Firstly - note the new email contact!

Secondly - long time no see (don't all groan at once!)

Thirdly - why oh why is there "Union Policy" that it should be kept in the president's office?! Why not get a nice cabinet and place it somewhere in the Union or the College? You never know, perhaps some other mascots could be used for this purpose too? Seems a shame to not display all of them considering just how chunky they are - most impressive.

On a point of interest, Eric Allsop used Mike's vernier end as an ash tray...

And Mike is 170lbs! I had to bear Mike to an AGM before it was allowed to open!

Yeah, it certainly feels heavier than 140 lb.

And the Union policy on Mike exists because:

• I wrote it
• No-one else on Council really cared and it was passed (with an ammendment to appoint me Mike Bearer for life.)

tsk tsk

So, what about the cabinet?

I dunno - ask the Lord President of the Council; he's part of it :)

Part of what?

a) Mugabe's regime?

b) Corruption?

c) The Government?

Perhaps I should ask what the odd one out is...

Mike, is now officially "stolen". Anyone with any information should email me. (Alternatively they could stuff it an anonymous-looking brown envelope addressed to me and leave it in the ICU offices.)

Who cares?

The mascots attract a fair bit of attention at the Freshers Fair, so who knows...

Mascotry is an integral part of three of the new faculties. It helps to build pride in the faculty and provides a focal point for the student body.

Mike is an irreplacable object which shows some of the best features of this university. Andy, you may not care, but if mike is gone for good it will be a sore loss for this university.

The University care?!

Will someone answer Andy's question, please?

On that topic I already have two things that ULU should be doing... whether they do is another point, though!

Rob, universities are faceless bodies that don't have the ability to care. However, the people who are integral to the university have the ability to care. I am one of those people who care.

To answer Andy's question, I care.

Rob, you left this university years ago, yet you still care enough to write on Live! every day.

No, he's still a student of the University.

(Do you get the idea that it *really* annoys me when people confuse "College" and "University"? *g*)

Seems to me that there are a few items that have gone missing over the last few months - perhaps it's because no one cares (or certainly that is the perception).

Trust James to be the token pedant... it won't be an issue in five odd years once the University has imploded.

People are worried about the new world order at ICU. Nothing is the same and many old (& current?) students are worried about the mascots and assorted paraphenalia. I'm trying to say that alumnis would steal these things, but with out firm promises from the council we may see more stuff go missing.

PS Anyone with info about the RCSU 3HP please e-mail me.

I forgot to mention the £200 reward for info leading to it's return (the 3HP, not mike)

If it was taken out of the Bar then I'm assuming the £200 is coming from the person who has his/her card on it?

It's for the students at IC to decide how to govern themselves - the new order at ICU was approved by students, or is this a tad more contraversial than I'm making out?

Just when you thought you'd heard the last of me... Think of this as a swan-song.

A few points:

1. The 3HP has been returned to the Union Bar now, so there's nothing to panic about there.

2. If Mike doesn't turn up by the new year, perhaps Mustafa might consider a similar sort of reward. Paid for out of his own pocket, naturally, as I don't think ICU budgets for this kind of thing. Think of it as a pre-emptive fine before he gets disciplined for not upholding council policy, or something else equally inane - it was a council policy that put Mike in his care for life, wasn't it?

3. As for Rob's last point - Yes, the students (i.e., Council) voted in the new order. As ususal, after the months of arguing, backstabbing and personal insults, remarkably little was changed. Regular readers of this column will be aware of exactly what was discussed and in what fashion. To discover that the only deiscernible change that students (i.e., normal people) would discern from it all is that the CCU's have been jogged around a bit and have been renamed FSA's. The bureaucracy, the money-wasting, the apathy, the lack of any obvious support from officers, the puppy-dog attitude to Suite 5, the backstabbing, the endless list of pointless meetings and the complete inability to recognise anyone who doesn't spend every waking minute in the Union Office, let alone the South Ken campus - all these continue and look set to march arm-in-arm into this glorious-new-but-actually-the-same-old regime.

