Know something you shouldn't? Tell us, using our quick, 100% anonymous tip-off form!
Guilds president survives vote of no confidence
The CGCU President, Tristan Sherliker, continues in the role after a paper of no confidence was rejected today.
Well done me boy! You have done me proud - Well done for getting out of it on a technicality!
Getting enough votes is more than a technicality I believe.
However, the abstenation votes were farcical. If people actually realised what an abstention vote meant, the outcome may have been different. The whole meeting was badly organised, with people being unaware of the numbers needed for quorum, to consulting to constitution to see if abstention votes counted. For a meeting as important as this it was dissappointing to see the number of people missing.
Tristan should do the honorable thing and resign.
5 people on exec want him out
3 dont care
how can someone be so selfish as to continue working with the 5 people who have no respect for him.RESIGN TRISTAN NO ONE WANTS YOU HERE ANYMORE.
It is clear that Tristan just wants to put guilds pres on his CV - ha - they'll have a laugh when they call imperial and tell him how s**t he was lol!
How embarrasing Tristan - how very very embarrasing.
Has the man no shame?
So what is actually going to happen now, in practical terms.
Is everyone going to simply pretend this didn't happen?? Is anyone that niave??
Are the management committee going to treat him as if he deserves to be in that position?? I think not.
I guess they will just have to try and work to prepare for next year to make sure that it is a lot better than this year....
Which is the same thing they said last year around this time.
Whats done is done, lets just hope everyone involved can be professional about it all and get on with the job in hand. Good luck, you'll need it.
that is not a word which Tristan understands
Do these people not understand voting? In thisn case there was more than a 2/3 majority (the amount that is required i believe). An abstention does not count towards the total number of votes, by deffinition it is choosing not to vote on a matter (Unless it is stated differently in the CGCU constitution, which would be pretty f'd up). In this case, there was more than a 70% majority for the no confidance motion. Is it possible thast the exec could call for a recount or something based on the fact that whoever counted the votes didn't know what they were doing?
Not correct according to the ICU President, who we checked with. Apparently abstentions effectively count as a "No" vote in censure/no-confidence, although the constitution is less than clear.
The ICU constitution is not as clear as it could be on the matter.
Peoceedure for censure and no confidence at other bodies
47. In proceedings resulting in a censure or no confidence there shall be:
3. a necessity for approval of the motion by at least a two-thirds majority of members present and voting.
My interpretation is that absentions are not covered by "present and voting", as a choice has been made not to cast a vote.
(Sorry that I could not get the CGCU constituion so I could stand corrected)
It is the abstentions that the constitution is not clear about. The constitution is also muddled in other areas.
For Censures/NCs at Council:
46. 9. "The motion must be approved by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting, and more than half of those present and eligible to vote."
Under these rules, it still would have fallen, as the votes for were not more than half those present and eligible to vote.
However, for no-confidence motions at other bodies (e.g. exec), the constitution states:
3. a necessity for approval of the motion by at least a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, and
4. a course of appeal to a higher body.
The CGCU constitution contains very little about censure and no-confidence motions, as the ICU constitution takes precedence.
So if the vote was at Council it would have fallen, but at exec it would have passed, if abstentions are counted as "non-votes".
It really hinges on whether abstentions count as a member being "present and voting".
5 votes for and 2 against, and Tris thinks he's won!
Seriously, if the constitution allows a paper fall with that number of votes, something is seriously wrong.
Obv this is not the ICU definition, but still...
"...an abstentionnist hasn't voted.
"...the term used is "two thirds of those present and voting", "two thirds of those present" (which has the effect of counting abstentions as votes against the proposal) or "two thirds of the entire membership" (also "two thirds of those members duly elected and sworn," in American politics), as appropriate"
Given the wording of this and the constitution are practically identical I would have thought the constitution meant the first one and hence not included abstentions.
5 votes for and 2 against. That's a two-thirds majority, if you ignore the abstentions.
Seems to me that the constitution is actually clear, as Ashley has (unwittingly?) quoted and pointed out. The question is: does "present and voting" include or exclude abstainers? The answer can be seen in the definition in reg 46.9: it contrasts "present and eligible to vote" with "present and voting". The only possible meaning is to include abstainers in the first, and exclude abstainers in the second.
So at Council there is the two-step test: two-thirds majority of voting people, and simple majority of voters+abstainers. A different, easier test is set up for other bodies (borrowing the "present and voting" terminology): just two-thirds of voting people. Abstainers don't count.
