Live!
Thu 20 Nov 2008
- The award-winning student news website of Imperial College
Merrill Lynch

Live! - News

Contemptuous Council Order of Day at ULU

Apr 29 2003 18:50
Rob Park
Circus scenes highlight of heated and controversial meeting of ULU's governing body on Monday evening, featuring tenuous no confidence motion.
There was more than just a ringmaster at the seventh meeting of the ULU Circus

With a 100 plus page tabled agenda pack bursting at the seems including 22 reports, six motions, two White Paper responses and a Motion of No Confidence in ULU President, Charlotte Dawkins, the seventh meeting of ULU Council this year got underway with David Francis, former ICU Deputy President, in the chair.

Before the meeting started its formal proceedings, Francis stated that he was not allowing the filming of Council by members of Student Television of Imperial College (STOIC). This edict immediately drew challenges from the floor, including from ICU President-elect, Mustafa Arif who declared that Council was an open meeting and that being the sovereign and governing body of ULU, should be filmed for broadcast to any students who may wish to see it. After a request for an indicative vote from Council was turned down, Francis grew conscious that the meeting was beginning to descend into disorder. The chair ordered security to remove STOIC from the building. This drew even more reaction from the floor taking the meeting into a free-for-all. Francis declared the meeting closed.

Governance Committee, the Council's steering committee ruled that the meeting had in fact been adjourned and not officially closed; this was confirmed by Francis when he "un-adjourned" the meeting after about 15 minutes, thus avoiding the required 21 days' notice to call a meeting of Council. Francis stated that he was disappointed that the meeting was the first meeting to have a quorum present since the Fourth meeting back in January. He went on to condemn those who had not attended previous meetings and hoped that they would return in the future too.

Before the meeting could then start to carry out its constitutional duties by considering reports from officers and subordinate committees, a set of by-elections were held for Executive Committee officers for the coming academic year.

During the hustings speeches for the two candidates for Racial Equalities Officer, Paul Rossi, Senior Treasurer and acting Deputy Returning Officer, twice rebuked Imran Khan, President of Birkbeck College Students' Union for heckling during the speeches. The heckling and abuse from Khan continued, turning more and more abusive and in some Council members' eyes, racist too. One delegate commented after the meeting that "It probably did nothing to help when Imran has been drinking since mid afternoon and someone stands up in an election speech and says they are a Jew and a Tory." Rossi's final reprimand of Khan was when his mobile phone then rang - Rossi ordered him to switch it off, Khan then answered it. The "rage of Rossi" was there for all to see. A motion was then moved by Rhodri Jamieson-Ball, Environment Officer that the Birkbeck President was "in contempt of Council". The motion was cheered by the floor. Khan exploded. After Jamieson-Ball had given his reasons why Council should hold Khan in contempt, Khan then replied.

Khan's tirade was not going to go down very well with Council members; although the opinions of Council members and indeed their politics are diverse, Council rarely tolerates rants, raves and tirades. After the motion was passed virtually unanimously, Khan stormed out of the room commenting "...I don't see many black faces in here [...] remember, I am a member of the NUS Black Students' Campaign ...". Council returned a half-hearted jeer and then learned from the President, on a question from the floor, that Birkbeck's student Council would be informed why Khan had been held in contempt of Council and that he would now be banned from Council until such a time as an apology to the liking of Council was received and accepted by Council.

After the hustings and voting had been concluded and a few reports had been considered, the Council floor voted to hear the Motion of No Confidence in ULU President Charlotte Dawkins. The circus skills of the first hour of Council would now be replaced by a distinctly polarised Council, but a Council that was prepared to listen to both sides of the motion. The Council respected the speakers and the floor was courteous throughout, even though controversial statements were made and knife-twisting carried out.

Proposer of the motion, Tuuli Kousa, General Secretary of the LSE Students' Union brought to the attention of Council that really she wanted the motion to be treated as a censure and not a no confidence issue. However, the motion was for no confidence so Kousa then made headway into her complaints about Dawkins.