I am not advocating another six months of wrangling over the constitution - far from it. I think that after all the discussion - not just this year but over many, many years - if by now you do not have the rules and regulations you want, you certainly have the ones you deserve. Forget about them once and for all. In fact, Council should ban discussion about them. Then everyone can get on with what they're supposed to be doing - representing students. This doesn't mean sitting around in three-hour Council meetings discussing the finer points of the Retail Committee's minutes. It means going out and asking normal people what they want and what they need. And the doing everyhting in your power to ensure that they get it.

And I thought *I* could moan!

Quite a lot in there should be heeded by students' unions everywhere. tsk

I think everyone would agree with that. Interesting though that the parts of ICU that most adhered to that philosophy were the ones that Stuart spent most of last year arguing to have abolished.

And as for asking ordinary people what they want - wouldn't that be like, say, an FSA holding a free vote to decide it's name? And we all know Stuart's view on that - http://live.cgcu.net/news/?id=342&ls=110

Regarding Stuart's question (2) on Mike...

No, there is no Council policy putting Mike in my care for life.

There is a Council policy putting Mike in the President's care. The same policy allows the President to appoint a bearer to assist them in this duty (while remaining responsible for it). At the time that policy was passed, I was not present at the Council meeting.

The following is an excerpt from the [minutes|http://union.ic.ac.uk/council/00-01/december/minutes.htm:]

39. Various people on the Council propose that "Council recommends to the President the appointment of Mustafa Arif [the proposer of the motion] is appointed as Mike Bearer".

• - RECOMMENDATION PASSED

40. Hamish appoints Mustafa as requested.

• - APPOINTED: Mustafa Arif as Mike Bearer for life

Thanks for clearing that up, Mustafa.

And thanks to 'Informed' for proving my point for me so succinctly. They do not attempt to argue against me, or ask a general question about what people would like to see happen. Instead they attack me personally.

They then highlight a good case in point - the FoESA name election. How many RSM students agreed with the result? Did anyone bother to ask? I doubt it. All this election could ever have been was an exercise in maintaining the status quo because that is what the C&G hacks wanted and to hell with the students. It proved above all else that the long months of wrangling had amounted to absolutely no change whatsoever. Well done the Union.

I'm glad I resigned. And I'm glad to have been able to vent my spleen now. I'd like to wish everyone who's involved next year the best of luck in what they do. I hope that they really will work in the best interests of the students, but there's a little, nagging doubt at the back of my mind.

I've left Imperial now, so you won't hear anything more from me on this or any other subject. Don't all cheer at once.

We won't all cheer at once Stu, since it was only a few people who continuously derided you. Unfortunately, they are mainly quite vocal, in positions of responsibilty in the Union, and incessantly use pseudonyms to portray the feeling of a wider dislike.

As for voting in a name change, great. My mates democratically elected me as world leader, so you can now all kiss my feet. Or perhaps a group should only hold elections over issues for which they are responsible..I would have thought (and correct me if you want to be anal), that Council would name FSAs, when they were created. Anyway, naming a FSA after the Faculty they represent seems a no-brainer to me.

And never mind the technicalities of whether you were allowed to vote on the FoESA name, consider this -

"Hi Mum... Yeah Freshers Week went fine, this place is cool. I'm in the Mech Eng deparment, and so I'm in the Faculty of Engineering. I'm also in the City and Guilds College Union... Oh, that's the Union for the Faculty, but they call it C&G because centuries ago, there used to be a College called City and Guilds, but it's gone now, but now it's all part of Imperial College, which is in fact almost a University in itself. I'm playing rugby for Imperial College Union... no, that's right, not City and Guilds College Union, that's only for the Faculty of Engineering, not for College, Imperial College that is... aahhh sod it, I'm off to the pub."

So who came up with the idea of trying to rename the FoESA to C&G? Tell me how smug you felt, when you realised you could extend student confusion for another year.

Mascots, eh? Riveting stuff. Has anyone reported the theft to the Police? And I find it disheartening, but not surprising, that our Union spends its time, any of its time at all, appointing 'Mascot Bearers for Life', with all the associated paperwork and effort. Surely Council has something better to be talking about? (Barry, the last point is for you to remember :-) ).

One could argue that given the usual business of ICU Council, any cause for a little light relief should be celebrated! (Since C&GCU has a monopoly on doughnut provision at meetings...).

