union or its Constitution – and the Governors were similarly confused and unimpressed.
“The protest, which was very small and dwindled to six by the time the meeting actually began, provided a contrast between the negativity of the past and the positive future that this Union now has, given democratic reforms and internal improvements over the past year.”
One of the protestors, third-year History student Estelle Cooch, said: “The overriding reason why we protested was to make those Governors who reside on one of the highest bodies in the School aware of the controversy that surrounded the Reform process, before, during and after. The General Secretary’s report to Court made no mention of the controversy, no-confidencing of the Consitution and Steering Committee and motion at the UGM condemning the Referendum as unconstitutional.
“This is not even an issue of where one stands on the matter, but purely an issue of accurate representation and balance by those Sabbatical Officers we elected to represent us. The protest was an overwhelming success and we were able to speak to some of the highest members of the Schools governing structures to raise our concerns, a right that any student should be able to exercise.”
During the Court of Governors meeting, Director Howard Davies began by quipping that according to the protestors, Fisher was supposedly destroying SU democracy. Fisher then presented the Annual Report to the Court of Governors, which was presented to Council, the governing body of the School, last week. He mentioned that the new Constitution passed by 89 per cent, and according to student governors present, the majority of the governors seemed pleased with his report. He briefly mentioned the issue of the protest, which was then brought up by student governor Sarwar Zaman.
According to reports, the dispute was kept to a short to-and-fro between Fisher, Zaman and two governors. The Chairman did not want the discussion to dominate the meeting and was keen to move on to the next item on the agenda. However, a governor disputed that the reforms were “none of the Court’s business”, stating that it was only right that governors should be able to comment on the report, and that he wanted to discuss the issue.
Another governor, an LSE alumnus and former General Secretary, was interested in the changes to the UGM, highlighted by the protests, and asked the Chairman to outline the complaints procedure.
Adrian Hall, Secretary of the School, who received Hammad’s complaint, went through the complaints procedure and noted that the last time such a controversy occurred was in the late 1990s.
Wetz, however, felt that the overall opinion in the meeting was that “the protest was small, being targeted at the wrong audience, and all a bit silly”. He also stated that he spoke with many Governors, some for the first time, who disagreed with the protest. Student governor, Nik Adhia, echoed these sentiments and believed that “the Governors seemed very happy with the progress of the Union”.
Cooch also stated: “I only hope those with influence will listen and uphold the concerns of a growing number of students and recognise the motion passed at last weeks UGM.”
Related posts:
- Governor diversity data provoke relevance debate
- Referendum Complaints Log
- Men's officer proposal rises out of Mr LSE motion ashes
- Students clean up Parliament
- LSE students Unite Against BNP