log in | register | advertise with us |
my account |
about us |
join us |
FAQs
Use the Confirm Abuse button to report this comment as abuse. Our moderators will check the comment to confirm that its content goes against our policies regarding user contributed comments and delete the comment if appropriate.
The only one of these comments I support is Erik O'Conner's. The others talk about all the good Chet has done at Senate and a University level, but apart from Erik's, none of them seem to accept that its possible he might not have been quite so good on a college level.
I know no details, or whether this is true or not, but it seems to me that Chet was too concerned with representing his college, that he forgot to listen to what it was his college actually wanted. The mark of a good chair is someone who can represent what his college wants, and talk to people at every level. It doesn't seem Chet did this.
Furthermore, a Chairs first and foremost concern is the welfare and smooth running of his college. Although its all very well to get sky tv for your JCR (and all credit to Chet for that), surely it's far more important to firstly put your time and effort into making sure that your college as a whole is working well.
It seems to be Chet lost sight of what his job was, and as so deserved some form of retribution. I'm not sure that a no-confidence vote is the best way to do that, and I definitely don't support one done in the way this one was carried out.
However, I don't support the college chairs undying loyalty to Chet. The JCRC did what they did for a reason, and the Chairs need to accept that, no matter how good a friend Chet is.