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."
comment deleted by the author The Campaign to talk about this as a college, and as a fair democracy:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18564035747&ref=ts
As an ex member of James JCRC I completely support the current committee's decision. They are the people who have to work for and alongside their Chair. It is the responsibility of the Chair to lead by example and a perceived lack of dedication by the head of the committee will affect all those involved.
Due to the unique position of James College in comparison to other undergraduate colleges it has different needs which others sometimes don’t fully grasp. If individuals feel that their work is not being appreciated or consistently undermined, then they’ll no longer want to be involved in the process. I firmly believe that it is better to have one dismissal than 5 or 6 walk-outs, which is exactly what happened during my tenure. Yet, despite the many differences of opinion that were shared between our committee and then Chair (our incumbent SU President) AMC; her commitment to the college was never in doubt.
The current committee has therefore taken the action that they believe is the best for the college and we have to respect their (democratically reached) decision. The committee were elected to represent the students and that is exactly what they have done. I have spoken with many James students this year who feel that they are not being supported so I am not at all surprised by this turn of events.
Perhaps the most important job of the Chair is to unite the committee and inspire teamwork. Although Chet seemed unable to do so during his occupancy, at least his departure seems to have afforded some unity.
I find it shocking that Chet was dismissed without any indication that his fellow JCR members were not happy with his performance. It strikes me that the first thing a Chair needs to succeed is the full support of the JCR and Chet was denied this. It is obvious that the James College JCR are not a united team; issues within the JCR should be discussed and resolved not dealt with in such a childish manner. I feel that both Chet and the students of James college deserve better. Molly
Molly - Why post anonymously and then sign your name?
James
I agree with James.
Paul
Paul and James are wrong. So is Molly.
Molly
Firstly, for all those who claim that this is a completely undemocratic decision, every position in the JCRC is elected by democratic means, therefore no-confidencing Chet by the committee is absolutely fair and democratic. Secondly I would like to say as a member of James College, unlike the majority of his supporters, Ive not seen much that the JCRC have done at all this year let alone done well. It has been a disappointing year especially when compared to the successes of other colleges and from most second year accounts the JCRC have achieved significantly less than last years' committee. This lack of any real achievement by the JCRC this year, despite of what is done 'behind the scenes', can only be blamed on poor leadership. Chet should have known that he was taking on this responsibility when running for chair and now is rightfully taking what is due.
#113 Even if it didnt make a difference, they should have been allowed to make their own personal decision on the matter. Anyone should be allowed to express their views as an individual, not as a collective, EVEN if they all agreed on which way they were voting before hand.
To #116 The amount of absentees at the meeting and the rushed agenda would not have given much opportunity for a proper discussion on which way they would have voted. The JCRC may have disliked Chet, and I am neither for or against no-confidencing him, but it should have been done in the correct manner. Where in the consitution does it say the procedures for when a chair is no-confidenced, i.e. who actually knows what happens now? Yes James College JCRC are going to let the major officers take remit, but is this the correct way of doing things?
I am in no way telling you what the right decision is, for that is up to you, i am just disappointed at the way this was carried out.
Anyone should be allowed to express their views as an individual?
Yes, that is what one rep was doing and he was purely within his right. The procedure was followed and the outcome was.. well you know that part. The only thing missing, in my belief, is the right to appeal. If a college wide vote was held I don't think that would be best as those voting aren't the ones who have to work with him and know his effect on college running. They have been elected to represent us, and that is what they are doing. Voting as a college would be completely subjective with Chet rallying and persuading as many of his mates to vote as he could, they would not be looking at the evidence and voting accordingly.
The appeals procedure should consist of an objective panel of other people in high positions who can understand the issues and make a decision based on their knowledge and experiences, I would suggest SU president, college provost, college administrator, and other high up university officials or members of senate up to about 5 individuals?
That is how politics should work, and does so in the real world. Elections are to be used to vote in... only those working with the individual can have any comprehension of the issues and incompetencies and be aware enough to make decisions about the future of reps based on this. I mean, last year when I ran in elections, very few members of the college even knew what the JCRC was and what it did, nevermind what Chet should have been doing and his responsibilities... so how could they be able to judge his competence?
#130 Yes Chet can rally round getting people to vote in his favour, but opponents of his could also do the same. I am trying to be as balanced as possible in this debate, and it is the constitutional flaws that i an enraged with.
You are correct about the requirement of an appeals procedure, the one YUSU employs is effective enough and your suggestion I completely agree with.
I also agree with you that many students probably dont understand the workings of a JCRC. I am disappointed that this apathy exists, as I am sure you are too.
However, you must surely agree that the way this no confidence motion was performed was undemocratic. I am also certain that you believe that if people feel stronly about a certain issue, they should fight for it and take an interest in JCRC affairs. Those who do not want to vote, do not have to. The members oould vote at an open meeting and therefore the people who really care about an issue can make their feelings heard.
I am sure that you would prefer more than 19 people to vote (that due to the constitution counted for 13 votes) on a very serious issue. If the outcome of a more democratic vote was the same, there would of course be arguements of whether Chet was good or bad, but there would be no denial that the students of James College would have spoken, which i do not believe has happenned in this case.
No, I remain that the procedure was entirely democratic and similar to the procedure that would be required to remove a political figure from office in government. The only issue with democracy is the lack of appeal route. I'm sorry, perhaps I just don't have enough faith in humanity but I really don't think a vote at an open meeting would be democratic or representative.
For example, when the decision was made to split the position of vice-chair into three seperate candidates rather than running as a group, the GM was held full of people rounded up from kitchens in order to meet quoracy who had no idea what was going on or why they were there and took absolutely no interest. Then when voting was held the motion was passed as most people assume that changes are for the best. Personally I was against the motion and it seemed that most of the students of James, as they were not involved in the running of the college and workings of the committee, had no knowledge on which to base the implications of splitting up the position and how it would effect day to day life.
Perhaps this is an issue with apathy and disconnection of committee-JCR (the whole college) members, but it still remains.
The procedure was democratic in that the constitution that was democratically voted in by open meeting was followed. Whether or not the process is flawed in such a way that it is no longer a democratic process and this particular instance of the constitution being followed was "fair" remains up for debate, though. It's often better than to do more than the bare minimum the constitution requires.
As far as I am concerned, this has got ridiculous- and the personal comments that have been made about individual members of the jcrc on the 'save chet' facebook group is a complete disgrace and simply enables people to understand why chet and his friends come across as intimidating- grow up and stop being such children.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=50251510789&ref=mf
A group for those who support the James JCR.
"apart from Chet who was sitting on his backside on a hammock drinking and smoking all day."
How hilarious - what you clearly didn't see was Chet organsing 5 lifts for the Herbal Mafia who's taxi hadn't turned up at the end of Quad Dash. He called YUSU transport, various taxi services all with no luck so then tracked down students with cars. We waited for a whole hour in James College car park looking after their equipment as they went back and forth - and he paid £20 out of his own pocket to the driver!
Hardly sitting on his backside!!!
This is why there needs to be an open forum for discussion - all people are going on is rumours at the moment including certain JCRC members. An open debate about this issue followed by a vote is the only fair way to deal with this.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report