Constitutional Amendment 2

NickyDyke85 · YouCanaeSmokeNayHashOn'Ere!

Constitutional Amendment 2

PatrickT · Forum Guru

I find the implications of the constitutional amendment you've proposed quite scary Nic and I don't really like the ideas enshrined in it. I think it implies that the LGBT Assembly, which is essentially a one-person body, should be directly linked to a member-supported society. Just because there is an LGBT society doesn't, to me, seem to imply that we should be working constantly with whoever is the Chair of the Assembly. As the LUU website states at http://www.luuonline.com/democracy:
"Assemblies are informal meetings of like-minded individuals coming together to raise awareness..."
and requiring that: "That all relevant e-mails sent to the society webmail will be forwarded to the Assembly Chair." seems to be rather autocratic.

The Assembly Chair position isn't one that I feel, that as a member of the society, I have to support. It may be beneficial to the goals of the society to cooperate with the Assembly Chair, but that should be, as David Tait's amendment posits, a voluntary thing. I think it's fundamentally wrong that the society would ever have to share information on its members (ie resolution two), activities or resources. I may want to go and discuss a problem or a political issue with the LGBT Assembly Chair, but there ought to be no compulsion on the part of the Society to maintain strained relations if these are not productive.

And while the Assembly concept may intend to be a 'democratic structure', it has potential for autarky, in that the Chair, the individual personification of the group in question, has a high degree of autonomy in action and word. You may represent me as an LGBT student but as I haven't read nor heard of your positions on any issues, I can't say you represent my views. Getting people's time is always going to be a difficulty for Assembly Chair-people but this isn't something the LGBT Society ought to be rectifying.

Crucially, I don't understand the position of your 'Amendment'. Is it actually an amendment or simply a resolution. Do you intend to amend this document to the end of our Society constitution, with references to 'problems this year'? I would think this is a resolution of sorts, not an Amendment. Furthermore, I don't understand the intentions of the notes at the beginning of your 'amendment'. Are they aimed at making a point, or are they simply stating facts? What's the point in stating 'the LGBT Society accounts for a large number of LGBT students'? Does this give the Assembly credibility? Although the Society represents many students, I would be wary of pretending to claim that 'we' speak for even a large minority of LGBT students. Many students clearly don't want to be involved in the Society (we see them in clubs every week), and so as a society we shouldn't presume to represent unknown numbers to a body that supports even greater unknown numbers. Support of the LGBT society doesn't imply support or knowledge of the LGBT Assembly.

I see the point of Resolution Three, stating that the LGBT Assembly should have 'charge' over who attends NUS LGBT Conference. I don't however understand who organizes this at the moment. Is this a Society responsibility or an LUU Executive thing? Why would the Assembly be more appropriate as the body to choose this group?

Finally, I think phrases like 'welfare officers will work closely' in Resolution Four are highly unhelpful and constraining. Your implication is that the Assembly is somehow greater than, more legitimate, or more responsible than the Society's Officers. The position from the Resolution is that the Officers have a duty to cooperate with the Chair and I think that's quite unnecessary. If there is a will to cooperate, this will occur naturally. There is no need for resolutions from a 'democratic' one-person structure into the constitution of another body to enforce cooperation. If individuals don't get on, that is the fault or responsibility of those individuals. Problems happen, and all life is political in some sense but enforcing it will only cause trouble.

It could be asked how a non-student could come to such power representing, as a student, others in the University. Perhaps it would be better to ask whether the LGBT society should become more politically involved and campaign more actively rather than stipulating the ways in which the society 'will' operate.

Though there are ideas for thought, and potential for greater cooperation between the two groups, I would strongly oppose this amendment.

xx
-patrick

NickyDyke85 · YouCanaeSmokeNayHashOn'Ere!

The Assembly provides a hell of alot of politcal and welfare representation of LGBT students within the Union & University. In the time it's being running it has made a lot of progress such as challenging the discrimination of LGBT students by the paper and forging strong links with them, addressing the problem of lecturers making discriminatory comments, lobbying the union to provide dental dams, lobbying the university to include information for trans students about how to change personal details such as gender in the taught students handbook and being vocal and active within the union-wide 'Mark my Words' campaign to provide representation, among various other things, which are beneficial to ALL LGBT students includiong society members. Not many people have been involved with the assembly this year which is why its such a small body.

