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.
Khatu, the surprise winner in the elections, was subject to a no-confidence vote by the JCRC at 7pm on Wednesday 18th June, and as such is no longer Chair of James College.
The motion, which was first on the agenda, was proposed by the Press and Publicity officer, Jonathon Caunce. He cited "leadership issues" as the reason for dismissal.
A Statement released on Thursday morning said: "We would like to reiterate that this decision was taken purely on professional grounds, and should not be viewed as a personal attack in any way towards Chet Khatu."
The voting, conducted by position rather than person, saw a final vote of 10-2 with 1 person abstaining.
The college's constitution, unlike all others, requires no notice or quoracy to be met. Colleges such as Goodricke require 4% of the college's population to be at a pre-determined meeting. However, the James JCRC constitution simply states:
"A vote must then be taken (by position) whilst the officer is vacant of the room. A simple majority will remove the officer(s) from the committee."
The post will now remain open until a replacement can be elected. Khatu was downbeat about the decision, as there is no appeals process in place.
In his Statement to The Yorker he said: "It seems ridiculous that mob rule has prevailed in what is supposed to be an all accommodating democratic system."
Goodricke Chair Joe Clarke said of the decision: "Chet has done more for that committee and for bringing colleges together than any Chair could have. The amount of emails that have been going round from people as senior as Elizabeth Heaps [Pro-Vice Chancellor] praising him show the amount of respect that he has from Senior University Staff."
He had big ideas for James College, and the University as a whole. He'll be a loss to student politics.
He said it was a "ridiculous decision" and added: "I'm not sure on a committee level if they can hold it together. It seemed to me that Chet was doing that."
Clarke added: "I'm going to bring it up at our open meeting tomorrow night, and we [Goodricke College] will be re-evaluating our involvement with them over Freshers Week."
He issued a plea to James students to attend meetings and make their opinions heard. "It's time for the students to get in touch with their JCRC, go to the meetings, and let the committee know that they're outraged."
The process by which he was removed is set to come under dispute. Clarke said: "I think it's a flaw in the constitution. It's the most undemocractic decision ever been made, the fact it can be done at a closed JCR meeting, and only 10 positions, out of a college of however many people can vote is just undemocratic. The consitution needs re-evaluating immediately."
The timing of the move is thought to be critical as colleges are organising Freshers Week.
Langwith Chair Zach Pepper said: "Chet's a great guy and a good mate of mine. He had big ideas for James College, and the University as a whole. He'll be a loss to student politics."
College Constitutions were expected to be one of the changes under the forthcoming Governance review of YUSU.
In the past month Khatu had successfully negiotated a Sky TV Package for the JCR as well use of the Roger Kirk Centre as an events venue for the college.
YUSU President Anne-Marie Canning said: "The JCRC have conducted themselves impeccably with regards to following the constitution, a constitution passed by James College students."
She added: "I believe James College have had a difficult year but I have absolute faith that the team of three vice chairs will prove to be very successful in leading the college activities."
Anna Maughan, a third year James student said: "It seems like a harsh decision, as Chair he seems to have made a lot of progress for James students."
I can't wait til the JCR are allowed to speak out and everyone knows why he was removed. Stop making generalised comments like "Chet made an awesome chair". He wasn't and soon everyone will know why.
As a member of James College I have to say that I am wholly behind the JCRC for pursuing this action. When voting for JCRC members - as students of James college - we give the committee the responsibility to look after our college's welfare and put its best interests at heart above the self-interest of individual members. I believe they've done this by removing an ineffective chair who is now clamouring for his friends' help to retain his position. It is fairly telling that the greatest level of support has not actually come from James College itself.
Over the course of the year I feel there has been general disgruntlement with Chet's leadership (or lack of) and it has fallen to the other members of the JCRC to organise events and facilitate change: a job which has been carried out extremely well.
Congratulations for taking a difficult vote and keep up the good work!
comment deleted by the author Hurray! Some sense!
There are rumours of me taking drugs at Quad Dash, these are barely worth a reply however I would like to emphasise I am not that stupid, it did not happen around me at least. There is however, one JCRC member that has engaged in that activity on the day, however I do not feel its appropriate to bring this to attention now.
I put in a lot of work for that event, Charlotte MacDonald, the event would have been silent without me. Please get this confirmed by your friends. Yes I was late to poo pick, and yes I worked very hard on trying to pick up the slack which was left by the people who should have been working well together to organise that event, and yes I wanted to relax for a few hours in my hammock!
Had you been keeping an eye on me the entire day you would have seen me rushing around organising transport for PA systems, DJ's, Collecting marquees, Visiting URY and Estates, trying to calm Edge due to JCRC non contact and collecting beer for some of our guests! (And getting very wet, cheers L Block 
)
I think everyone interested in this story would LOVE to read the minutes of the meeting. I have downloaded them from the James College website and regardless of whether Chet was good or bad as a chair (I have my own opinions but they will not cloud my judgement). I am actually surprised at how brief the minutes actually were! And also the apologies and absent list is startling.