It looks to me that Tristan was actually no confidenced. Constitutional crisis, anyone?
Send it to the Court. Resolving constitutional crises is what it does best.
"The only possible meaning is to include abstainers in the first, and exclude abstainers in the second."
Just because you are eligible to vote, doesn't mean you actually have to fill out your little slip of paper and hand it in. Those people are also not voting, but have not abstained either...
In my understanding those people would be voting with a "blank vote" and I understand this as the equivalent of a spoilt vote which is something different compeletely.
If it did go to court, and it was ruled that 5 votes to 2 means that 2/3 has been reached, would quorum still have been reached, as only 7 votes are counted?
I'm guessing that abstainers count towards quorum. There's nothing to say they don't. Also, otherwise you'd have to quorum count every time you held a vote. And all those votes at various meetings where only a few bother vote either way would then be unconstitutional. Which would be a massive farce.
i would think logically all voting members present should count towards quorum and all members who vote (non-abstainers) count towards the result of the vote.
It is a pretty sorry state if people who submitted the motion are trying to pick over the bones of the constitution to try and get an officer, out of office - post vote. I saw the paper on Live! and to be honest, it is outstanding how poorer case was made for some one who SHOULD be removed from his position. If people at that meeting only had the paper to go on, it is no surprise the result is as it was.
I guess a lot of the issues with Tristan cannot be put down on paper - you cannot no confidence somebody on the basis of them being an a**ehole. People who were not working with him on a regular basis (for example dep reps) would only have the paper to go on. A lot of the issues run deeper than was in the paper. People were too afraid to upsetting the status quo whilst voting. Who on earth could abstain over an issue like that?!?!?!
I'm not sure how many posters here are part of the guilds exec (I'm not). It's pretty irrelevent at this stage what was on the no confidence paper. It could have said "rhubarb rhubarb" for all it matters.
The point is - and no disrespect to Tristan: if he's been voted out, he's been voted out. At the moment it seems his staying in the post is flagrantly unconstitutional.
The proposers have made their point - and it seems exec have as well. The chair made a ruling anyway - the only thing the proposers could do (if they still care) is contest the decision and demand exec revote on the matter.
Tristan Sherliker has no shame. He begged exec not to No Confidence him and promised (yet again) to be better than before. No one has any respect for him.
He even asked the everyone at the meeting to reduce the motion to a motion of censure - upon which a point of order was raised - telling him he can't be censured twice - clearly he hadn't read his email from the council chair which will have explained this.
The point is - he admitted to being s**t - and asked for himself to be censured.
What an idiot!
Whats the next move?
I dunno Ashley - what do you think?
Well could you try again?
Based on the fact that it appears nobody in the CGCU exec is exactly clear on voting regulations, and the implications of abstentions as opposed to clear yes/no votes, is this not reason enough for their to be a re-vote, once the constitutional issues have been cleared up?
cant the court clear up the constitutional issues and then rule accordingly on the whole matter??
There must be some way of re-running it, due to voters not being aware of the regulations....
I think this needs to go to the Court to be cleared up...
I agree with Ashley! Isn't that what its there for!
To Tristan- LEAD US. Your are not here for us to ask you to do things, it's the other way around. Guilds needs a leader, which is not what Tristan is doing. No one seemed to realise this at Exec, he didn't promise to lead guilds next term, just do stuff when people asked him to. Plonker!!!
Tristan has survived the no-confidence vote, get over it. To read and re-read the constitution looking for mistakes is vindictive and demonstrates that it is simply personal and not for the good of the union.
The real issue is that most of his exec are acting like a bunch of children. Instead of having a conversation and telling Tristan they think he could do better, they band together to write a spiteful paper. If they can't handle his personality then they shouldn't have positions in any exec.
If any of the proposers and seconders stand for any positions in the future, I would not vote for them.
Apparently they have spoke to him about this before, yet he did nothing to improve. The no confidence motion was put forward before the Easter holiday so that some improvement could be made in the summer term, without his shadow hanging over them. CGCU is crippled for the rest of the year.
And yes it is personal. It was not put forward solely on the basis that Tristan was simply incompetent, and unfit for the role (although that was part of it). It was due to his attitude and personality issues, which he cannot improve by promising to work harder. Tristan is rude and arrogant, and should not be leading our union, and cannot effectively lead a team.