Kousa stated that Dawkins had breached ULU Regulations on 14 separate counts, including: playing football instead of attending the last meeting of Council, not attending Sports & Societies Committee, not attending Medical Students' Committee (Medgroup), not attending the Small & Specialist Colleges' Forum, that Imperial College were not consulted with adequate time for ULU to pass policy on the merger with UCL, that she attended a drinks party at City Hall instead of attending the University Council meeting, that she had illegally authorised £31,000 of expenditure on an advertisement in the media concerning top-up fees, that she had not made contact with King's College at all during the year to date, that she showed bias in the recent ULU elections, that she had jeopardised relations with Colleges by the way she handled the IC/UCL merger and that she had overruled the Executive Committee by changing the colour of the fees demonstration t-shirts from black to purple.

Dawkins' speech against the motion was typical of her robust nature, but she offered apologies for some of the complaints, notably that "... although approved by the Exec, my absence, in hindsight, and what a wonderful thing hindsight is, was a mistake and I offer you my apologies."

Holding back emotions and perhaps some tears, Dawkins spoke to her critics. She denied handfuls of the allegations against her and noted particularly that the Executive Committee had approved the £31,000 expenditure on the top-up fees advert and also that the drinks reception at City Hall was co-hosted by ULU and the Mayor of London and that she could hardly just walk away from responsibility for that, particularly considering this was the London Falling anti-fees meeting. She went on stating that students were adequately represented at the University Council and "... the reception was a SOFT drinks reception anyway".

Dawkins commented about the hard work that has been done throughout the year to date and "that inevitably there have been many diary pressures where commitments have to be prioritised.

"We were all blown out of the water when the merger was announced. And then to have top-up fees leaked followed by the official White Paper; it has been a tough year!"

After a Council-permitted mammoth speech lasting around eight minutes, Dawkins retook her seat. Next to speak in favour of motion was David Utting, President of King's College London Students' Union . Again he stated that he now wished that the motion was one for censure, commenting "... we don't just want to throw Charlotte out on the street [...] this is about holding Union officers to account."

Utting elegantly orated to the Council floor from the tempestuous ULU pine-laminate lectern twisting the knife into Dawkins. The deafening one minute applause for Dawkins not dissuading him in the slightest. He reiterated that Dawkins had never made contact with King's at all during the year aside from when she was seeking nomination to the NUS National Executive. He continued by condemning her for not representing London's students at all and also for her lack of respect for other ULU officers (a reference to a statement Dawkins submitted to the Council she missed sending her apologies and rebuking the Chair of Council, Francis for his poor attendance record at ULU meetings as he had commented in a subordinate ULU meeting that he expected more commitment from other members, including Charlotte Dawkins).

Tuuli's calm and reflective approach to the motion had been replaced by David [Utting]'s professional character assassination of Dawkins.

In response to Utting, ULU Medical Students' Officer Dan Gibbons defended Dawkins' record as President and refuted with gusto many of the allegations stated in the motion. His deep almost professorial tones echoed around the room. He confirmed that Dawkins had attended Medgroup; he noted that although one Council was missed by Dawkins, that both Utting and Kousa had missed at least three.

It was now time for the vote. Utting moved that the vote by taken by secret ballot. The chair ordered this to be the case, ignoring requests from the floor for a speech in favour and a speech against. A poll vote was also suggested, but after I received a death-stare from Claire Wren, ULU's Vice-President (Finance & Societies), I retracted the request.

The ayes to the right, twenty-five, the noes to the left, twenty-eight. Dawkins majority of just three. The motion of no confidence was thrown by Council.

The remainder of Council saw the Executive and Finance Committees' decision to close the ULU Nursery overturned by Council, prompting concerned looks from Wren and also from the Mature & Part-time Students' Officer Rob Park who did one of the strangest procedural moves possible by asking Council to refer the Nursery section of his report back to him for consideration at the next meeting of Council. Council duly obliged.

