Editorial
'Openness' and'accountability' are probably two of the
most ovenused words with relation to student politics, but
the discoveries of the past few days have succeeded in
emphasising how important they actually are. When used
with regard to what is essentially a private company they
seem to have less resonance than when applied to, for
example, a students' union. However it must be borne in
mind that students make a careful and considered decision
as to whether they should spend well over a hundred
pounds to join the Oxford Union, and for the past two
intakes of freshers this has been done on the understanding
that the proceedings of the society are honest and
open. The arrogance of an institution that not only disregards
this, but also the overwhelming 90 percent of members
who in Trinity term 1998 voted to make all committee
minutes public, is quite astounding. The question, raised
two weeks ago, of how far the Union should be the last
bastion of free speech was a disputed one, but the issue of
whether its procedures and discussions should be transparent
is extremely uncontroversial.
Past and present Union Presidents seem to be arguing that
the Policy Liaison Committee, the body of trustees and
presidents whose meetings were kept in camera in direct
cantravention of the 1998 poll, was not a 'real' committee.
This assertion seems incredible in view of the fact that
minutes were taken and action to be taken was detailed
underneath each discussion- all the hallmarks of an executive
body, whether or not it actually was. Informal, advisory
discussions are not generally minuted, and yet every
one of the six Presidents involved in this matter allowed
this to occur: It is petfectly understandable that these experienced
figures should have been consulted, but the forum
in which it was done dearly took the form of a decision
making discussion group. Even if none of its decisions
were acted on without the knowledge of Standing
Committee, the Union's official executive body, the fact
that these decisions were made in camera is clearly a
deceit of members who were not invited to observe the
proceedings. What is perhaps even more worrying is the
fact that even Standing Committee members appear not
to have been aware of the existence of the committee, let
alone the discussions that were taking place behind its
back. One ex-member of the Union's executive body,
whose involvement with the Union spanned three years,
was unaware of the Policy Liaison Committee. Part from
anything else, keeping key members of an organisation in
the dark hardly seems the best way of ensuring its smooth
running.
Jeff Bell admits that it is "regretable' that this misunderstanding
took place. This is true, but also a dramatic
underestimation of the significance of what has been discovered.
The Union has made a mockery of its own rules
by deceiving members tor two years. After a significant
legislative change forbidding committees from going in
camera (except in very specific cases to do with salaried
staff changes and sensitive financial contracts), the
Union's presidents have chaired meetings of a committee
whose minutes were marked "Very confidential". There is
still no definitive answer as to why the parts of these minutes
that discuss neither staffing nor finance have been left
to the Oxford Student to make available to members.
No one person is to blame for this deliberate and damaging
transgression of the rules, but each of the six
Presidents who chaired PLC meetimgs must take full
resposibility. The President of the Oxford Union holds a
highly prestigious title, and it is quite reasonable that full
responsibility for the institution goes hand in hand with
this: the buck must stop with them. Jeff Bell is humble in
his assertion that it is difficult for a President to deal with
a full time staff of adults without consultation with senior
members, but at the same time it is mildly worrying that
the person in control of an institution worth £10 million
does not see himself as an adult. However, he is not trying
to wriggle out of his responsibility for this matter. He
explains that he was not aware the rules were being transgressed
and that when he became aware of this he
resolved to stop the forbidden committee from meeting.
Jeff Bell must accept that he is complicit in the deceit, having
himself attended a number of these meetings, but it is
laudable that he will not knowingly let his members be
mislead about policy-making structures. Of course, we
will never know whether this stance would have been
adopted had the Oxford Student not revealed the extent of
their knowledge, but what matters is that Jeff is giving the
1998 resolutions on openness a chance of being followed
through. It is unfortunate that this comes two years too
late.
4th May 2000