An unusually full ICU Council meeting, including members past and present and other observers, convened to consider the motion which alleged gross misconduct on the part of the President and suggested that he should be removed from office.
Arif's response had initially seemed somewhat dismissive, describing the motion as "silliness", leading some to suspect his response would be as "evasive" as they believed his response to the Accountability motion passed by Council in December.
However, in a written response (not yet available online), Arif denied any misconduct and apologised for the lack of communication that had led to such suspicions, saying "I'm not perfect but I do what I can."
Furthermore, he said he welcomed active feedback such as the Union Gym Motion, (at the time described as "childish") and asked that members raise their concerns with him before it reaches the stage of a No Confidence motion, although some of those present suggested that they had already tried this.
By 7.20, it became apparent that the meeting would not be able to reach a conclusion by 7.30, when an MTSoc Tour meeting was booked to take place in the UDH, so Council reconvened in a SAF lecture theatre.
More issues were raised, including allegations of intimidation which cannot be discussed in detail as they involved legal and disciplinary procedings.
Eventually, members had asked all their questions and the meeting considered moving to a vote. At this point two opposing motions were proposed: one from Arif proposing a Roll Call vote (where each member individually states their vote, and the minutes record who voted which way) on the grounds that he had been elected by a College-wide ballot so those overturning that should be accountable to their members, and one from ex-DP(E&W) Katherine McGinn for a Secret Ballot, due to possible intimidation of members who supported the motion. Council voted in favour of the former, which requires only 1/3 support whereas a secret ballot requires a 2/3 majority.
A last-minute suggestion to ammend the motion to a censure was hastily rejected, with a very large number of abstentions suggesting that the option had not been fully explained before it was put to a vote; indeed, in his following summing-up speech for the unamended motion, the motion's proposer Tom Tibbits said that members should consider the explanations given and perhaps a censure would be sufficient, but by this point the ammendment had been rejected, and reversing that decision would have required a 2/3 majority.
When the vote took place, by roll call vote, 8 members voted in fabour, 24 against and 3 abstained, and so the motion fell.
The Council meeting was followed by a brief meeting of the Executive committee, on a related matter that could not be discussed in open session.
Email this Article
