Persona Non Grata
OXFORD UNION PRESIDENT Ben Seifert has failed in his attempt to institute disciplinary measures against a Union member. This has prompted concerns about the efficiency of the Union's procedures for controlling the actions of its members whilst on Union premises as well as the purposes for which such procedures are used.
It was alleged that Matt Kirk of Lincoln College had contravened a rule relating to "violent conduct or other behaviour on the society's premises liable to distress, offend or intimidate other members." Last term he was found guilty by an election tribunal of intimidating Ronnie Isaacson while she was running for Union Secretary.
Seifert told the Oxford Student that the complaint was made by him out of "a certain responsibility to members", adding that "I was asked to bring the complaint: a lot of people thought it was the right thing to do". The rules state, however, that complaints should be made "to either of the Senior Officers or to the President". There is considerable ambiguity over when the complaint was officially received; as the committee report states "It goes against logic and common sense to say that the President can receive his own complaint".
The report recommends that in future complaints of a disciplinary nature should be administered by the Returning Officer, who is "more likely to be seen as an impartial figure." Mr. Kirk submitted that, as the President was the complainant, the complaint should have been deemed to have been received as soon as Seifert had decided to make the complaint.
The Disciplinary Committee eventually decided that they could not hear the complaint because of the time limits imposed by Union rules. Two complaints were drafted, the first immediately after the incident on the 10th October and the second a week later. The Standing Committee, which has the power to call a Disciplinary Committee, must consider the complaint no more than a week after it is made. The difficulties were compounded by the fact that the Senior Officer to whom the complaint was originally made was away from college on the date the complaint was supposed to have been delivered. The committee nevertheless concluded that they "could not be satisfied" that the complaint had been made inside the proper time limit.
Friends of Mr. Kirk allege that Seifert had "been plotting to get rid of people who damage the image of the Union". When asked whether the President had been out to get Kirk, they replied "Without a doubt".
Friends of Mr. Kirk also refute the allegation that he caused distress to a fresher claiming that he brought the student into the general office in order to get her to witness a claim for petrol expenses. Earlier that day he had driven up from London to teach debating at the Union's debating workshop. They allege that when he arrived Seifert said to him "I'm not having you teaching." Seifert later said that he felt it was inappropriate to have someone convicted of misconduct at a debating workshop. Sources close to Mr. Kirk also claim that the Union already owed him £500 in unpaid expenses so "as a matter of principle" he wanted to ensure his claim was witnessed and paid. According to Kirk's friends Seifert ignored them and then asked the fresher why she was there. When Seifert took Kirk aside an argument in the Union bar ensued, in which Kirk "spoke to the President strongly in his capacity as President". Sources close to Kirk say he was also accused of committing criminal damage to a photocopier, a charge which was later revoked. They also claim that he was "only slightly relieved" at the outcome of the disciplinary committee, calling it "inquisitorial" and pointed out that it was not held before qualified lawyers. Seifert revealed that one of the committee members is a solicitor while another is police officer.
In contrast Seifert claims that the Union's disciplinary committee is "fairer than the proctorial court, or indeed any other disciplinary tribunal in Oxford: people are innocent until proven guilty." When asked about the technical problems that had lead to the complaint being thrown out, he said "The disciplinary court has never heard a case: it is a relatively new development. The trouble is that it is only when these rules are tested that the problems with them emerge" . Seifert acknowledged that "the process must be clarified," and pointed out that any Union member can propose a change to the rules. Seifert proposes to foster greater openness by proposing changes to the rules which Union members can comment on and amend before they are put to a Private Business Meeting. Seifert claims that this openness will show that "procedure can work for everyone."
4th Nov 1999