Know something you shouldn't? Tell us, using our quick, 100% anonymous tip-off form!
My manifesto for success in Imperial College Union.
I bet Sykes would love to go face-to-face with you...
Actually Jon, I think Andy is the one person who Sykes doesn't want to go face to face with.
As i remember, Sykes famously called Andy a "troublemaker" simply because he had no reasoned reply to Andy's arguments...
Is this a prelude to a second term of office?
not bad for a retired politician.
ps good luck in the finals andy
Hmm. Yes. I see sense. I think my lack of confidence in the Union stems from the current president and not prior ones.
Quite agree. The previous presidents were great.
Except for the imiediatly previous one maybe?
This two year sabbaticle thing... hmmm. Does let them get well ahead in the game doesnt it.
Odd to here a student using "We" for things college is planning.
Hmmm... Andy's "manifesto" is remarkably similar to some ramblings I once wrote - themselves remarkably similar to some Dinesh's written ramblings (thought with much greater brevity).
So, Andy and Dinesh secretly shared the same world view all along! Wow!
... apart from the public face to face with the Rector bit. That's a truly Andy-ism :-)
I truly hope that Mr. Heeps decides to stand for President this year. It would appear that the Union needs someone like him.
Sarcasm... Lost... SOS... etc. :)
Shame that the first bullet point rather casts aspersions on the other very commendable ideas. ICU council should never meet again - it is a farce and achieves very little. Pro-activity and getting stuff done should be a priority, not making each other accountable to each other through long and tiresome motions of censure and reports. Last year I ran the Alternative Careers Fair, with no Union support, and no Union funding (small white lie, I did get ?125 contingency from SCC committee). Not even DramSoc support! It was a roaring success, such that ICU is now backing it and helping to organise. All without having ever gone to a single Council meeting...
If you want increased representation, you need to improve access to the money, the people who know, and make ordinary members feel that they can achieve something WITHOUT having to learn all the jargon, or knowing what REGULATION 2, SECTION A, CLAUSE 6 actually says. No wonder they don't want to go to council meetings!
Now, I must get back to grinding my axe...
I think, Tom, while you make a fair point, there is a time and a place for both action and discussion.
If you feel that you achieve more by action then, by all means, continue. However, that is not to say that there is no point behind the discussions that go on at Council or regarding the rules and governance of the Union. We need rules (however boring and tiresome they may seem) and so these discussions are a necessary evil.
If you don't like it then don't come to council, but please do not assume that because this type of behaviour ('making each other accountable' and 'reports') doesn't suit you then it won't suit anybody.
'If you feel that you achieve more by action then, by all means, continue' - well, i shall do then!
Can you expl,ain to me what was achieved by bringing a censure against Sen? and had he been censured, then someone would surely have raised a second procedural motion, and probably have got him kicked out. Wow, that'll really shows the wider student population the Union is in control and knows what it's doing... no president mid-year, and no one to do the job in his place!
If you'd have stopped massaging your ego with moves to a vote, and let everyone discuss the issue, maybe something would have happened. Maybe if everyone had voted for a secret ballot the vote would have been different.
Maybe if council members were a little more robust in their views the sabbs wouldn't be getting away with it...
Yeah, and if everyone was prepared to put a name to a comment, then a lot of this crep could be avoided! It was no ego massage, it was simply a case of getting on with achieving stuff, not discussing the precise meaning of some (in his own words) 'policy that was written after a damn good night out - sorry about that' [H. Common].
If council all think Sen was wrong, why did they all vote against censure?? Because they're all spineless? Or were they all just as glad to get on with a vote? I take it I can deduce your identity by the fact you're one of the two that voted 'yes'?
sorry, i'm not one of the two... i can't vote - i was just there for the ride...
Sounds like the College [whatever commitee it was called] vote on tuition fee's, wasn't that 30+ - 1
Personally I know which side I took...
that's completely different... Sen lost College Council....
I agree with almost all of the point made by Mr Heeps. Except I would probably, in view of the mess that was mondays council, slimline the constiution
(ICU constitution is longer than the USA's for heavens sakes)
and rather than have council made up largely of officers reliant on the Sabs to get things done, have some sort of council that was truely independent.
However I think Hamish made the convincing case against Censure. I don't think Sen was being malicious, I don't think he was being particularly incometent (the double hop issue seems to make it impossible to run the system efficiently, computer programs appearing later notwithstanding) and I particularly have a problem voting to the exact letter rather than spirit of a constiution when the authour pops up and admits it's got mistakes in due to a "bloody good night out".
I would say in my own defence that I 'slimlined' the constitution in half when I reviewed it. The election rules were also more difficult to comprehend then than they are now.
The mistake I made due to the excellent night out (one of only two I have since noticed, out of 40,000 words in all) was that censures and no-confidence motions should normally be secret rather than open, so the roll-call and secret ballot majorities would be swapped round just for disciplinary motions, others remaining the same. This is because the normal policy of openness takes second place to people giving their honest opinion and not succumbing to peer pressure. This is what I forgot to add.
Personally, for what it's worth, lunchtime Councils are a very good idea.
Would these be more frequent? Would be a shame to have people either miss them due to lectures, or miss lectures due to councils, so i suspect there is only really a 1 hour window between 1 and 2 in which to conduct business...
Personally i think less time, but more often might be a good way to go. Too much important stuff can go through exec as it "needs to be done quick" and its too long before council occurs again (and the matter is reported to council) for council to then do anything about it.
Discussions over the consitution take far too long and often yield far too few benefits.
Hamish's constitutional review was long overdue. The basic cosntitutional framework that we have at present is fundamentally sound. (It is 'slimline' compared to the jibberish Hamish started with.) It has a few niggles that need fixing (though most of these are cock-ups by the current President not his predecessor.) But a big consitution review is not needed and would be a waste of time.
(Unless, like me you'd like to see council abolished. But there isn't any support for that, so it won't happen. So there's no point.)
TO correct myself, when I said slimline what I meant was take the current constiution, set light to one corner, hold it at the appropriate angle to meet health and safety requirments, above a bucket of sand, wait untill it was all gone, and start again.
I.e. write a slimline constitution rather than try and cut down what we have already.
I remember when we asked you to slimline the pamphlet down from five pages to four and got back sixteen.
I'd love to see council scrapped.
As an addendum, I'd also run the elections properly.
How pertinent to being this back up to the top of the list...
Live! is a City & Guilds Media Group Publication and editorially independent of City & Guilds College Union.
© 1999-2008 C&G Media Group