The Yorker interviews the Racial Equality Officers candidates.
The Yorker speaks to Stephen Kenny, who is running unopposed for 21 Plus Officer.
YUSU announced stricter measures for anyone found guilty of mass emailing yesterday, after more candidates were given campaign bans as a result of election rule 12 being breached.
Voting for YUSU elections 2010 opens tomorrow! The Yorker spent the last week talking to five of the six Presidential candidates – David Hansen, David Levene, Matthew Freckelton, Oliver Hutchings and Roberto Powell, and asking them some hard-hitting questions. This is what they said!
The motions had a quoracy of 255, however the highest turnout for any of the motions was 156, for the motion 'Reduce free carrier bag usage'. 129 people voted for this motion, with 26 votes against it and one abstention.
The motion was proposed by David Clarke, one of the YUSU Environment and Ethics Officers. Clarke said that he felt the motion was important because "the distribution of free plastic bags is wasteful and unneccesary".
Regarding the failure of all the motions to reach quoracy, Clarke added: "The failure to reach quoracy in UGMs presents a real challenge for YUSU. Engagement with the students we represent should be at the heart of what the union is about."
Clarke seconded an additional two motions, both of which were proposed by Jason Rose, one of the YUSU Campaigns Officers. The motions submitted by Rose were 'Lobby the University to improve the ethics of its Gas and Electricity' and 'Make Ethical alternatives available'.
When asked about the UGM results, Rose told The Yorker: "There are obvious reasons that the number of voters might be lower, such as students with exams and deadlines at the end of the year, and other students having gone home, but this can't excuse the situation."
Rose added: "Important constitutional amendments failed to pass and ethical policies were not matched by quorate approval. Thankfully there was an overwhelming majority but all officers will have to work together to reach more students more effectively next year."
115 people voted for the gas and electricity motion, with 26 against and 10 abstaining. The motion 'Make Ethical alternatives avaliable' saw 119 votes for, 26 against and one abstention.
The other two motions submitted at the UGM were 'Annual Constitutional Tidy Up' and 'Ratification of Union Council Minutes'. 112 people voted for the constitutional tidy up, with 8 against and 16 people abstaining. 'Ratification of Union Council Minutes' was the motion that received the least votes, with 126 people voting. The result was 90 votes for the motion, 7 against it and 29 abstentions.
All five motions will be automatically resubmitted to the next UGM without debate, unless they are withdrawn by their submitters.
Facepalm.
I'm withdrawing my motions; there was large approval and a lack of quoracy isn't a massive stifling block to bringing about those changes since it showed that there weren't real problems. As always I'd be interested to know *why* the 26 people voted them but I suspect I won't hear a thing.
The real shame is that the constitutional amendments failed to pass. With only 8 against, it makes sense to resubmit it next term - but obviously we need to try and rally students more in the autumn term, as most of the Democracy and Services, and Presidential, candidates suggested during the elections. I would hate for us to be reliant upon controversy alone (to give us quoracy)
"...a lack of quoracy isn't a massive stifling block to bringing about those changes since it showed that there weren't real problems."
Sorry Jason, let me get this straight - you submitted two motions, they didn't pass; but you're going to use your position as a YUSU officer to lobby the university anyway? Don't you see any problem there?!
Both motions had 5 times more people voting yes than no. Nobody spoke against the motions. I have no mandate and I'm not going to pretend that it is my duty but Environment and Ethics Committee supported the proposals and it didn't get voted down at the UGM. I'm not sure where the problem lies other than in the lack of people voting
I would have to agree with #3: you either need a mandate or you don't, and if you submitted the UGM in the first place you clearly think you do. The point of a UGM is to give you this mandate, without it you really shouldn't be pushing these particular policies. Quoracy is there for a reason, there is no problem other than a lack of people voting, but that IS a problem
The elected members of E&E committee have a mandate to make decisions on E&E issues...
Okiedoke, will stand back and let it come up again in autumn elections! I'm sure that the shops will increase their fairtrade stock anyway and the university ethics will be a lengthy process regardless 
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report