CGCU president, Tristan Sherliker, remains in the role, after he survived a meeting of no confidence from Guilds exec today. Mr. Sherliker described himself as "relieved but sobered" as a simple majority voted to remove him, but the paper failed to reach the two thirds majority needed for it to pass. Out of the ten voting members present, five voted for the paper, two against it with three abstaining.
The meeting started with Mr Sherliker talking about all the work he did over the Summer for Guilds, such as securing sponsorship. He also said that he was essentially doing the jobs of two other people, due to there being no honorary secretary to organise the autumn ball, and no Lord Mayor's Show coordinator. On the breakdown in delegating the work-load once term started and the positions had been filled, he said that all of the important information was in his head, and only he would be able to understand it. The failure to hold general meetings was explained by saying that they were not held last year, and were generally defunct. Mr Sherliker also went into the issues that he faced in early 2008, due to his illness and the need to catch up with his college work.
Questions were then asked by the members present. A lot of them were on the subject of the president's continued failure to attend meetings which he was required to. The general response was that he had a lot of other societies and activities to attend to, in addition to his college work. This was countered by pointing out that Mr Sherliker knew the amount of time and work which was required for these roles, and yet he still took them on.
On the breakdown in communications which had occured, Mr Sherliker said that he feels that he can communicate better next term, and would be willing to hold meetings with exec and management committee to discuss anything. He also said that he still has a lot to give to Guilds, and felt that no-confidencing him would have no benefit to anybody. He spoke at length about what he had done, and how he had prepared so things would be better for next year's team.
People questioned how he will be able to be more effective next term due to the stresses of his final year exams, and that due to the reasons he was giving, his removal from the role would be beneficial to him.
Eventually the paper failed to pass, despite many of the voting members raising strong points supporting the paper. In cases like this, where a two thirds majority is needed to pass it the point of having the abstention option is unclear, since in the grand scheme of things it is no different from a vote against the paper. It will be difficult to see how Guilds will be able to cope next term, due to most of the management committee seconding the paper. It is feared that the relationship between Mr Sherliker and the management committee has been irreparably damaged.