The news that a Salford student, Steven Maguire, has been banned from the University of Salford Students’ Union (USSU) for calling their President Matt Webber a bully, coupled with the rejection of several motions put forward to the Salford Annual General Meeting, should raise serious questions about USSU democracy.
Two motions proposed by Damien Shannon – one addressing the current disciplinary procedures that have allowed Maguire to be banned with little to no explanation, and another that would give the appointed Editor of Salford Student Direct an increased degree of editorial independence – were rejected by Webber on behalf of the USSU sabbatical team. Webber’s official reasoning was that both matters, as issues relating to disciplinary procedure and staffing, according to the Union constitution were not the preserve of the student membership but rather the property of the trustee board (which at Salford comprises of several sabbatical officers, including Webber, and four external trustees).
Webber, by law, may have a valid defence. One could interpret the Salford constitution and conclude that actually it is reasonable to defer Shannon’s motions as the responsibility of the trustee board. But therein lies the point, the constitution is a legal document and, like any legal document, it can be subject to interpretation. Questions, therefore, must surely be asked about a Students’ Union President and sabbatical team who chose to interpret their constitution in such a way that vetoed student-led discussion and debate. It has been recorded that Shannon’s concerns will be put to the trustee board when they review USSU’s disciplinary procedure. This is as it should be. But why didn’t the trustees wish to hear what the rest of the student membership might have had to say on the matter? Furthermore, why was the full news story kept out of the Salford edition of Student Direct by the USSU powers that be? Frankly, it seems wholly untoward for an organisation that should pride itself on transparency and accountability.






November 23rd, 2009 at 16:22
A brief point of clarity.
There is nothing in the constitution which states that the Disciplinary Procedure is the “property of trustee board”, as Matthew Webber claimed. He made a reference to one clause in the bye-laws which did nothing to substantiate his case in this regard in that it said neither explicitly or omplicitly what he claimed to be the case.
As such, his reasoning was more a re-invention of the constitution rather than a subjective interpretation. The current arrangement of USSU puts the AGM above the Trustee Board in the pecking order. Nowhere does it afford the President power of veto over what is presented to AGM.
November 23rd, 2009 at 21:13
Has the president of USSU got the power to ban people from university properties because he was called a bully?
I was called ’silly bugger’, ‘homo’ (I am heterosexual so it is kind of offensive to me right?)…etc at uni by some fellow students. May I suggest them to be banned from student union too? What is the procedure of such action?
Please get back to me, thanks. x
November 23rd, 2009 at 23:48
There is a Student Code of Conduct produced by the University which, if broken, carries with it its own consequences.
See these two links for more information:
http://policies.salford.ac.uk/display.php?id=143
http://policies.salford.ac.uk/display.php?id=262
February 3rd, 2010 at 19:18
Chan, I advise you to collect a BX-283 form from room 2.57 and hand the completed form to your allocated welfare representative, whereupon they will promptly discard of it in an environmentally sustainable manner.
Happy to help!