OUSU under fire
Peter Hughes, ex-agent for the ‘students as students’ referendum campaign, criticises the Student Union’s recent actions.
The proposed referendum on whether OUSU should require the consent of a majority of common rooms in order to pass motions not directly relating to students as students was cancelled by the university. By that point, though, the question was so changed by OUSU that even the YES campaign would not have voted for it. When a referendum is brought about through petition by common rooms or students rather than through Council, it is usually because Council is highly unlikely to pass it.
Therefore, it is crucial that OUSU’s rules do not allow Council to prevent such referendums from taking place. The Returning Officer ruled that the question was not exact enough about implementation. He decided to add on specific changes which should be made to the Constitution and Standing Orders should this go through. Perhaps this was fair. The word ‘have’ was ignored and instead it was decided that a YES vote would only apply to future policy.
Motions were only to be affected if ‘no part of them affected students as students.’ This would have allowed political motions to pass by merely referring vaguely to students at some point, which again clearly ignored the question. Finally, in order to get ‘majority common room support,’ a motion was to be referred to a Special Council, where only common room representatives could vote.
However it was put, one common room alone could determine OUSU policy! It took five amendments to Council in an attempt to reflect the original question. All were shot down. Of course they were. The referendum was not taken to Council because they were opposed to it, so given the chance they naturally refused any attempt to put the actual question to the students. While this is how OUSU works, student disillusionment is unsurprising.
Emma Norris, OUSU President, defends the student union's actions.
There is no doubt that there should be an informed debate on the ‘students as students’ issue, and that a referendum will help the Student Union engage in discussion about its aims. However, the substance of the referendum has diverged into a discussion about the Student Union’s handling of the process.
Accusations have been made that the interpretation of the consequences of the referendum question (to be listed on the ballot paper) was biased, and that the effect of a YES vote would have consequently been diluted. Inferences that this interpretation was made in a ‘smoke filled room’ in the Student Union fail to acknowledge that interpretative decisions made by the Returning Officer and Acting President were overwhelmingly approved by OUSU Council.
The RO and Acting President were never put under any pressure by members of the OUSU executive who supported the NO campaign • indeed, the RO demonstrated his independence by bringing a complaint to Senior Tribunal against the wishes of the Student Union officers involved in the NO campaign, who were concerned that the referendum should not be ruled out at such a late stage. Subsequently, the referendum was ruled invalid by Senior Tribunal.
It is unfortunate that Senior Tribunal met so late: ruling out a referendum days away from polling is very undesirable because everyone deserves the chance to have their say. For this reason, I will bring a motion to seventh week OUSU Council to hold the referendum next term. I hope this demonstrates that I’m not interested in blocking this referendum.
I won’t be drawn into fighting or name-calling; running successful campaigns and services that matter to students is achieved through discussion, not confrontation.
17th Nov 2005