The remaining business motions were dealt with with the efficiency that would naturally be expected of any student-run Council. And I'm not jesting! The first one concerning the creation of a disputes committee to act as the "ULU Court of Union Rights" was swiftly condemned by Birkbeck delegate Peter Taylor as "excessively bureaucratic" and Council immediately tore up the motion. The remainder were swiftly guillotined by Park by using procedural motions, only one of which failed. The motions concerned student accommodation, ULU Sabbatical Officers' interaction with students, congestion charging and an emergency motion from the Executive Committee concerning the trial of having joint ULU and ICU cards. This allowed former ICU President and College celebrity, Andy Heeps to emerge from the back rows of the Council room and un-retire for the nth time.

After Francis flapped at delight that he would not have to chair the next and last Council of the year, the meeting was swiftly closed.

The bar then called. And delegates let off some steam. It was suggested that the following were the top circus acts:

  • Ringmaster, David Francis
  • Bearded Lady, Paul Rossi
  • Coco the Clown, Imran Khan
  • Tight-rope walker, Charlotte Dawkins
  • Trapeze artist, Tuuli Kousa
  • Knife thrower, David Utting
  • Performing elephant, Peter Taylor
  • Raging bull, Rob Park
  • Disgruntled punter, Mustafa Arif
  • Jester, Andy Heeps
  • Juggler, Claire Wren
  • Lion tamer, Jimmy MacColl
Email this Article | Share on Facebook

Discussion about “Contemptuous Council Order of Day at ULU”

The comments below are unmoderated submissions by Live! readers. The Editor accepts no liability for their content, nor for any offence caused by them. Any complaints should be directed to the Editor.
1. tom t   
Apr 29 2003 19:28
 

Quelle farce!! How sad that the author describes Hawkins as 'robust'. Not my recollection. As for Francis not allowing an open, public meeting to be filmed, presumably to protect openness and accountability, well, that's the final frikkin straw. Is the man a fool, or what????? [errr, yes, see previous Live! articles ad infinitum, Ed] As for the hustings - tory versus idiot. I know who I'll be voting for... RON, RON, RROONN WHERE ARE U???????

NUS executive - so she's a paid up member of New Labour then...

I'm glad the trial run ICU/ULU cards are going through. Even less of a reason to bother getting one in the first place. Will there be an NUS advert on this one too???

2. Sam   
Apr 29 2003 20:00
 

Once His Heepsness graduates (20th June if the Live! events calendar is to be believed) will he be retiring from ICU politics for good?

3. Lorne   
Apr 29 2003 22:06
 

The first time I have logged on to Live in ages and guess what I see - Dave Francis screwing up again ... some things will never change.

I went to all the ULU meetings in my time and none were as interesting as this, long may it survive.

Keep up the good work ULU, seems our faith in you grows and grows.

Apr 29 2003 23:05
 

Rob's report is rather comprehensive in nature but fails to mention that the proposers of the no confidence motion wanted to change the motion to one of censure.

They were not allowed to do so because ULU Regulations do not permit such a significant amendment to be made to a motion. This did result in nother 10 minutes or so being wasted as Council wondered about whether the rules should be applied or not.

Although it does raise a fair point. If the proposers were looking for a censure and not a no confidence, why did they not table it as such in the first place?

Apr 30 2003 00:44
 

What a well written article: thank you for a good read. (For once.)

Apr 30 2003 10:17
 

I thought it was rather long-winded, like Council, but thanks for the compliment ;)

I do touch on the fact that Tuuli and David U wanted to censure rather than no confidence, but decided not to go into to much detail and extend the article further with more meaningless Regulations chit-chat :)

With my "journalist" hat on, David Francis made a few trivial errors pertaining to allowing the floor active participation in the meeting; with my "ULU" hat on though, I have complete confidence in him and say quite categorically that everyone is human and prone to mistakes.

