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."
The JCRC feel it is important that the statement about the events in the JCRC meeting earlier tonight be read by James College students before being released to press, and it is for this reason that JCRC members are not commenting on this story at present. I would ask all those reading and commenting tonight to wait until tomorrow when the JCRC will be commenting on its actions and the steps that it is taking as a result.
Thank you for your patience.
This has some interesting comments from the Provost of James.
http://www.nouse.co.uk/2008/06/18/james-jcr-chair-loses-vote-of-no-confidence/
I count 31 members of James College JCRC. If the 10-2 vote result is accurate, that means only 12 voted in any direction (if abstensions were voted, then 19 would have theoretically been voted as abstension). But if only 12 people voted, even this was misrepresntation. I dont want to name names, but if JCR members were that fussed with being anonymous, then they shouldnt have put their names and faces on the JCRC section of the James College website. They didnt think of THAT when they were anonymously posting did they?
PS call me hypocratic, but i am anonymously posting NOT because i am a furious James JCRC member (for i am not) but because i may get lynched for telling people where to look to find the culprits!
It's extremely interesting to see which sides Nouse and The Yorker have on this story. Just to point it out. Well done #42
I'm a 1st year in James college.
I'm totally confused with all the arguments flying around.
Chet supporters: Firstly, I think it is fine to submit anonymously if you are saying something that is possibly offensive, if it is true. It prevents people resorting to revenge attacks. What do you think witness protection is for? For those Chet supporters, you are not offending anyone at all, so you do not need to put yourselves as anonymous. To attack someone's argument by pointing out that they are anonymous is committig the 'ad hominem' fallacy.
Secondly, many of you declare yourselves to be personal friends of Chet's. I think it is admirable that you are rising to his defence. However, to say he is a great guy (I do not know him), is entirely subjective and whether true or not, does not have anything to do with the JCRC Chair. I think a complete wanker could be a great Chair, in the same way that the nicest guy in the world could be terrible.
What I would like to know is do you have any rebuttals to, or explanations of, the only serious points made in post #20? This appears to be the only case of a member of the JCRC putting forward his opinions.
I think that most people are agreed that the constitution should be changed to be more democratic. Over and above that, all that I have is a single post listing the opinions of some of the JCRC members, a few personal attacks on Chet, and a considerable number of character witnesses. Presumably there are substantial arguments against #20, otherwise 2 members of the JCRC would not have voted to keep Chet. Can someone please provide them?
Thanks
He comes across as a bit of an arse on The Yorker. Good work James College.
Me being a close personal friend of Chet will obviously make me totally biased in his favour, but at the same time, I feel it also gives me an insight into how much work Chet has done for the college; and how passionate is his ambition to do further the college as an institution and the student experience of those priveleged enough to be in its membership.
As a member of the James College JCRC (Who unfortunately was not there today due to other commitments, three guesses whether or not the no confidence motion was included in the agenda) I am able to come forward and say that Chet was not always there at the events and; wasn't RP trained at the beginning of his term (Although he has been RP and First Aid trained since); and has not attended college council, but what he has done, and the things he still had planned to do were immense and if they do not come to fruition it will be a great loss for the college.
The James Constitution states:
"7.4 the Chairperson:
a) Ordinarily chairs all JCRC Meetings and JGMs,
b) Is ultimately responsible for the activities of the JCR (subject to JGM approval),
c) Calls JCRC Meetings and organises the subject agenda,
d) Must liaise closely with YUSU; attending all relevant meetings and committees,
e) As with Article 7.3 (a) the chairperson is the primary contact with the College Welfare Team (Provost, Administrator, Dean and Tutor(s)"
I believe that all of these duties have been adequately fulfilled by Chet, and in the case of point d) has been fulfilled far beyond the call of duty.
On this basis I conclude that Chet's removal is unjust on constitutional grounds and based more on insubstantial subjective arguments and personal feelings. I will be working with Chet to try and reinstate him and make sure that the voice of the James College students is heard on this issue.
Lewis Moore
James JCRC RAG Rep
YUSU Senate Ordinary Member
on the subject of anonymity, this just in:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7461142.stm
despite the title and subject, note that the ministry of justice remains committed to anonymity as a tool to tackle witness intimidation.
comment deleted by the author #20 I am in no doubt for your decision to remove Chet, regardless of how i feel. If you wanted a no confidence motion, then you have every right to propose one (I am not saying you personally proposed the motion). Regardless of my pro-Chet stance however, I am against the way the no confidence motion was carried out. Regardless of the true effectiveness of anyone on any JCRC, a proper no confidence procedure should be applied.