Due to the lgbt society webmail previously being used to recieve all e-mails about society, social and political issues and the lgbt assembly e-mail address only just being set up, all e-mails from nus concerning politics/campaigns/information, which is the main focus of the assembly aren't going to it and its essential that these e-mails are passed on so that the assembly can access them. Its not about the society sharing information about members with the assembly, the information in question is information bought back from conferences, contact details for local and national services, which are of use to both the assembly and society. If you also note in the resolutions, it states that by running campaigns about LGBT issues with the assembly on a wider scale, the campaigns etc will be funded for by the assembly, this leaves more money free for the society to run events like curious more regularly.

The resources in question are the LGBT office, which is there for use for all things LGBT related and is a union space, the use of the office is an important one because it provides a private safe space for talking to LGBT students who are experiencing problems such as lecturers making discriminatory comments etc, the office is used for this quite often because the assembly advocates on behalf of LGBT students (and society members) fairly often to various bodies/departments around the university and union.

Due to the work of the society's welfare officers and assembly overlapping and problems such as the lecturers making discriminatory comments (which were taken to the mens officer first by the members, then referred on because of the volume of them) there needs to be a close working relationship between the society and assembly, to be able to provide quality representation and advocation on behalf of LGBT students, which make up a large amount of the societies membership and do come to the assembly for help. Also because the assembly has worked at building up contacts in the relevant university and union bodies/departments and is influential. Most of this work has gone on behind the scenes and problems with communication between the society and assembly means it's not known about.

It's the strained relations and lack of communication between the assembly and those who are elected to represent society members (& are often the first point of call) which have made things difficult this year and this motion aims to rectify this in order to get things running smoothly between society and assembly. As for the comment about it being non-productive, it can hardly be said that the work the assembly has done this year hasn't being productive, there's a list of acheivements in the assembly section of the forum.

Your point about not hearing my views or opinions about issues is interesting, again theres the formal complaint to LUU in the assembly section of the forum which contains all correspondacne between me and the paper about the discrimination (most of which were published in the paper), the meeting in the union with the Vice-Chancellor where my views and the views of others were discussed with him and if you've picked up/pick up a copy of Leeds Student for last week, this week and next week you will see my views and provided representation. I can also reccommend picking up a copy of 'The Gist' as this also covers the meeting with the Vice-Chancellor and the 'Mark my Words' Campaign. If you haven't read these then you'll obviously not have seen or heard of my views, but they are out there in black & white print.

The motion, has being put in, the first bit is about stating facts so members know the current situation, the 2nd part is what is felt about the current situation & the 3rd bit is the resolves part which if passed will be added to the societies constitution (the 1st n 2nd part wont be because they are just there to inform members).

Until september conference was organised by the society, it then got passed onto the assembly to organise for winter conference. Basically conference is all bout LGBT politics, campaigns and changing union and university policies so they are more inclusive of LGBT students, all of these things are what the assembly is concerned with. Edinburgh conference (summer conference, organised by the society) was advertised as a 'free holiday at the unions expense', there were several issues with how the delegation had been selected (based upon peoples personal opinions of others n who they'd prefer 2 spend a weekend with) 2 of the voting delegation had pre-arranged plans before conference and knew they couldn't stay for the whole of conference, but it was decided that the 2 people who could stay 4 the whole of conference were only going as observers, this meant that Leeds had already lost 2 votes in the elections and motions sessions, then the 3rd delegate with voting rights decided 2 leave with their mates, this lost Leeds another vote and nothing productive came out of attending conference as a result. In comparison the winter conference in coventry saw a delegation of people who were genuinly interested in going for the politics attend (all were society members), alot was gained from it such as information about the mark my words campaign, trans equality etc, which has been utilised and seen changes happen here. There's also a report being written by one of the attending delegates about how to make societies etc more accessible for disabled LGBT students, which could potentially lead to more members because they are included. Surely it's better to get this message across when advertising it and gain & utilise things from conference to improve the position of ALL LGBT students & scoeity members in LUU & the University, rather than advertising it like a weekend break and bringing back nothing useful from it or anything other than a hangover to show from it?