I did try to give a balances account of Council too... hope I did.

Actually I did have two points of order requiring rulings from the chair with regards to the conduct of Council. The first one was that Council should decide whether it wishes to be filmed as I don't actually believe that, as stated, the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act proscribe the filming of public meetings when the film is not being used for commercial gain or is for the purposes video conferencing. Something like that anyway... the second point of order was to do with Chairmen proposing and seconding motions to Council, not that I wished the motion to be then rulled out of order (indeed I supported it), but when acting in the capacity of chairman in the context of meetings of Council etc, the person should almost go out of their way to be impartial. Seconding motions clearly goes against this principle. And moreover, when you have been elected for a year to chair meetings, then you will do this at all times and for all circumstances; you become a resource for members of the meeting and rise above the politics steering the meeting towards its goal without letting it be distracted.

Enough on that anyway.

Apr 30 2003 12:07
 

Rob Park = Raging Bull?

More like a beached whale from where I was sitting...

Apr 30 2003 13:04
 

I do admit that it was challenging trying to get my gut passed the lectern when delivering my report.

And I didn't come up with those circus names... pissed off would have been quite sufficient for me ;)

Apr 30 2003 15:37
 

why is Imran who's brown a member of the "black student" committee?

Apr 30 2003 16:09
 

Every time I attend ULU Council, I think 'it can't possibly be worse than last time' - and every time I'm proved wrong. Can't people talk to eachother before these meetings, to sort out the best way forward, rather than 'playing politics' with procedural motions and points of order. There were members at Council last Monday who had never been before, standing for election to the ULU Executive - after that muppet show, I'd be surprised if they ever come back.

http://www.kclsu.org/forum

DL

11. Sam   
Apr 30 2003 17:56
 

"www.kclsu.org/forum"

interesting, however:

1) Posting requires registration, for which you must be a KCL Student. (i'm not)

2) it's a bit slow - maybe you need to upgrade your webserver ;o)

3) Snitz forums have had some pretty serious vulnerabilities in the past... I blame Bill Gates

12. amram   
Apr 30 2003 18:17
 

I do believe that it was yours truly who was against making this prestigious forum "IC only". The KCL forum is clearly a poor second class forum when compared to live!- wonder though if the KCL editor censors post he thinks are "too long"!

13. stef   
May 01 2003 11:58
 

...'after that muppet show...'

damn wish I had attended now. I'm a big fan of Miss Piggy

May 01 2003 16:32
 

I bagsie being the Swedish Chef!

May 01 2003 22:40
 

Seems to me like ULU council would far rather just sit back and let things happen than actually be held accountable to the students whom they supposedly represent.

As for the ULU/IC cards, will this deny IC students the right to opt out of one but not the other? How will it actually work?

May 02 2003 00:07
 

Since the 1994 Education Act (which gave students the right to opt out of students' union membership) no-one has ever exercised the right to opt-out of either Union.

On the off chance someone actually decided to opt-out of ICU there is unlikely to be a problem - we don't use them for elections anyway (or we could arrange for them to get 'normal' ULU cards.

If someone decided to opt-out of ULU then again there wouldn't really be a problem since we use your College swipe card and departmental lists (not ICU card) to let you vote.

May 02 2003 09:27
 

Two people opted out of the Union during my Presidency; they informed the relevent authorities, and the College asked if I was willing to allow them use of Union facilities without access to the government of the union. I agreed, coz I'm nice...

18. Jimmy   
May 02 2003 15:11
 

Re STOIC: It is usual practise to ask a meeting (in this case, Council) if there are any delegates present who have objections to being filmed to say so, and if objections are raised, to stop filming - and this is quite right and proper. What must be remembered is that film broadcast on the internet or on television is accessible to anyone. ULU Council is an open meeting *to ULU members* - not all and sundry. The Data Protections Act does indeed require that those filmed must have given their permission to be shown in any broadcast anyway. So unless STOIC wanted to blur-out selected delegates and edit out any comments they might make (which they didn't offer to do), ceasing to film is the only alternative.

