A Bunch of tossers amongst whom, arguments like “we shouldn’t give a shit” still give traction.
The ethical investment policy passed with a few amendments. The amendments like removing references to the nuclear industry were fine and constructive; they helped make the policy a more representative of student’s opinions.
Considering the policy had been posted online for discussion weeks ago, that a forum was run to discuss the content, which was advertised with large posters around the guild, on the front page of the website and that I made myself personally available to come meet anyone privately to discuss it. The fact that the opposition waited until 2 minutes before it went to vote, to air their problems, shows to me that they had no intention of a constructive debate and just wanted it off the agenda.
Their argument, was what disgusted me most, it was not the content but the principle. Large numbers of guild councillors just don’t think the guild should have concerns for the ethics of its practices and all ethical motions should be rejected.
I had told someone just an hour before to not bother coming because I was sure there would not be a “no” vote, just amendments, yet again I was proven wrong and guild councillors have managed to prove in my eyes that they are just a bunch of repulsive sycophants who need to be watched like hawks.
Go find your guild councillors here
Challenge them ask which way they voted, argue with them, run against them, stop them getting elected.
A lot of them will have plans for becoming guild officers, if they don’t give a shit about ethical issues, make damn sure they don’t.
Posts
What was the general debate about? Just whether to ignore ethical issues altogether? How could they justify this?
ReplyDeleteIt was a motion for “ethical” investment, which would mean the guild management taking ethical as well as financial considerations into account when investing its cash.
ReplyDeleteI would have expected to the debate to be around to what degree we should invest ethically
From perhaps a weak meaningless one line policy, like “the guild will endeavour to invest ethically” to a detailed policy that worked proactively as well as negatively.
I find it pretty sick to see people getting up and arguing that we shouldn’t give a shit, I probably shouldn’t name them, but you can find their names on the minutes.
How do they justify it? I’m probably not the best person to answer that but from what has been communicated to me....
Last guild council it was justified in terms of the guild being a “student” union and should therefore only deal with issues that affect students directly. It was aslo argued that students “don’t care” and that the motion was unrepresentative of them.
If you have a bit of time message all your reps and ask them what they did and their justifications for it, you will at least have one who voted no or absented.
If you don’t have any contacts for them message vpea@guild.bham.ac.uk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8j8BmgeYLA
ReplyDeleteWe are everywhere!
I'm a tosser Gulid Councillor.
ReplyDeleteI think we passed an Officer Code of Conduct a few meetings ago, how does this blog fit with it?
In Edd's defence, he's not referring to literally every Guild Councillor as a tosser.
ReplyDeleteJust the ones that listen to Fabian discuss two focal goals of the Guild and then assume that they are suddenly exclusive goals of the Guild and that all other concerns - ethical/environmental - are therefore irrelevant.
In this particular instance they couldn't have been more wrong. As Fabian pointed out, one of the Guild's focal goals is improving employability for students. Interestingly enough, ethical and environmental issues are huge factors in careers. Businesses are currently under tremendous pressure to improve their impact on the environment (the 10:10 campaign being a perfect example), and ethical concerns are a huge issue in the workplace. And whether or not you go into the workplace or remain in academia at the conclusion of your degree, these issues will affect you. The people who spoke out against this motion clearly didn't bother to think about that. Hence, "tossers".
Also, to answer the question about the Officer Code of Conduct, I'd like to draw attention to the following clauses:
> "Officers need to regularly review the Guild’s vision, values and long term strategy and communicate with others to ensure targets and goals are met." - as I've said E&E IS one of the Guild's goals.
> "Officers must demonstrate appropriate examples of leadership, such as understanding delegated responsibility, ensuring that the organisation complies with the law and not acting in a way that contradicts the Guild’s policies and procedures." - this blog does not breach any established Guild polices or procedures.
> "Officers must act with propriety, honesty and fairness and respect confidentiality." - Edd is being very honest, fair and is quite clearly respecting the confidentiality of the Guild councillors in question.
> "Officers are expected to act professionally at all times, take responsibility for their actions and behave in a manner that does not damage the reputation of the Guild." - I know Edd isn't going to deny responsibility for putting stuff like this on his blog, and I'm not going to deny responsibility for defending him. Councillors who treat Guild Council like a playground are one of the greatest dangers to the Guild's reputation, and to allow these people to undermine the representation of our students is unethical. Hence, the E&E officer is challenging it.
If anyone wants copies of the Officer Code of Conduct, please email me at m.ward@guild.bham.ac.uk and I'll gladly make it available to you. Every time Edd and I propose a motion for the Guild to promptly publish such material online they always gets rejected as operational.
'Officers must always take an active role in motivating staff members and volunteers and should never act in a way to discourage individuals from becoming involved in the Guild'
ReplyDeleteCalling volunteers 'tossers' and urging students to vote against them in upcoming elections does in my mind breach this section of the Code of Conduct.
I think this is really unprofessional for an elected representative. There are ways of getting your point across without being rude.
ReplyDeleteI’m just trying to encourage greater participation, call it a tough love approach.
ReplyDeleteOh absolutely, that particular clause (and probably one or two others) of the officer code of conduct has clear been breached as a matter of fact, not just of opinion. Rest assured the Sabbs take these things seriously and Edd will certainly be brought up on it (and I'll probably get told off for publicly defending him); all of this has happened before. All of the officers are well aware of the consequences crossing a line like this would incur - especially now that a code of conduct has been implemented. I hope that in knowing this, your faith in the system has been restored. :)
ReplyDeleteIn all fairness to the point you made, I do agree that the title really could have been better worded (to put it mildly >_<); it was unprofessional. I suspect that, for a lot of people, the title destroys the credibility of this blog before they even start reading the body. I'm sure many of you are aware that there was a similar issue with the title of a recent BBC "have your say" blog which seriously pissed off the gay community. I hate to use that example because the body of that article was also a pile of crap, but similarly the title is more the focus here than the blog itself.
Having attended last GC and having read the whole post I happen to strongly agree with the points Edd is trying to make. The clause you pointed out - in part - mandates officers "not to discourage individuals from getting involved with the Guild". While I completely agree in that all of our members have the right to get involved and have their say, this right is accompanied by equal responsibility; in this case, to the students who elected them. Guild Councillors, like the Officer team, are elected representatives as much as they are volunteers and are equally accountable to their constituents. It's a sad fact that some people get elected unchallenged and neglect that role - case in point, freely using Guild Council as a forum to spout this kind of ill-thought negative/apathetic crap, which is also unprofessional and unacceptable.
At no point did Edd discourage people from running; he in fact encouraged others to run against offending candidates so they're less likely to get in or they're more likely to buck up their ideas under the pressure of competition. As Edd said, it's a tough love approach.
the officier code of conduct is available online on the GC website and I had it emailed me.
ReplyDeleteWhere can we find a copy of the minutes of guild council please?
ReplyDeletehere http://www.guildofstudents.com/content/188425/your_voice/guild_council/
ReplyDeletethey are not that detailed was it anything in particular you wanted?
The reason I wanted the minutes wasn't anything to do with the controversy. I do a nuclear course and I just wanted to find out which student rep asked for the ammendment to references to the nuclear industry so I could thank them. I actually didn't know about any forum (despite you're claims at how advertised it was) but If I had I'd have contributed. On the whole I agree with it though! I'm just pro nuclear!
ReplyDelete