Sleaze Rocks Union
Confidence in the Oxford Union has gone into freefall after the dramatic disqualification of two newly-elected officers after a Tribunal ruled they had committed electoral malpractice, and the suspension of one member found guilty of intimidation.
Only days after being elected to their posts in the Oxford Union, Lucy Aitkens and Jeff Bell were stripped of their new positions amidst a cloud of allegation and counter-claim which promises to rage for weeks.
The two were charged with breaking the rules of the Society by holding a joint birthday party just two days before polling day. Strict Union rules prevent "organised treating which is likely to affect the result," in the run-up to an election. Four hundred invitations were sent out, for the party at Oxford's Jongleurs Comedy Club, on Wednesday 3rd March, with at least one hundred and seventy invitations which were not addressed to anyone in particular being posted in Oxford University members' pigeon-holes.
After a marathon session lasting from Tuesday night until Wednesday morning in Eighth Week last term, and again until late on Wednesday night, the Tribunal disqualified Lucy Aitkens and, in her place, appointed Hatty Cadman, who came second in the election for Librarian. The responsibilities of the Treasurer-elect are to be taken on by the current Treasurer, Nick Mason, until a fresh election can be called.
Miss Aitkens felt she was unable to comment on the story due to her position as a candidate in the Union elections. It is understood, however, that this is not necessarily the end of the line for either Aitkens or Bell. Friends of Miss Aitkens and Mr Bell believe that both of them may run again for posts in the elections at the end of this term. Although both were dismissed from their newly-elected positions, this was the minimal penalty the Tribunal could have imposed and they have not been barred from standing in future elections. Union President, Nicky Black, confirmed, "They are not in any way prohibited from running again for a post, although Mr. Bell cannot run again for the position of Treasurer, Michaelmas '99 in this term's election. They are able to hold 'future posts' should they be elected."
The Union Tribunal ruled that they were entirely satisfied, given the evidence before them, that the party organised by Miss Aitkens and Mr Bell was intended primarily to increase the exposure of both candidates within their own colleges and amongst the Society's membership and, in this way, was organised "with the purpose of influencing people's voting two days before the election."
While candidates are allowed, under the rules, to hold a party for close friends, it was decided that this high-profile event was "a very different type of party". The Tribunal, which took the form of a criminal trial, ruled, "we simply do not accept that the one hundred and twenty recipients of invitations from within Mr. Bell's own college could all be close personal friends." In her defence, Aitkens produced her father as a character witness who told the tribunal that Lucy had always had a lot of friends wherever she had lived, and that she had always planned to celebrate her birthday.
The tribunal heard some evidence that invitations had been distributed to people neither Aitkens nor Bell had ever met, in a bid to raise the profile of Aitkens' campaign. Bell, however, was elected unopposed.
Union Returning Officer, Sheridan Westlake, who had earlier twice sanctioned a party, said, "this is a vindication of the electoral process, that people who cheat in Union elections are punished. Disqualification may seem harsh but it is fair. People should not be allowed to benefit in elections by virtue of spending money on parties and entertainment."
The new Librarian and Vice-President, Hatty Cadman was eager to put the past behind her. "Obviously this isn't the way that I would have liked to become Librarian," she said. "The tribunal, however, has made the decision that the election was unfair, and that decision has to be respected. What is important now is to put it behind us and look ahead to a fantastic term that we've all worked incredibly hard to produce. That is what matters most."
Jeff Bell told the Oxford Student,"I am able to say that I have been deeply saddened by the whole tribunal process, which has come at a very difficult time for me personally... I simply wanted to hold a big birthday party with one of my very best friends with whom I share a birthday. I was unlucky that my birthday fell close to the election, and I guess I made a mistake for which I paid dearly."
Bell continued, "I have fallen victim of a grey area of the rules. I didn't intend to break the rules but really I am not an expert on the intricacies of the Union's archaic rules. I feel I was badly advised by the Returning Officer, and I feel the Tribunal support this in their report."
