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."
Ive been finding stuff on the JCRC's flaws in complaints procedures. James College's constitution reads:
6. Complaints Procedure
6.1 Any complaint relating to any matter concerning the JCR shall be dealt with in accordance with the YUSU complaints procedure or as specified within this constitution. This JCRC constitution takes precedence.
7. JCRC Officers
7.1 Rules for JCRC Officers:
a) JCRC officers hold office as set out by Article 8.5,
b) A motion of no-confidence against any officer may be submitted to the JCRC meeting. The legitimacy of the proposal may be debated. A vote must them by taken (by position) whilst the officer is vacant of the room. A simple majority will remove the officer(s) from the committee,
With reference to YUSU complaints procedure:
4. Students’ Union Complaints Procedure
4.1. Any registered student or staff member of the Union or the University wishing to lodge a complaint about the Union, its Officers or actions should first approach the President of the Union, the Academic and Welfare Officer or the Services and Finance Officer either in person or in writing.
4.2. The recipient shall then make a written reply within ten working days.
4.3. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the response then they can have their complaint heard by a Panel consisting of:
a) The President, the Academic and Welfare Officer or the Services and Finance Officer chosen by the complainant who shall chair the panel.
b) Three members of the Union Senate, of which one shall be chosen by the Panel Chair, one by the complainant and one by Union Senate. The choice shall be made in Closed Session.
4.4. In the event of a complaint being lodged against an Officer, that Officer is barred from chairing or being appointed to the panel.
52 YUSU CONSTITUTION
4.5. Following a panel, if the complainant remains dissatisfied they can refer the matter to the Registrar of the University who will arrange for the complaint to be considered in conjunction with the Panel Chair.
4.6. The complainant may be supported at any stage of the complaints procedure by a nominated person of the complainant’s choosing.
Therefore technically, Chet isnt no confidenced at all is he? For YUSU's complaints procedure was not followed. Indeed although James's consitution clearly reads it takes "precadence", this could be misinterpreted as not being alligned with YUSU at all. Please tell me if i am wrong.
I too picked up on the people speaking in agreement with this as being anonymous - why? everyone is entited to an opinion. As a first year james student my opinion is that im very dissapointed in the way that we have not been able to have a say on this. We voted in the whole JCR and to an extent i feel we should have a chance to have a say in the getting rid of people. i recognise that we have put our faith in the jcr as a whole and should trust them but i dont think that such a major decision should be made so quicky by so few people, and think that chet should really get a chance to defend himself in front of the whole college. Due to friendship groups i recently attended Alcuin ball held in roger kirk and throughout thought what a good venue it was and praise Chet for making that available to us. We arn't fortunate enough to have a bar but i feel that enhancing the JCR with sky is a good thing, im sure people would use it more, which is after all what it is there for. I also read the funds have come from the uni not the college itself so surely after the 2 years it can be scrapped if its not worthwhile, and it appears to me chet has worked hard and made a differnce on this. So if there is anyway of letting james speek for itself then i think it should be done.
Lizzie
comment deleted by the author I know Chet well and i am personally devastated that he has been no-confidenced, although i must agree with the claims that the column is biased. What must be agreed upon however is that #21 has outlined the exact constitutional flaws with James Colleges constitution. No matter what peoples opinion of Chet is, the consitution must be changed so that it is far more democratic. Whether Chet should have been no confidenced is the source of debate, but the way that it occurred is outrageous. Im sure if the system was more democratic and the result the same, Chet would have been disheartened of course, but at least it was conducted appropiately and that is surely the point.
comment deleted by the author #22 is absolutely right. The vote should take place in an open meeting, not a closed door committee.
#21 - YUSU and James JCR are affiliated organisations. The YUSU Constitution dictates a JCR constitution only where the latter specifies this to be the case. For example, the Alcuin JCR Constitution makes reference to Schedules of the YUSU constitution where they would otherwise overlap (Open Meetings procedures is one such case).
Does anyone else not find it ridiculous that 3 other College chairs have defended Chet and what he has done!!
Chet must have been doing a lot of things right if 3 out of the 6 other people, (the only other people in the uni that do the same job as him, and know exactly how tough and demanding it is) think that Chet has been a good chair?!
All that is needed is for James college consitution to be changed in the following.
An appeals procedure put in place (i think i am right in saying that since James constitution does not specify the YUSU appeals process as the one it follows, therefore James has NO appeals process whatsoever).