Consider this, however. As of next year Council consists of the sabbs, 3 reps from each faculty, the CSC chairs, RAG, CAG and some "ordinary" members. How can anyone suggest that a decision made by this "representative" body (CSC chairs, RAG, CAG and ordinary members aren't exactly representatives it should be pointed out) could be considered superior to one made by the student body. This is why we have the concept of a policy determined by referendum (such as NUS membership), after all.

Council will be a very different place next year.

In my opinion council should be the opportunity for the sabbs et al. to explain what they are doing for the student body. This includes working with college, the effect of ULU and government decisions as well as how the union is spending your money.

Further it should be an opportunity to find out what is being proposed in the future, i.e. being told about things before they happen and not after it is to late to have any real input.

Short relevent meeting only.

I think Stuart get's derided much more so than he deserves, but anyway.

Name elections. Well, I never liked the idea. Unfortuantely I was mandated to do it. Sorry about that. I was elected President, not dictator. As mandated, all students in the engineering faculty were able to propose and second "candidates" and all were allowed to vote. They did so in a turnout that was (in % terms) larger than the NUS referendum.

The result was not the one I had been expecting. (Although while sitting at the Huxley ballot box it was amusing to watch some DoC students delibarte over whether it was more important to "keep RSM in the title" or "not spend money on new letterhead"...)

I had to eat humble pie - and cancel my plans to force the C&G clubs (Rugby, Motor, etc.) to re-brand...

I made the (unpopular) comment at my election hustings 18 months ago that we should be able to retain our heritage while moving forward with a more relevant brand name. It lost me a few votes then and few agreed this time round. Sorry about that, but I find it very difficult to argue against democracy when it is the only madate I have.

You are not an engineering student, but if you were, and are really bothered, you could always petition for another ballot next year. It should be much easier to force one now that we have soverign general meetings in place of C&GCU Council.

Incidentally, the way I wrote the new paperwork (no I don't like doing it, but transition from CCU to FSA kind of forced me to do it), we are constituted as the "Imperial College Engineering Students' Association" - so please don't use "FoESA", it sounds rubbish!

In fact, thinking about it, I seem to remember that the election was Sam Sharpe's idea (our ever-impartial Council Chair).

Basically, it was the only way of resolving a dispute between the people in the room who actually cared (one way or the other) and me (who wanted a referendum to get the "representative" clubs to change their names...)

But I don't really care anymore. No, that's a lie. Of course I do. But I don't really consider it to be the most important thing in the world. More important that "it" does something useful than worry about what it brands itself as.

In response to Andy Allan's comments:

Student confusion is what's made ICU what it is today, surely? :)

ICU is the mess in the whole system. They undervalue their members, which leads to disatisfaction with ICU, and eventually the members start to be difficult in return. This achieves nothing except making each party hate each other more.

Maybe if ICU actually valued their members and listened to them, people would have more time for them.

As for the Name election, why shouldn't we have a choice -

oh sorry I forgot - ICU are the dictatorship whose purpose is to find ways of pissing people off.

I think both sides have made some very important points, but you're all missing the major issue:

There's just three days left to decide whether I vote for Kate or Johnny. It's just too difficult.

Yeah, i agree with Mustafa, the name election was my idea...

why? because we were already holding a massive election (CGCU, DepSocs, etc.) and one more election made no difference whatsoever.

Rather than have Union hacks (both from CGCU and ICU, myself included) just pick a name, i though it fairer to allow the electorate to make the decision. Ok, maybe it wasn't such an informed decision as the hacks might have made - but it's a lot more defensible to the student body. When they, as indeed some people in this thread have, ask why we have such a silly system, with the FU having a different name to the Faculty, i can stand there, with my hand on my heart and say "It's this way because that's the way your peers voted for it to be" (incidentally, i think FU is a perfect acronym for this kind of body sometimes)

And incidentally, why do we have faculty unions choosing their names? It's because ICU allowed it to be so. If someone had been bothered to fight the faculty (CCU) hacks for a common brand for all faculties, maybe we would have it. But they didn't, they opted for an easy life, which i personally think is a shame.

From a personal point of view, i think CGCU does a lot of good stuff, is run by committed people, and generally furthers the need of it's students. I honestly don't think the name on the letterhead will change that, and i hope i'm never proved wrong.