The paper detailed several areas where the authors (Tom Tibbits and Sebastian Tallents proposed and seconded the paper, but others contributed to writing it) believed that Imperial College Union was not showing sufficient accountability to its members through elected committees and representatives.
Discontent had been growing amongst some Union Officers since the summer, when they heard of an ICU management restructuring and wondered why they had not been told. This was clarified by the ICU President Mustafa Arif in a Constitutional Interpretation presented at the first Council Meeting of the term, saying that since he was ultimately responsible for staffing matters, this was within his remit, especially since the Staff-student protocol does not allow staffing to be discussed at any open meeting.
However, discontent grew as the strategic review got underway, with concern at the extensive role being played by closed, unminuted "Management and Planning Group," consisting of sabbaticals and staff.
Mistakes in the recent Ordinary Member elections, and the consequent failure to elect a full Executive for nearly half the Union Year (which begins on August 1st), are also mentioned in the paper as significant failings in the Union's duty to accountability towards its members.
Possible breaches of the staff-student protocol, which precludes the involvement of staff in policy-making, were also raised in the paper, along with changes in the minute-writing style of Union meetings, which now rarely attribute comments to specific officers.
The final addition to the paper regards the draft "Masterplan" recently brought to "Live!"'s attention, outlining substantial changes of use in the Union building even though it was written before the Student Survey or Focus Groups had been carried out, and the current users of the space in question had not been consulted.
The paper resolves to remedy the situation by requiring a timesheet from the President, explaining how each activity in for the benefit of the Union; making Strategic Review Advisory Group minutes freely available; requiring explanations from the President regarding the "Masterplan" briefing document, the cost of the management restructuring, and the delay in dealing with the election investigation; and mandating the Council Chair to make the current Union Constitution available online, and investigate financial issues concerning the management restructuring.
The Council did not begin to discuss this paper for some time, as the agenda was re-ordered to discuss the "Free Babar Ahmad" motion first, during which, disorderly behaviour from the Welfare Campaigns Officer forced the meeting to adjourn. An emergency meeting was reconvened at around 10pm, and the agenda was again re-order, to discuss the Accountability Motion next.
Tom Tibbits presented the motion, emphasising the importance of accountability to democracy. The ICU President explained that the document regarding the Union Building was not the Masterplan, but a hypothetical document forming the basis of a competition between architects. However, the motion's supporters still felt that the Executive should have been informed of the situation, and went on to explain that the motion was not just about the building plan, but included all the other areas mentioned. Discussion continued, to the point where officers were accused of "filibustering" (stalling a motion until members leave) and Council decided to move to a vote. This was briefly withdrawn to allow an amendment to be passed, requesting that Management and Planning Group minutes be made available, in despite the President's explanation that this would not be possible as the meetings are not minuted. In a final speech against the motion, the President said that listing everything he did was not the best use of his time, and the DPFS suggested that the resolutions were too adversarial and the issues should be resolved by “working together,” but the paper was eventually passed by a significant majority.
The Executive elections were then moved up the agenda as it was felt that this was an essential part of making officers more accountable than they had been in the previous five months. Tom Tibbits, Nicola Williams, John Sykes, Morten Olesen and Nichola Hawkins were elected; one vacancy remains, which under the quota system must be filled by an Education or Research Representative. A vacancy also remains on ICU Council, after Council declined the exceptional opportunity to fill that seat by co-option, following a speech by Postgraduate student Nia Stevens arguing that Council's quota system should be upheld and the seat should be filled by a postgraduate.
The meeting then considered a motion, proposed by CGCU President John Collins, specifically relating to the "Masterplan," which was initially rejected by the president. The proposers explained that they were not trying to prohibit change, but to ensure it was approved through democratic channels. This was approved relatively quickly, largely because of fears as to how much longer the meeting would remain quorate. Indeed, the meeting was declared inquorate after that paper: ironically, the meeting that had resolved to demand greater accountability did not have time to review the officers' reports.
Supporters of the motion are now awaiting the next meeting to see what progress is made.
Email this Article
This discussion is 
