RON for Accommodation Officer

[mhuzzell]

Nothing against the two remaining candidates, but James Pollard was disqualified for leaning out a window. In the interest of free and fair elections, vote R.O.N.

[hr]

I FOUND JESUS... he was behind the couch the whole time!

[Bizarre Atheist]

Just to be clear; James Pollard was disqualified on the grounds that he is currently pending disciplinary action for (as you say) leaning out of a Venue2 window to hang a banner on the Union building, for which he did not have permission. This is a fairly serious violation of the association's Health and Safety policy.

He was cautioned at the time and asked to stop. When he refused to comply the Students' Association Executive became obliged to undertake disciplinary action in line with its own laws. I must stress that this was an SAEC (Students' Association Executive Committee) decision, not one made by the EOC.

Neither of the other candidates has violated any Students' Association law, and are therefore both eligible to stand.

David Haines, SSC Senior Officer, SAEC, SAB etc etc yadayadayada

[hr]

[Spike]

Also, under Rule 1, subsection D of the election rules:
You may run for election provided that:....You are not currently banned from the Student's Association for any disciplinary offence.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37103556

[Jono]

Also, under Rule 1, subsection D of the election rules:
You may run for election provided that:....You are not currently banned from the Student's Association for any disciplinary offence.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37103556

[mhuzzell]

The banner in question was unrelated to the election. And, honestly, have you looked at the windows in Venue 2? You'd have to really try to fall out of one.

[hr]

I FOUND JESUS... he was behind the couch the whole time!

[Daniel]

Jono, you obviously are not in full possession of the facts. Firstly, the banner was completely unrelated to elections -- it was related to the fight for cheaper housing, and it was being hung from the Venue 2 windows in order to solicit & encourage people to come to the Union AGM to make their views on the subject known. As James was (and still is) on the education subcommittee of the SRC, I believe he was entirely right to do this his only problem was that he had not asked permission from exec to persue such a foolhardly course of action. In fact, the exec (many of whom are on EOC) saw this as challenging their authority and decided to discipline him for it -- in fact he was not the only person helping to hang the banner, there was at least one other person helping to hang said banner. Said person is also running for elections, and said person has not received anything in the way of a discipline or warning. Exec decided to make an example of James, and did so.

To think it would be *possible* to fall from the Venue 2 windows is absurd unless, of course, one was pushed. Given the atmosphere in the SRC as of late, it would not at all suprise me had that been the case.

Daniel

[Al]

What exactly has it do with the SAEC? If it is a disciplinary matter then it should have gone to the Disciplinary Committee. If it is a question of someone breaking election rules then it should have gone to the EOC. And members of the SAEC who are officers of the SRC rather than the Association should have absolutely no input into purely Union-related matters.

That said, doing something so stupid is not the sort of thing that leads to confidence in his judgement as a potential executive officer of the SRC.

[Bizarre Atheist]

Quoting Daniel from 19:04, 10th Mar 2008
...in fact he was not the only person helping to hang the banner, there was at least one other person helping to hang said banner. Said person is also running for elections, and said person has not received anything in the way of a discipline or warning. Exec decided to make an example of James, and did so.

Who is this person? Do you really think that advertising the fact that James had an accomplice is a good idea?

[hr]

[Lid]

Quoting Al from 20:56, 10th Mar 2008
What exactly has it do with the SAEC?

SAEC make up the majority of trustees of the Association - the report commissioned by Court on November lies the liability (in which is an unlimited liability partnership) squarely at the trustees. In the absence of a full Board, it was decided we convene (incidentally, a unanimous decision of the exec is always binding at Board, as you'll well know).

And to bring in Daniel, Mr Pollard was most vehement in his disregard for both Association Policy, replying 'no' when asked not to do something clearly in contravention. As trustees, (and althought I can't comment on discussion, I can comment on outcomes), it was decided to mandate the witnesses (both trustees) to file an incident report ASAP, to enable it to be heard at the next discipline committee meeting, with relevant notice.

Replying to mhuzzell, the connection of the banner to the elections would have only made the matter an EOC one. The huge contravention of health and safety law has nothing to do with elections, it was just bad timing on his behalf that he became in bad standing at such a time.

I agree with David on everything he's said.
Royce Hunt, SSC Primary Nominee to the SAEC / SAB.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[Al]

Fair enough.

[LK Today]

Quoting Lid from 01:37, 11th Mar 2008

Quoting Al from 20:56, 10th Mar 2008
What exactly has it do with the SAEC?

[...]

And to bring in Daniel, Mr Pollard was most vehement in his disregard for both Association Policy, replying 'no' when asked not to do something clearly in contravention. As trustees, (and althought I can't comment on discussion, I can comment on outcomes), it was decided to mandate the witnesses (both trustees) to file an incident report ASAP, to enable it to be heard at the next discipline committee meeting, with relevant notice.

Replying to mhuzzell, the connection of the banner to the elections would have only made the matter an EOC one. The huge contravention of health and safety law has nothing to do with elections, it was just bad timing on his behalf that he became in bad standing at such a time.

I agree with David on everything he's said.
Royce Hunt, SSC Primary Nominee to the SAEC / SAB.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

Extremely well said Royce. It still amazes me how some people think they don't need to worry about H&S regulations, and indeed the law, when it comes to elections, or even in the normal activities of the Union. It is clearly people who aren't the ones who will get in very serious trouble, should something go wrong.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37102636

[Bizarre Atheist]

Quoting Lid from 01:37, 11th Mar 2008

I agree with David on everything he's said.

This is the second time this has happened in less than a year. At this rate people will start agreeing with me in the real world too!

[hr]

[Lid]

Quoting Bizarre Atheist from 13:09, 11th Mar 2008
At this rate people will start agreeing with me in the real world too!

I agree.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin