Guild Council Motions?

Enlightened_Bystander · Black Bloc

Actually two and a half on the actual motion, but that's still about three times longer than any other motion I've seen.
_________________
Peter Lloyd

MEng Software Engineering, 4th Year
CS Guild Councillor 2005-2007
Independent Chair May-July 2007
Wargames Chair 2004-06
General Commitee Functionary- 2004-07

tomsk · Indymedia Hound

I disagree that intimidation was used, I certainly didn't witness anything of the sort, either during the meeting or in discussions before it.

I thought the debate was of relative good standard, Braphus' speech will always stick in my mind. With a complex issue like this it was important for people who were not too aware of it to ask questions and many issues were resolved by doing just that. The evidence being the over 20 questions I think asked on just one small section of the motion.

I think Guild council has made its opinions loud and clear and hopefully Gaz can now go forward with our views to Uni council next month.

Finally, Jane should really be congratulated for writing minutes for over 7 hours without a break, it was really impressive to see and her commitment to our Guild should be rewarded - through something nice and pretty perhaps Laughing

Canadian Adam · Indymedia Hound

When several members of the executive and several guild councillors approach someone during a recess and immediatley after they have given a speech, getting right into their face (and personal space) and asking questions like "Why are you opposed to democracy and consultation?" aggressively, I don't see any other purpose for that than intimidation.

It probably didn't have an effect upon the individual in question, but I know for a fact that others who witnessed it said they were detterred from speaking on the motion because of it.

Enlightened_Bystander · Black Bloc

Canadian Adam · Indymedia Hound

Look I said in the previous post that nothing out of line with what normally happens in student democracy happened.

At the time it didn't even occur to me that those actions could deter people from speaking until individuals confided that too me. I'm sure there are oftentimes individuals who wish to speak on issues in Guild Council but don't because they feel intimidated by popular opinion or a particularly vocal minority. I hope that the way Braphus, myself and Tom Goff spoke didn't have that effect on anyone, in fact when asked my opinion on the issues by people I didn't know in GC I tried to just direct them to the open letter, which was read out anyway.

All I'm doing is highlighting that I think there are problems with discussing such a large issue in a setting like Guild Council and we shouldn't consider those discussions as final. A sentiment I don't think most people on this board disagree with.

JulienP · Black Bloc

pmqs · Street Demonstrator

you can list the people who do actually speak easily: (in decreasing order)

gaz
goff
brewer
bolt
greene
adam..~(at the latest one)

then a couple of things from neuner, kaaland, cohen, mason etc.

prob missed a few out, this is people who speak more than once. even though there might be 70 people there, might as well be 25.

higuy · Black Bloc

naivehottie · Black Bloc

often I assume.

The best speakers in my opinion are Braphus and Adam, although up there out of the people this year are Gary, Peter, Tom Goff, Fabian and Hayden and probably some I forget

naivehottie · Black Bloc

The consensus seemed to be that everything in the report except the 50:50 student:lay split was a good idea, which I'd agree with. I would suggest a lay chair and a 7:5 student:lay split, although it will obviously be 7:7 regardless of what GC said.

I was tempted to do a PM straight to the vote before it but they did the one by parts before, although just for a laugh to see the reaction, would have fallen badly I would hope. Still causes enough entertainment with my PM to take the advertising space motion to cross-campus referendum

Parsley · Indymedia Hound

As a signatory of the open letter I feel that the issue of how the motion came about was well delt with by Gary last night, and that the process now seems a lot clearer. It seemed to me this was an important part of the meeting as it allowed those of us who had concerns over the process to air them without them effectively without infringing on the debate over the actual substance of the motion; it would have been a pity (and rather immature of us) if the entire motion had fallen as a protest against the process, and I think thanks to Gary answering the letter at gc most of us managed to keep the issues of process and governance separate.

While it would have been nice to have more time to discuss the issues in advance I felt last nights meeting was not the shambles many of us predicted, and was in fact quite constructive once people started to engage in the debate. The first three parts were generally common sense, and the more controversial sections received good attention. We need to remember that this is not the end it; although I'm gutted about the independant chair of trustees, we thankfully resisted the 50:50 trustee option, which means this part will continue to be negotiated; and it was made clear that we will continue to be consulted along the way towards a final governance model.

As for intimidation- it's not always easy not to be intimidated by more established GCers, especially when new, I know I was certainly worried by it in my first meetings. It's sometimes difficult but we just have to try look on the intimidators with shame. I agreed with the point Tom Marley made about secret ballots though- we must be accountable, and therefore learn to stand up for our views the hard way.

hannoir · Black Bloc

i put my hands up several times last night to speak but other people got there before me! i'm not scared!
_________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannoir/ - check out my photos....

Teapotboy · Black Bloc

tomsk · Indymedia Hound