As for the non-student thing, I was a full-time student last year and elected into position, however just because I'm not full time at the moment, doesn't mean I'm a non student.

-- Edited by NickyDyke85 at 02:41, 2006-02-27

PatrickT · Forum Guru

I see the point of all of those issues you've raised Nic, but I don't think that there should be an Amendment to the constitution as a result of problems during one year. A Constitution is a lasting document that will (hopefully) survive us, and changing it should be hard and highly infrequent. Issues like sharing office space and email accounts will evolve in time. Perhaps a joint separate account (lgbtpolitics.luu@leeds or whatever) would be more appropriate. Anyway, in time the Assembly will promote its own email accounts and information links and it's inappropriate for the society to be sharing an identity and information so directly with a political body over which it has no formal control.

Sharing office space (as addressed in your third paragraph), I could never object to as long as doing so furthers the aims of both groups. I see no problem there but surely it would make more sense to simply state that the two groups share an office, rather than the rather vague and ominous 'resources' which can cover so much more.

The lack of communication between welfare officeirs, and the issue of shared responsibilities shouldn't be a formally addressed issue as such. These issues resolve themselves and making a 'constitutional amendment' makes any further relations between the bodies strained. By forcing the links, you actually weaken them. A voluntary connection, when one side or the other needs help, would appear to be much more valuable.

Furthermore, when I say I haven't heard or read your position on any issues, I mean that I don't know of, or can't find, any sort of manifesto (or other document) leading to your election as Assembly Chair. I clearly know your opinion on many matters, having contributed to the disucussion threads you mention and through speaking directly with you, and support all (as far as I'm aware) of these efforts. I think you've been doing a great job. The issue is that while society positions are highly analyzed and scrutinized, it's hard to have oversight of the Assembly and that makes it an unknown body and force. I may support the actions of a political party thus far but I wouldn't be able to say I support them unless I know what they plan to do in the future. No doubt the development of your/ the Assembly's website will help this.

Your points with regard to Conference surprise me (since I didn't know about this, or can't remeber it) and clearly matters weren't handled correctly. The question however is whether an amendment should be made to the constitution to correct this, or whether the Assembly should take over control of the delegation to Conference. Surely the Chair or President of the group who sent these people to conference should be responsible for their awful desertion of duty. But can a one-person body be assured, in the long-term future, to be more reliable?

I still don't agree with this. I think you've shown that there have been problems in the past year but I think making them into an Amendment blows them out of proportion. I think better management, patience and willing cooperation would make the situation far more equitable and successful. We should work together but that doesn't mean we should work together. Do you see what I mean?

xx
p

chemicalfears · Queen of Quips

I see a problem...

the ammendment refers to the LGBT society and its members...but the LGBT assembly is working for ALL LGBT students in the university, am I correct? would it not therefore be improper to link the two inextricably...?

the society, unfortunately, does NOT represent all LGBT students, only those LGBT students who choose to become members of the society. the membership of the society, purely by chance (not everyone wants or indeed has the time for membership of a society) is wildly out of proportion to the number of LGBT students that the laws of probability indicate actually attend the university. doesn´t that mean that it would actually be somewhat detrimental for the assembly to be linked with such a small (not to belittle the society in any way) selection of LGBT students? that would hardly be representing all the LGBT students...

i think something else needs pointing out. the whole point of setting the assembly up was to separate the society from the politics, in a way that meant students could interact with either or both, but separately. doesn´t integrating the assembly and its objectives with the society mean that all of that was never needed in the first place? i think the assembly needs to stand on its own, just like the society, otherwise there was never any point in setting the assembly up to start with.

if you force links between the society, a SOCIAL body, and the assembly, a POLITICAL body, the boundaries will become blurred, and it will all go back to square one. let´s not demean the work done by people in the assembly and in the society by forcing it all into one incohesive mass, because i don´t think it will work. i think patrick is right: cooperation and working together can come with time, but not if you force it.

sash
xxx

AliceH · Butter Me Up!

chemicalfears wrote:

if you force links between the society, a SOCIAL body, and the assembly, a POLITICAL body, the boundaries will become blurred, and it will all go back to square one. let´s not demean the work done by people in the assembly and in the society by forcing it all into one incohesive mass, because i don´t think it will work. i think patrick is right: cooperation and working together can come with time, but not if you force it.

sash
xxx

I agree with you completely, Sash. You cannot force cooperation and participation. The Assembly is a democratic structure.