Article 7.1b) of James consitution to be changed to something along the lines of
"A motion of no-confidence against any officer may be submitted to any JCRC meeting. The legitimacy of the proposal may be debated in an Extraordinary General Meeting (called under Schedule 5). An open vote must then be taken (by general election, the rules of which must be under Schedule 8). Both the complainant and the recipient can campaign for whatever the outcome they want to be, within the Election Rules as under Schedule 8. A simple majority will remove the officer(s) from the committee,
Love chet and hes a great guy who i have a lot of respect for as a person but i will not try and let this cloud my opinion too much.
He puts a lot of effort and i agree with what elisabeth spencer says... well done elisabeth for being literate and being able to write good points.
As a James college 1st year im very disappointed in the rest of the JCR for acting with general ****ish behaviour and by not giving the vote to the rest of the college. This is a major kick in the balls to college spirit and would have (almost) the same effect had any other member of the JCR been chucked out instantly. (although not sure ive got any respect at all for the JCR now).
Most importantly i think its pathetic to do something like this at this point in the year as it gives any replacement no decent chair time (if that makes sense?... maybe one of the James JCR could become acting chair- or you could all take it in turns and write it on your CV's?) and is weak that the JCR couldnt hold their feelings back for just a coupple of weeks longer.
Well done JCR for messing with the college.
Chet: youre a legend... had a great time this year in college and everyone does know the good things you did and the hard work you put in... if they dont, theyre muppets.
Lots of love,
CHARLIE BARCLAY
x
Mind your french #30...
comment deleted by a moderator
comment deleted by the author 30... actually the chair has a lot of work still to do, the official end of all duties is at the very end of next term which is still about 6 months away! So I think a replacement, if any, still has plenty of time to do some 'chair time'. Plus all the most important events for the James JCRC are in christmas term. Freshers week, the biggest events etc etc Just thought I would point this out.
The James Constitution can only be changed by a James General Meeting, which is voted on by the whole college as I understand it. The present version was put in place following a JGM last year, so people evidently voted for it. I agree changes do need to be made, but you can't blame the JCRC for that - they were just doing what it said.
but #30 has a point. All this debacle has done is outline how unbelivably useless the current James College JCRC are this year. Chet has done an outstanding job managing an obviously immature group. To all of those concerned with voting him off:
1) Did you fully understand the consequences of your actions? I bet you didnt. And whos going to chair now. #30 made a good point. Take turns, then we'll see how good you really think you are
2) How do you sleep at night knowing that you have brought untold embarrassment to yourselves and your JCRC? I am absolutely certain that your views are not shared by the majority of students in James, many of which will surely praise Chet on what he was done. A democratic process is needed. Behind closed doors is mind boggling.
3) No appeals process is equally unbelievable. No matter how flawed your system of no confidencing is, there ABSOLUTELY MUST BE a process whereby ANYONE can appeal against a decision made.
I am totally flabbergasted. The last thing i want is a college JCR to dissolve (please tell me if that has ever happenned, the process, outcome etc), but now that has a very realistic chance of happening. I am speechless
Regardless of the reasons given by the JCR for this, I find it outrageous that the vote has taken with blatant disregard for the opinions of the Students of James. Members of the College were given absolutely no say in this decision, let alone warning of it and a chance to express their opinions.
To suggest that Chet’s contribution to college events and interests has been unsatisfactory is frankly ridiculous. To have earned the support and respect of every other College Chair suggests Chet must have been doing and admirable job.
Comment no.6 - How is it possibly undemocratic to carry out promises made during an election campaign? The fact that Chet had to act by himself suggests a serious failure on the part of the JCR, not Chet.
Finally, the cowardice demonstrated by the JCR is pathetic. If not one of its members is willing to put a name to their comments it suggests a strong desire to keep their identities hidden from the student population. If the JCR is scared to accept responsibility for what quite frankly is an unjustified, irresponsible and damaging move they are not fit to hold their positions. Furthermore it suggests the vote of no confidence was a personally motivated attack, rather than acting in the interests of the College as a whole, something which is undeniably wrong. If the JCR will not even issue a statement justifying its actions, let alone give the students they supposedly act in the interests of a chance to defend the person they elected then perhaps it is they who should go, not Chet.
comment deleted by a moderator in that case #35, it should have been made absolutely clear that the constitutional amendment proposed was flawed. If not retracted, then the ammendment should have been debated against using the speeches procedure (which if it wasnt is genuinely concerning). If its flaws were highlighted and it still passed, i am completely staggered at how people could have not seen its implications.
Wait...didnt we already go over this?
F-off #38 anon!
Charlie.
x
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report