The nit and gritty facts of the meeting were as far as i saw:
19 People attended. They represented 13 positions (assuming the Chair himself did not vote).
Apologies/Abesentees: 9 People apologised for the meeting, representing 3 Positions that were not accounted for at the meeting. 4 People were absent and represented a further 2 positions, meaning that 5 positions were not accounted for in the meeting.
However the 5 positions accounted for consisted of 13 people and the 14 positions that attended the meeting consisted of 19 people.
It is therefore highly likely that were the constitution alligned with many other colleges (Alcuin, Goodricke, Halifax) and YUSU themselves, the voting may have been overturned. Ents, Welfare and Sports positions have 4 People each, but only 3 positions meaning that at least 9 people were effectively ignored in the meeting. That number alone, would have see Chet saved from his job.
In total, i have counted 19 people on the James JCRC whos views have been ignored. This misrepresentation has clearly effected the outcome. I personally believe a completely democratic decision (as Alcuin, Goodricke etc have in place) should be taken, with students from ALL of James college allowed to have a say. However even if each person was allowed an individual vote on the matter (still not the correct procedure but an improvement in the current one), the absent/unrepresented people could have changed the outcome of the decision.
I welcome Laura Vitty’s statement (#94) and that the constitution is to be reviewed, but it needs to be done so NOW. I know exams take precedence, but anyone who is no-confidenced currently, whether it be the Chair or any position whatsoever on James JCRC, needs to be able to appeal.
I have said this before, but I also believe that the open meeting whereby the constitution was created, must have been flawed. Surely someone spoke out against this amendment? If not, I would personally like to know what the exact open meeting voting procedure is, as this too may be flawed.
"However even if each person was allowed an individual vote on the matter..."
Was meant to say
"However even if each person on the JCRC was allowed an individual vote on the matter ..."
Sorry for the typo!
I am sure all of the JCRC members would have liked to had time to relax in a hammock and it is hoped that they did also find the time to enjoy their event. But the fact of the matter is that they will have at least remained in a state in which they could be called on to help when needed and to act responsibly.
I am going to take the somewhat 'cowardly' approach of expressing opinion under a veil of anonimity. An act that perhaps speaks volumes regarding Chet's approachability as Chair. Surely the fact that so many people writing to support the actions of the JCR are doing so under an anonymous title does not simply, as some have argued, mean that they are 'spineless cowards', rather that they are intimidated by Chet and his supporters. Surely an intimidating presence is not something you would look for in the qualities of our college Chair.
I am not willing to be drawn into the mud-slinging initiated by Chet supporters. I simply wish, as a member of James College, to express my support for the actions of the JCR. I am sure that they, having got to know him in a professional capacity, had adequate grounds for taking such radical action. Equally, we as James college students should trust that they were acting with our own welfare in mind, they would not actively set out to sabbotage their own college.
comment deleted by the author
comment deleted by the author Dan (#88), as I've said previously, your arguments against anonymity essentially boil down to bullshit machismo. It's exactly this kind of intimidation that gives some people a reason to prefer anonymity in the first place.
Anyway, back on topic...
Hamish, the vote was 10 - 2 in favour of the no-confidence motion. Do you honestly think that it would have been any different had another couple of merchandise reps turned up? Chances are they would have voted in much the same way as the rest of their committee.
Is anyone else a little put out that Dan Taylor of all people is complaining about anonymous posts?
Remember the barrage of anonymous personal attacks on Grace F-H when she was no confidenced?
I'm don't expect that DT wrote any of them, but I don't exactly remember him speaking out against them at the time.
Anonymity seems to be a very sensible course of action considering that Chet apparently beat someone up a few weeks into being made chair...
that could be a vicious rumour though.
To post #106 - those 9 people's views were not "ignored", I would imagine that those of the same position would have discussed the way they wanted to vote, and if there was any disagreement they would have abstained. And judging from the degree by which the motion was passed it seems as though the unrest was widespread. Well done to the JCRC for doing something that it seems will make our college function more smoothly.
comment deleted by the author Alex-
No one has complained about Quad Dash..?
Read post #20 and then defend him.
Alex, I'm not sure why you think the minutes are unreasonable, they're no worse nor better than the minutes that were taken when I was on Alcuin JCRC...
Let's not get personal now, it isn't her fault.
The item was on the agenda previous to the meeting.
The minutes include everything that happened in the meeting... what else would you like to know? Chet refused the offer to take his turn so what else was there to say? If you read the minutes you will see that the for side of the argument is briefed, yet there was no against side as Chet left immediately and no one else had anything positive to say on his behalf.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report