I see no problem with the current constitution, stating 'the committee will work with and support the Union's LGBT rep'. I also dislike including loaded vocabulary such as 'tirelessly' and 'successful results' as this may not be applicable to the LGBT Assembly in future years. It is also a little bit patronising, in my opinion.

Amusingly, I have been to an NUS LGBT conference. Using the phrase 'political importance' to describe the farce that was Ediburgh is quite inappropriate in my opinion. I gained useful information from the fringe meetings (the Students With Disabilities Caucus and Bisexual Caucus) but neither meeting really came up with any plans to put what they were saying into action. The whole NUS LGBT Steering Committee election process was based around friends of friends, dirty tactics, and places that shouldn't've been used for platforming candidates being used for platforming candidates. (Nothing nicer than going out to get pissed after a hard days conferencing than to have a million and one 'Vote Kat Louis for Women's Officer' stickers slapped all over your back. I didn't leave to be with my mates. I left because I wanted no part of it. It was not the most productive of experiences, and I'm not ashamed to say that. I hear they cleaned it up for Coventry Conference, thank goodness.

Of course, this is not to deny any of your hard work, Nic. We all know how much work a few people have put in to the LGBT Assembly, but you won't be Assembly chair forever and whoever comes along next may have an entirely different agenda.

NickyDyke85 · YouCanaeSmokeNayHashOn'Ere!

Main things to note about the amendment are that the current committee support it and others running for committee positions this year also believe its important to work together, not against each other or seperately, due to the overlap on the welfare side of things, its not about forcing links, its there to act as a safeguard to ensure that there is co-operation between both in future years. The shared resources include, the office, booklets & so on, which have a purpose for both parties.

When you say you haven't read my manifesto etc leading up to my election, that might well be because it was this time last year and after sabattical and NUS national conference elections people don't really give a **** about reading more manifesto's or what elections are going on cos they are sick to death of them. Plus all the manifesto's etc are removed after the elections have been held.

The problems that have been there this year are due to the assembly taking over the political side of things which the society used to do before the assemblies were created, they need to be addressed so it is clear where the separation is and how both parties can support each other, which in the long run will benefit LGBT students, including society members. Yes, not all LGBT Students are society members, but alot of society members are LGBT students therefore linking the two (not so the society is doing all the assembly work or forcing any1 to do anything against will) will help bridge communication between LGBT students and the union providing better representation of LGBT students... look at the Fruity incident last year, there was no representation, LGBT society members (& students) had been attacked and very little was done about it by the union, this is where things such as welfare of LGBT society members/students cross over in2 the assembly's 'domain', which is there to provide representation of them in the union. This is why there is a need to communicate and work together, which is why there should be link there, as it is of benefit to members. LGBT students who aren't a part of the society can get in contact varying other ways if something is affecting them and are also represented.

This isn't detrimental to any group of LGBT students, as ones who aren't in the society can get in touch as and when they need. The Society, well the committee looks after the welfare of society members and deals with their complaints & problems, sometimes these are on a bigger scale and nothing to do with the society such as issues within the union & university, e.g. discriminatory comments made by lecturers, homophobic/bi-phobic/transphobic bullying in Halls, the paper printing offensive articles. If theres effective communication between the 2 n good links then these issues can be resolved quickly and to the benefit of society members. Ask any1 who's been to the assembly for help with these issues this year and they'll be able to tell you how it was dealt with and what came out of it.

Like I've already said, the problems this year have been the society been a blur of everything and separating the politics outta it for the assembly to deal with, this amendment aims to make these clear by laying out where the line is drawn between society and assembly (who does what), as well as creating more effective communication between the 2 especially where welfare is concerned, as there is an overlap. The current committee agree that this needs doing, the people standing for election this AGM are (from readin the manifesto's) in agreement that there needs to be a strengthening of links, and generally members are in agreement that links need strengthening. It's not about forcing any1 into participation or co-operation.

