- Motion to grant Salford Student Direct greater editorial independence rejected
- Vote of no confidence motion submitted against USSU President
- Proposed new constitution “overrides student voice”
A row has broken out behind the scenes at the University of Salford Students’ Union (USSU) after motions submitted to this week’s Annual General Meeting were vetoed by the Union President, leading to accusations of censorship. A vote of no confidence was later issued against USSU President Matt Webber.
Problems began when Webber, and the rest of the sabbatical team deemed two motions unsuitable for submission to the AGM. The first motion, proposed by Damien Shannon and entitled ‘Students’ Union Discipline Policy’, sought to review the process by which students can be banned from their Students’ Union. However, an official response from Webber stated that: “It would be inappropriate for the motion to be discussed at AGM as this is a matter for the Trustee Board.”
Shannon’s motion was prompted by recent disciplinary action taken against student Steven Maguire, who was barred from all Union facilities and events earlier this semester. The proposed motion drew attention to the fact that “the Union currently allows its sabbatical officers to ban people from the Union outright without having to explain themselves.”
Maguire, who was formerly the chair of the Debating Society, told Student Direct: Mancunion: “I do not feel that the Salford Students’ Union disciplinary procedure is fair. In my case, it was one person’s word against mine and the investigating officer chose the other person’s without reason or justification.”
Maguire, who was banned for calling the USSU President a bully, added: “I also have no way of knowing how the evidence collected was considered because the Students’ Union will provide no justification or analysis.”
A second motion, in which Shannon set out to formalise an increased degree of editorial independence for the Salford edition of Student Direct, was also refused a hearing at the AGM. Shannon proposed that, “the appointed Editor of Student Direct should be free to print whatever she deems to be in the student interest within the confines of the law.”
The motion complained that at present “the employment contract afforded to the Editor of Salford Student Direct is such that it places effective editorial control in the hands of both the Editor’s Line Manager – the Student Union Marketing Manager – and the elected Sabbatical Officers.”
However, Shannon was informed that: “It is not the role of AGM to specify what is or is not contained in the role descriptions or contracts of employment of Union staff.”
The feedback issued with a request to amend the motion detailed again that it was “the responsibility of the Trustee Board” and not students.
Following the rejection of his motions, Shannon submitted a third entitled, ‘Matthew Webber’s Presidency’ which asserted that “Matthew Webber is no longer fit for office”, citing the suppression of motions to the Annual General Meeting in support of this claim.
Shannon said: “The decision to refuse to allow students to present to an AGM valid motions which aimed to improve the conduct of the Sabbatical Officers and ensure a free and independent press is typical of Matthew Webber.
“As President, he has frequently sought to clamp down on debate and ignore the feelings of students. This is no better evidenced than in the revised Students’ Union Constitution he has scheduled for presentation to Wednesday’s AGM, clause 63 of which allows him and the Trustee Board of the Students’ Union to simply ignore referenda and motions passed at an AGM at their own discretion.”
The amended constitution in question, which is on the agenda for the AGM this week, adheres closely to an example drawn up by the NUS in accordance with the Charity Commission. Under legislation passed in 2006, students’ unions now have to register with the Charity Commission in order to achieve full charitable status. As part of this, students’ unions must satisfy certain criteria, which includes changes to the way they are legally constituted. As such the proposed amendments at Salford are not unique to their Students’ Union.
However, questions have been raised over the ramifications of adopting such changes.
Tom Fairhurst, the University of Manchester Students’ Union Communications Officer, commented: “ [Students’ Unions] are in complete democratic denial. On the one hand we talk about students being the deciders and on the other, it is decided for them.
“The new clause in the proposed constitution from the Charity Commission accentuates this hypocrisy, as the trustee board will be able to override General Meetings. What is the student voice worth if it can be overridden?”
Having submitted amended versions of his motions and the motion concerning Matt Webber’s Presidency, Shannon later withdrew all three.
Shannon told Student Direct: Mancunion: “I was advised by Matthew Webber’s colleagues to withdraw my revised motions as the likely alternative was him seeking to ban me from the Students’ Union.”
He also added: “In spite of Matthew Webber claiming he and his fellow Sabbatical Officers made a ‘collective decision’ [to reject the motions initially] I know for certain that one was not present when that decision was made and two have told me privately that they had no objection to the motions. It would appear a minority of Sabbaticals made this ‘executive decision’ to censor.”
The Salford AGM is due to take place on Wednesday November 25.
November 23rd, 2009 at 15:54
If I may be afforded an opportunity to expand on a few points.
I believe the requirements of becoming a Registered Charity with the Charity Commission affords a necessity for Students’ Unions who wish to comply with the law in this area to adopt a clause which states that their Board of Trustees – or other executive governing body – will reject any decisions, even democratic ones, which call for breaking the laws and regulations set down in the Charities Act 1993. This I can understand.
What I cannot abide is the three other clauses adopted by USSU which essentially permit the Board of Trustees – four of whom are not elected – to reject all democratic decisions taken by way of Referenda and Motions at AGM outright if these do not fit with their own judgement of what is in “the student interest”. It is akin to Parliament conducting a full referendum on some issue of vital national importance, only to then reserve the right to completely ignore the results. Nothing is more preposterous than this arrangement.
Of course, this constitution had to be approved by the Board of Trustees before it could be referred to the Annual General Meeting. It may come as some surprise for readers to learn that neither the Trustees nor Sabbaticals I have spoken to about Clause 63 had even read the bloody document! How on earth they agreed to the single most important document that governs how USSU works without reading a single word of its contents defies belief.
As for rejecting the motions, it is precisely what I guessed would happen when I submitted them. The “democracy” at USSU is nothing short of a shambles. At our last ‘You Decide’ meeting (which is the USSU equivalent of Manchester’s General Meetings), the President’s partner wrote an article for the paper stating multiple times that things were “agreed” and policies and perspective were “agreed to”.
What he failed to mention in his recollection of events was that not a single vote was taken during the entire event! How things were “agreed to” is beyond me.