A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
Throughout the briefing session, a number of controversial issues were raised and resolutions attempted. When possible, a general consensus was reached: the use of the Union’s megaphone, for instance, is now prohibited. For those issues that required more reflection, an update was released on the YUSU website.
First, YUSU President Tom Scott, who chaired the briefing, introduced the notion of “reasonable charges” being applied to candidates’ campaigning material such as stickers. Although all were relieved to hear that no one would be charged for ink, there remains the question of what constitutes a “reasonable charge”, a decidedly loose term which appeared to make certain candidates uneasy, since candidates cannot spend more than £30 on their campaigns.
The sum is the same for all, and scrupulous attention will be paid to campaign budgets in order to keep a levelled plane. While those running for two positions are allowed to spend this amount twice, Scott did highlight the need to keep the budgets strictly separate.
The briefing also addressed the issue of electronic campaigning. In the aftermath of the disqualification of GSA candidates because of a breach of regulations, Scott stressed the difference between “fair and balanced” media exposure and mass-emailing. The rules now state: “College newsletters should discuss all candidates fairly if they discuss elections at all.”
Although candidates are still allowed to attend panelled debates and events such as Have I Got News For York, they are asked not to discuss their policies there, as this would grant them an unfair exposure.
In controversially ruling out the possibility of unattended kitchen-postering using existing privileges, Scott attempted to level the plane between those with and without JCRC ties. Scott added that campaigners “may knock on doors and give posters to residents to place in their own kitchens and windows as they wish.” However, it remains unclear how YUSU intend to implement the differentiation.
Although it is evident that the rules have been designed in order for candidates to play fair, the distinction between involvement in campus activities and the use of the prerogatives which networking entails have been blurred.
Indeed, the “kitchen debate” highlights the tangible problem at hand: YUSU have failed to strictly define what constitutes an “unfair advantage”. Albeit thought-provoking, the rule of thumb “if your friend owns a zeppelin you can’t use it” falls short of an adequate definition.
Similarly, although candidates are asked to display any political affiliation and experience/involvement in societies, the said societies are not allowed to endorse or support campaigns.
David Levene, current Chair of the York Labour Club, who is running for NUS delegate and Chair of Union Council, told The Yorker: "It was clear that while everyone was keen to play fair, candidates were reluctant to give up any advantages."
Levene added, "It should be a good, clean fight!" - precisely what YUSU appear to be looking for, with one of the briefing’s catch-phrases being “Don’t be a prat!”
Scott also sought to exercise control over Facebook-campaigning: while Facebook groups, status updates, campaign-relevant profile pictures and mass emails to the members of aforementioned Facebook group are allowed, Scott asked candidates to refrain from writing on people’s walls, or using 'fan-pages'.
Although Facebook is evidently a fundamental aspect of the campaigning process, decisions to monitor its activities (i.e. walls) seems contentious. Does Facebook belong to the private or public world, and how can it be adequately moderated and monitored without impeding on students’ rights to privacy?
You must log in to submit a comment.