Alice, the first part of the motion, is explaining the current situation this is so that members have an understanding of the current situation and what the amendments (the resolves) are aiming to change, the 2nd part is why & the 3rd bit (the resolves) are the changes which will be made. Parts 1 & 2 won't be included in the constitution, only the resolves will.

-- Edited by NickyDyke85 at 03:55, 2006-02-28

PatrickT · Forum Guru

The manifestoes are removed after elections have been held?! What, so that it's impossible to see in the future whether someone's been sticking to what they proposed they'd do? There seem to be all sorts of problems with 'democracy' around here, making it look like a little bit of a joke.

The issue about the committee supporting this amenmend doesn't convince me one way or the other - I'm not swayed by them saying it's a good idea: they can read only as well as I can and so can surely see issues with this proposal. This text here in bold is incorrect: see later in the thread for explanationPlus, I've been told by a member of the committee that John Schless, rather scandalously, has pressured them to publicly support the motion. Is he our elected Chair or President? If he's got more power than the committee within our society, perhaps as Societies Officer of the Union, he should become President.

There may have been problems with representation, but links should be voluntary and the committee can forward any concerns arising to the Assembly as and when needed. This doesn't need a constitutional Amendment.

The problem with, as Alice reiterates, the language at the start is that it begins with a long list of problems and things that went wrong over the course of the year such as:
"...the problems encountered problems have been detrimental to the provision of welfare, representation, support and advice for LGBT Society members."

Yet it contains the classic line: "The LGBT Assembly has worked tirelessly...". This simply, intentionally or not, places all of the blame on Society Committee members and doesn't recognise that problems arise or have arisen because people simply can't work together. It's Amendments like this one that promote this distrust between individuals because if there's always someone pointing a finger, complaining to 'higher' powers or so forth then that integration which the Amendment now wants to force would never happen. It comes across as vindictive and mean.

-- Edited by PatrickT at 21:11, 2006-02-28

-- Edited by PatrickT at 21:12, 2006-02-28

richardyoung71 · *Censored*

PatrickT wrote:

Plus, I've been told by more than one member of the committee that John Schless, rather scandalously, has pressured them to publicly support the motion. Is he our elected Chair or President? If he's got more power than the committee within our society, perhaps as Societies Officer of the Union, he should become President.

I'm not sure who've you've been talking to, but I was at the meeting with John Schless and he didn't pressure anyone into doing anything as far as I'm concerned. Everyone is more than capable of making their own decisions and the vote on Thursday night will decide whether or not this is added to the constitution.

AlbyFC · You best sima!

Although I'm not entirely happy with the vague "problems" present in the new, revised version of the constitutional amendment, I still think links between the Society and the Assembly are necessary.

The creation of the Assembly in itself was bound to bring about a change in the way LGBT politics and campaings are articulated and carried out in the Union. Therefore, I do think a change in the LGBT Society Constitution is necessary.

It's the limits of this cooperation that actually make me worry, though. The Society will always have its members' interests at heart, as will the Assembly, but if any disagreements take place, the Society will probably always defend its own stand, and the Assembly will defend its own position in the debate, too.

I wouldn't make such a big issue of sharing information, though. It means that if we get an email dealing with cases of discrimination or any other LGBT-related business, we should forward it to the Assembly so that they can take action and help the people in question.

This doesn't mean that we won't be able to deal with our members' cases, though, since, after all, it is them who approach either the Society or the Assembly by their own free will and following their own judgement anad/or reasons.

In such a new state of things, communication and cooperation might be difficult at first, but this is a change we can't avoid, since neither the LGBT Society nor the LGBT Assembly are going to disappear to leave free way to the other, so I think we'd much better find ways to work together.

I'm looking forward to reading or hearing more people's opinions, though. I'm not a big fan of vinculating documents, and I'd be happier to cooperate with the Assembly without being "told to", but not stating that there should be cooperation might let people forget that these links should be used in a productive way.

I'm not very happy, however, that other people's opinions are being taken on board by both sides of a debate which should try to be as objective as possible, and not base itself on what current and prospective committee members "think" or "have said", which holds no water, in my opinion.

May I also add that John Schless's behaviour in the meeting was impeccable?