Westlake stressed that the rules were designed to prevent elections being bought by wealthier candidates. He said, "candidates should be given a fair chance irrespective of wealth. This is a fundamental principal and it has been upheld."
The disputed election was the second to take place under new rules, introduced in June, banning public canvassing for votes in College Lodges. Critics of the new rules have argued that the end of public campaigning has driven Union hacks to use more subversive means.
Westlake, who spearheaded the campaign for the new stricter rules, denied claims that regulations are now too strict, telling the Oxford Student, "we do have new rules, which are what the members overwhelmingly want. If hacks try to get round them by using other means, it is clear that it doesn't work. The ruling was not intended to make an example of Aitkens and Bell. However this won't be forgotten in a hurry and will send out a strong warning to people not to try to pull stunts like this again."
The Oxford Student has learnt, however, that Westlake gave permission for and was himself invited to the party. He attended without seeing fit to bring any allegations of malpractice himself, even though he was the Returning Officer. He admitted that the rule was not meant to prevent members holding parties per se, but that it was the nature of the party which caused was at issue. He claimed that the sheer magnitude of the event meant it had to be looked on in a different light
The tribunal felt that Aitkens and Bell could not properly explained why the invitations featured details of their colleges if it wasn't meant to advertise their campaign.
In a bizarre twist to the affair, a group calling itself the "Movement for Union Members" contacted the Oxford Student on Tuesday, from an untraceable location in Central London. Attacking the record of the Returning Officer, they said, "the electorate has repeatedly rejected his candidacy and he has lost." In a statement the group criticised last June's poll to bring in the new rules on election campaigning, "One thing that the poll certainly did was give Westlake and his groupies increasing control over the society's affairs. One thing it didn't do is give the membership of the Society greater control over his activities."
Although Jeff Bell was elected unopposed it was decided that he should also be disqualified as the rules cover "organised treating" on behalf of others . Confusion surrounds whether Bell had known that he would be unopposed at the time he planned the party.
Aitkens was accused of further alleged electoral malpractice on the night of the Jerry Springer visit to the Union. While assigned to duties in the garden of the Union, Aitkens appeared in the debating Chamber distributing sweets to members of the public and taking the microphone to speak to the audience on a number of occasions before Mr. Springer's arrival. Witnesses saw Miss Aitkens stand at the front of a packed Chamber and shout, "Is everybody having a good time?" However it is understood that Aitkens' did so as after a request from then union President, Theo Mills. While the Tribunal ruled that Aitkens' actions in the Chamber weren't against the rules of the society, it condemned them as, "flamboyant behaviour, which may or may not have been attention seeking."
Last term's Union elections reflected the move to make Union democracy more open and accountable. Traditionally held behind closed doors, camera's were allowed inside the room where last term's vote-count took place. Ironically, this was aided by the presence of a Channel Four film-crew who were following the progress of Aitkens' campaign for a documentary on life in Aitkens' college, St.Hilda's.
In a further sleaze scandal to hit the Union, the tribunal also tried Matthew Kirk, a founding member of the campaign for tougher rules on public campaigning, on charges of intimidation. Kirk, who along with Sheridan Westlake, launched a campaign against candidates standing in lodges, "harassing" members of the public, was found guilty of intimidating a female member of the Union on Election Day. Kirk was fined seventy-five pounds and suspended from the society for one term. The Tribunal heard that Kirk sought out Ronee Isaacson (Oriel) in the College JCR. The tribunal established that Kirk, "did not join in the general conversation but directly approached Miss Isaacson and spoke only with her: that he sat close to her and attempted, in a quiet voice, to draw Miss Isaacson into discussing a topic which Miss Isaacson did not wish to discuss in a public place."
Kirk told the tribunal that he, "saw nothing wrong in principal with intimidating a candidate i. it would benefit his preferred candidate."