The back door... that is odd, I feel like the front door has been kicked in

In my title I'm of course referring to the executives, rather arrogant dismisal of the no campaigners asking for changes to the referendum.

Johnny Davis said “this is a back door attempt to make changes” of course this is a referral to guild council’s attempts to change the new bye laws.
Somehow the referendum has become a absolute result ... odd considering the actual question asked was ““Should the Guild of Students develop and implement new democratic decision making processes based on these proposals, which can be found at”

And here is quote from the guilds president during the campaign “It is about getting the basic idea that we want referendums and open meetings and then we will draw up the 'legal texts' which will have to be approved by Guild Council and the trustee Board anyway.”

I can only describe the position that we can’t change the proposals because of the result of referendum deeply hypocritical.

Considering that as a test of student opinion that the results are somewhat invalidated by the way the Guild of Students allowed the 'yes' campaign privileged access to its extensive resources. This included employing students to hand out leaflets and put up posters in support of the 'yes' campaign, using the Guild's professional marketing department for the preparation and dissemination of 'yes' campaign material, granting access to Guild of Students Facebook group and events pages, and Guild and University e-mail lists, as well as respective officers soliciting support from residence associations and student groups for which they have responsibility. Most, if not all, full-time sabbatical officers campaigned in support of the 'yes' campaign against an under-resourced 'no' campaign run by students, many of whom were in the middle of essay deadlines and exams. All at a cost that we can only guess to be measured in the thousands.

It is not a stretch to question the meaning of 'support' for the proposals given that the 'yes' campaign focused largely on a simplistic and ambiguous 'vote yes' message couched in terms of currently popular memes such as 'change' and 'progress' which did not reflect the significance of the reforms being discussed or the issues raised during the 'consultation'. The only public debate during the campaign(s) was very poorly advertised by the Guild of Students and only around 10 students attended.

Considering despite this, hundreds of students voted no any many like some no campaigners asked abstained (yes Votes: 1681 No Votes: 337 Abstains: 98 spoilt ballots: 39 Total Votes Cast 2155 Total Valid Votes 2116) about 78% yes, it would not a stretch to be allowed at least allow some small amendments to be made... absolute none where. In my opinion the guild has taken another turn for the worse.