Adam · *Censored*

AlbyFC wrote:

I'm not very happy, however, that other people's opinions are being taken on board by both sides of a debate which should try to be as objective as possible, and not base itself on what current and prospective committee members "think" or "have said", which holds no water, in my opinion.

Do you not think that as a prospective committee member you should hold an opinion on this? If you are elected and the amendment is passed you are going to be responsible for making sure it is upheld.

PatrickT · Forum Guru

Oops! I clearly got the wrong impression from conversations I had. My sincere apologies.

On a totally unrelated note, Alberto - far from me being the posh one, I had to look up vinculate in the dictionary! Never even heard of that word before. Apparently it comes from the latin 'to bind'. I should have known having studied the language for three years! Every day's a school day!

-- Edited by PatrickT at 23:48, 2006-02-28

JohnK · Pieces of me you've never seen

I agree with much of what Alice, Patrick and Sash say.

My main problems with the amendment are these:

1. The way that the amendment is worded is very much like the wording of a union policy/NUS amendmet. It isn't in anyway reflective of the style of the LGBT's constitution at all. This makes it difficult logistically to 'place' it in the constitution. It doesn't fit anywhere. Amendments to the constitution have to 'make sense' in terms of the document itself and should be created as add on or erasures to the current format of the constitution. (ie. 4.1, 13.5 etc.....)

2. I really really really don't think that handing over the control of elections to NUS conferences to a single person (ie. the assembly chair) is in anyway useful. At best it means that decisions will be made without consultation with anybody else - at worst it is open to complete abuse. The union (who fund the trip) and the society should work together in order to create a democratic team of representatives in my opinion.

Apart from these main two points, I think the language of the amendment is much too emotive, as Alice has rightly pointed out.

I will be voting this amendment down, and, if I get the chance, explain to the floor why. It is a much to complicated process to open this amendment up to 'part-taking', mainly because it will confuse the hell out of the people who attend the meeting (it confuses me still - especially the negative and positive parts thing, which I get muddled with).

In my opinion, the constitution's guidelines on working with the LGBT rep is pretty clear and sufficient already. This amendment must be voted down and if the wording of the constitution needs to be changed to make the relationship between the society and assembley more transparent, it will have to wait until next year.

This post is in now way meant as a criticism of Nic who has done a sterling job of setting up and running the assembly. I am just concerned about the ramifications of such an amendment, as many others seem to be.

AlbyFC · You best sima!

Adam wrote:

AlbyFC wrote:

I'm not very happy, however, that other people's opinions are being taken on board by both sides of a debate which should try to be as objective as possible, and not base itself on what current and prospective committee members "think" or "have said", which holds no water, in my opinion.

Do you not think that as a prospective committee member you should hold an opinion on this? If you are elected and the amendment is passed you are going to be responsible for making sure it is upheld.

As you can see from my post, I have *several* opinions, even if my final opinion is far from formed. Can't wait to the AGM!

What I meant in the passage you quoted is that people shouldn't be appropriating other people's opinion or stand to push their own argument forward. They should offer their own opinion. Hope you understand what I meant.

As regards NUS conference, I see your point, John. But I thought the Assembly Chair wasn't the only person with any authority in the Assembly... I can also see why the wording makes you uncomfortable. I think it's a bit oppositional, to be honest.

Does anybody know if there is any chance of changing the wording of the ammendment at the AGM?

Oh, Padz, the joy of having a roman language as mother tongue... I sound posh even without meaning to!

chemicalfears · Queen of Quips

DOWN WITH THE ROMANS!!

oh wait...they´re all dead...

i think we should have kicked out the romans when we had a chance. pity boudicca didn´t succeed!

*muble mutter mutter muble grumble mutter*

one thing i will say for the romans: they really knew how to deal with sh`t, a la Cloaca Maxima...teehee...

keep me informed of what happens at the AGM people!

splasha
xxx

richardyoung71 · *Censored*

I don't think it'd really be practical to reword it at the agm. It has afterall already been reworded once. Also it's gonne be a rush to get throughthe whole agenda on schedule as it is without further complicating things.

Adam · *Censored*

Yeah... parts are complicated and a little dull... time is of the esssence, no faffing people!