Rob's failed to mention that all but one or two of the allegations of Charlotte breaking regulations were bare-faced lies, though understandably as one doesn't want to re-iterate all the arguments. (I had written here an exhaustive comment on one of the more outrageous examples of this, but on second thoughts I don't think I ought to!).

Anyway... yes the meeting was a bit of a farce, but I have to say that (dispite severe dissappointment re the nursery debate) I enjoyed it immensely and it was one of the most interesting meetings I've been to for a long time. I would have imagined that, rather than putting people off attending and getting involved, it will have encouraged them - far more so than the usual tedium of bored old hacks presenting each repetative report with 'as tabled', as is so often the case. We even managed to get through every single motion, report and election - which often doesn't happen even when the order paper is half the size.

Let's hope that the final Council meeting of the year, in June, doesn't bring us crashing back down to monotony. We will have the ever-enthralling financial estimates for next year to discuss, after all! A-hem.

P.S. ICU/ULU cards - the respective logo would be punched out of the card if a student opted out of either union. As Mustafa says, otherwise a normal ULU card could be issued if the student is opting out of ICU only. And there won't be any NUS logo/advert - ULU, like ICU, is not affiliated to the NUS.

May 02 2003 15:32
 

Jimmy,

Have you read the Data Protection Act? There is an exemption for (among other things) *journalists*.

20.  
May 02 2003 16:04
 

Note also that reporting on the ULU council by written word publications (such as Live! and London Student) is not being prohibited, and is also open to anyone who wanted to read it - you can access both online from anywhere in the world.

I'd also like to see the exact clause in the data protection act which you are referring to.

May 02 2003 17:13
 
22. Claire   
May 02 2003 18:35
 

Rob - I'm not sure that I did give you a death stare (as I didn't even realise that you were asking for a poll) but glad to know that I have that hither to undeveloped talent.

As for the meeting, I agree with Jimmy, although it did not all go as I wished (nursery) and there was a severe shortage of time, I found it invigorating. There was informed debate on a wide range of issues, although there was a lot of procedural motions few were frivolous and good policy was passed in a number of areas.

But in my opinion the best part of the evening was most people's ability to retire to the bar afterwards, share drinks and chat with those who had disagreed with them half an hour before.

May 04 2003 00:55
 

Claire

Death stares are quite impressive, but whe you heard me requesting one for charlottes no confidence you certainly seemed shocked. I assumed you didn't expectone from me..

I hope there will be a Summer ULU review group. We need one!

I', sure Chris Piper would appreciate one anyway...

May 04 2003 02:04
 

Surely there's nothing wrong with being a Tory these days!

If only people would ask me; thing is, being a student rep I don't like to being party pol to the fore!

25. Elmo   
May 05 2003 14:02
 

honestly, I can see the point of exculding journalist from a council meeting; it does of course allow the farce to continue with even less public profile.... well done to stoic for being there and causing some action.

Feb 12 2004 10:03
 

Gosh what a baptism of fire. I remember vaguely being elected at this meeting...and being heckled by the said Imran Khan.

Ironic that DU faced a no-confidence motion at the third Student Rep Council (SRC) of the year at KCLSU.

Jun 02 2004 02:57
 

So the Council meeting referred to in this article was a circus...WHAT ABOUT LAST NIGHT'S AT ICU? (1 June 2004)

And just for the record...in the name of freedom of the press - F. F. Freedom. The F word is allowed?

Closedd This discussion is closed.

Please contact the Live! Editor if you would like this discussion topic re-opened.

 
Live!

See Also

Live! Poll

Which club smashed up pubs in Hammersmith?





Live!
9 Readers Online
0 on this page