Whoever posted post 38. is a plonker who simply doesn't understand what is going on within Guilds. The only person acting like a child is Tristan - (oh... and the poster of post 38. Which may be one and the same)
Grow up and let the people who know what is happening deal with the situation!
"Tristan has survived the no-confidence vote, get over it. To read and re-read the constitution looking for mistakes is vindictive and demonstrates that it is simply personal and not for the good of the union."
5 people though he should go
2 people thought he should stay
3 people didn't care either way
And one of those voting against the proposal to sack Tristan was probably the BioEng dep rep, who hadn't been seen at exec for months.
Poster 38 took the words from my mouth - you lot should all grow the hell up! If you hadn't made it so blooming obvious you hated him right from the start then he might have been more inclined to work with you - I'm sure he was hugely demoralised! And the fact that he's taking all this c**p and holding strong takes some courage.
42... is full of s**t... Carter lived in Beit with Tristan and they used to be friends till he lost all respect for him.
but carter is a right royal w*?$er - has anyone got any respect for him?
They are both idiots. Nobody respects either of them. Case closed.
with particular interest in the last line....
If you don't turn up to 2 execs in a row - you are no longer allowed to vote - surely that means the BioEng Dep rep couldn't have voted!
I believe that if you miss 2 exec meetings in a row without appologies then the exec can choose to suspend voting rights or dismiss the individual with a vote, but this wasn't done in this case.
I know Tris has managed to come out of this clinging by his teeth - but what about the Chair, Jenn Roberts, who has failed to organise the number of required meetings. When is guilds going to have a proper AGM?
The AGM would have happened this term had the Central Union not made further c**k up to Tristan's election c**k up.
It will now be held next term after the elections (some 2 to 3 weeks in) Not ideal, but not our fault this time.
Jen will have been sent to Chair school by then and will come back all enlightened!
So everyone is aware the election timetable we are currently working to is as follows:
Nominations Open ? 28th April 00.00
Nominations Close - 5th May 23.59
Hustings 9th May 12.00
Voting Opens 12th May 00.01
Voting Closes 14th May 23.59
AGM with results - 15th May 18.00
This is subject to the testing of the election system over easter and we will be letting everyone know as soon as we know more.
We will be advertising the nomination period extensively from and before the start of next term.
Brilliant. A bit of certainty.
Any sign of the promised improvement for Tristan? He's had a week....
I know that he has gone to a orchestral competition with ICSO.
If that is the case he told a blantant lie at the meeting.
He claimed he was spending the Easter weekend with his family, then heading straight back to college to work on his project which he is behind on. "I am not having an Easter holiday" were his words at the meeting..
He hasn't replied to any of my repeated emails about important events next term.
how is that unreasonable?
the orchestral competition was one day only and certainly didn't count as holidays
Firstly - it is more than one day - because he must have been to the first trip where they qualified for this one.
Secondly - I think its the lying at his No Confidence hearing that is unreasonable. Still - some leopards never lose their spots - I can't believe I'm about to say this... but we should have listened to Milli, when she said she didn't believe him when he said he was going to be better in the future.
Actually, to qualify they simply had to submit a recording - recorded at a concert last year.
My point is that participating in an orchestral competition has nothing to do with whether he makes a good president and I don't see why he should be required to list all of his activities. Nobody works 24/7 and nobody should.
My second point is that complaining on these boards doesn't help anybody and is quite frankly, immature - which in itself is as much a bad thing as anything Tristan has or hasn't done.
Firstly, at the meeting he made out that he would be concentrating on his degree all throughout the holidays. People do not have a problem with him going to an orchestral competition. What they have a problem with is that he lied, and made himself out to be this martyr having to give up his easter holiday to work on his project. If he lied about this, how do we know he has not lied about other things?
Secondly, he is still finding time to do things with the orchestra, yet is still doing nothing for guilds. At the meeting he said that he was essentially finished with orchestra, and that guilds was all he had left. It is clear that he does not have the time (inclination?) to do both effectively.
Thirdly. it seems that complaining on Live! is the only way that things seem to get done! Somebody has mentioned that emails are still not being answered....
I believe that although there is a lot of bitching on Live! there are things being done behind the scenes.. just without Tristan. I have heard plans for BBQ's, bar nights, study sessions, cinema nights... I probably know more then Tristan about whats happening!
Add your comment:
Live! is a City & Guilds Media Group Publication and editorially independent of City & Guilds College Union.
© 1999-2008 C&G Media Group