NickyDyke85 · YouCanaeSmokeNayHashOn'Ere!

JohnK wrote:

2. I really really really don't think that handing over the control of elections to NUS conferences to a single person (ie. the assembly chair) is in anyway useful. At best it means that decisions will be made without consultation with anybody else - at worst it is open to complete abuse.

Edinburgh conference ring any bells?

The amendment states that the assembly chair will organise the elections and delegation, with the help of the society committee, so its not upto a single person and won't be open to complete abuse.

The resolutions can be added in fairly easy enough, just because theres no specific positions or numbers on them doesn't mean it'd be impossible to organise. They could be added after point 1.2(h) as it is all relevant.

-- Edited by NickyDyke85 at 18:39, 2006-03-01

NickyDyke85 · YouCanaeSmokeNayHashOn'Ere!

PatrickT wrote:

The manifestoes are removed after elections have been held?! What, so that it's impossible to see in the future whether someone's been sticking to what they proposed they'd do? There seem to be all sorts of problems with 'democracy' around here, making it look like a little bit of a joke.

Yeah after the elections have been made and results announced, the union remove the manifesto's.... can u find the manifesto's for any of the exec officers this year?

Other than that I've found my copy of my manifesto from last year, here's how reads...

"Leeds University Union - Union Council Elections 2005
Standing for - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans Student's Assembly Chair
Candidate Name - Nichola Turner
Proposed by - Laura Smith
Seconded by - Richard Young
Current Union Position - LGBT Events Officer
Previous Union Positions - None

Manifesto

I am running for the position of LGBT Students' assembly chair on the
Union Council, because I feel that all LGBT students should be represented within the Union and have their issues included in the Union's agenda.

I also feel that the Union Council's LGBT representative should have a close link with the LGBT society committee because they are the only autonomously elected committee who have close links with LGBT students. As a current LGBT committee member, I can provide a close working relationship between the Union Council, LGBT committee and LGBT students, which would benefit all parties involved because I would ensure that motions at union meetings are LGBT friendly, raise LGBT issues, get these included in the unions agenda and help the LGBT committee to facilitate their campaigns.

As well as the above I intend to work closely with the LGBT and Union Council to challenge this issues of homophobia, bi-phobia and trans-phobia within the union, making the union a more welcoming place for all LGBT students"

Hope this clears things up for you

JohnK · Pieces of me you've never seen

NickyDyke85 wrote:

Edinburgh conference ring any bells?

This amendment constitutionalises that ability to abuse the system, and I don't think dragging up things from the past helps. This meeting should be about the future.

I have been pretty restrained with regards to my opinion on this manifesto. I don't wanna get unrestrained!

NickyDyke85 · YouCanaeSmokeNayHashOn'Ere!

it constitutionalises that the assembly chair and society work together to organise elections and delegations, but the overall responsibility is the assemblies because its political. it's not constitutionalising anyone the power to do it all alone or shut any1 else out of the process.

thaidave · Not Thai Dave

this post may have said something offensive. Then again, it may have said something about penguins... or rainbows. yes. it said death to the rainbow coloured penguins. and something about edinburgh. penguins live there.

-- Edited by thaidave at 23:58, 2006-03-01

PatrickT · Forum Guru

Oooh, I wasn't saying that it was one individuals' responsibility that the manifestoes are removed, I just think that in general that's a pretty rubbish decision! But yeah, thanks for the manifesto you put up from last year. It's not really relevant to this AGM, but it's always nice to have a look at! :)

xx
p

I'm exhausted. g'night!

thaidave · Not Thai Dave

we keep them in a folder, and everyone gets reminded of their promises and is pelted with olives if they dont live up to them. If the olives dont act as a deterrent then grenades are introduced. And then we get into trouble from the exec because the use of grenades and agressive tactics to discriminate against those lower down in "societies pecking order" offends the American society. It's a strange life. There are good bits though... yoghurt is nice.

-- Edited by thaidave at 00:30, 2006-03-02

NickyDyke85 · YouCanaeSmokeNayHashOn'Ere!

See the union don't keep the manifesto's of any1 who runs 4 position or keep them publicised after elections.

Just outta interest dave, wot had u been on last night???