Lewis' point is both eloquent and rather level-headed and a close friend of Chet should be applauded for such a measured response. However, if the article in Nouse and comment 20 (from the JCR member) hold any truth, one would have to question whether points B and E (in #47) were truly met by the chair. Especially if 'ultimately responsible' includes playing an active and useful role in events (#20 suggests not), and dealing with the welfare team entails a working relationship (and attending College Council) - which Nouse suggest didn't happen.
I don't know Chet, and don't want to make any comment on whether he was a good chair or not, because I simply don't feel informed enough too, but as someone who is on another JCRC, and a few other committees on campus, I am appalled at the way this has been put through.
To be honest, whether Chet deserved a No-Confidence vote or not is, in my mind, fairly irrelevant to the issue. James JCRC simply shouldn't be able to put through a motion in this way. For a motion of No-Confidence of your committees most important member to be put through at a meeting by 12 people out of a college of several hundred, when (according to post #47) it wasn't even on the agenda, seems to me utterly ludicrous. Why was this bug in the JCRC constitution not ironed out ages ago?
If the JCRC's appeal for a vote of No-Confidence in Chet had been fairly publicised and held at an open meeting, then I would have no problem if it had passed, and I don't see how anyone else could either.
Chet's ability as Chair isn't something for us to judge. James College should do that - they voted him in, he affects them. If he genuinely was as bad as post #20 makes out, then the JCRC shouldn't have been in any doubt that he'd have been voted off in an open meeting, so they shouldn't have been worried. If not, then James College should have been able to see his ability and allowed him to stay on.
Surely all colleges should have unified constitutions as regards important matters such as this?
York students really do seem to be getting a little power hungry recently - YUSU politics seem to be becomming more and more important every day!
Just to clarify my stance on the issue I completely and utterly agree with #52
Many people in James College, who should ultimately decide on all of their JCRC affairs, do not even know the entire situation!
The very person who proposed this motion, The Press and Publicity Officer, has written this on the JCRC section of the James College website:
"If there's an College event, a welfare campaign or anything else that the JCRC need to bring to your attention, I'm the one whose job it is to make sure you all know about it."
He isnt doing a very good job if many people dont know about JCRC affairs. Perhaps James college students should no confidence him aswell?
#54 You forgot one crucial argument. James students cant no confidence him under the current constitution! So much for that pipe dream
This just represents how little students care about student politics. If 12 students can effecitvely decide the fate of one of the most important positions you can hold (College Chair), which has massive implications for several hundred people, then this is democracy at its very worst.
People need to get involved. If they dont, then they themselves will suffer the consequences
Just to clarify a few points without getting involved on whether Chet has or has not been a good chair as I have neither attended meetings or been to enough James events to judge his attendance or input.
Firstly for anyone confused its not 12 students who decided on Chet's fate, but rather 12 positions, the important decisions made in James JCRC meetings are made on the basis that more important members, or should I say members with more significant roles have more of a say. Thus treasurer, secretary, Vice chairs have a vote each, while other positions with more than one person have a single vote for that group of people. As such I'd estimate 30 or so people decided upon this manner, the majority of the committee rather than just a few members.
Also I think it is unfair to critique the JCRC for the method they used to oust Chet, they made a decision (rightly or wrongly) and followed the only procedure they had to carry it out. This was a procedure implemented before most of the committee had unpacked their clothes into their cupboards, nevermind started on the JCRC. If you are unhappy argue for the system to be changed and demand an open meeting to do so, don't lambast committee members for following the only option they had.
As a happily anonymous former member of senate, allow me to disagree with other senators who felt that Chet made useful contributions. I don't think that he did. But he did no worse than many others. I also don't think that the James constitution is necessarily flawed; it's JCRC members who know most about how well their chair is doing, and who have to put up with working with him, so it kinda makes sense that they should be the ones to make the decision. Perhaps though more notice should be given and a higher quoracy level set.
To No 57 that may have been the only option for the JCRC but there is a right way and a wrong way to do things!
The right way to no confidence a commitee member is the way that most colleges do it.
In Alcuin we give the person 2 weeks notice that a vote will be placed, they then have a chance to represent themselves, bring other character witnesses and other supporters to the meeting. They can then feel that they have been done right by and felt they had a chance to argue their side. It also means people that feel strongly wil make an appearance.
For all Chets supposed faults, he still was your chair for over 4 months and deserved at least that level of respect. The way this was handled was attrocious! and wrong! If you ever liked or respected Chet you owed him at least that common curtosy!
In response to 58 I sit on Senate and Chet fought vividly for the setting up of Racial Equality committee the other week and for many other equally important issues ..
As a Halifaxer with no involvement in student politics of note whatsoever I'm not going to comment on the gist of the why's and what nots. But, I might be being thick here, but surely there will be a by-election, either in the last week of term or at the very start of next year. If people are angry at the treatment of the Chair, then is there anything to prevent him from re-nominating himself for the role?
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report