LIBRARY MIDNIGHT OPENING!

[flarewearer]

handbags at dawn, chaps

[hr]

[exnihilo]

I don't think there's any confusion, Lee. Nobody has said the SRC can't co-opt. Merely that, as a matter of policy, it should not. And, that being so, there is no necessity whatever to wait a year for another election, there is a second diet and there is always the option for a special by-election. Obviously the co-option clause has been written in since my time - and is a necessary response to the profusion of ridiculous posts on SRC - but I've never been a fan of co-option to representative, as opposed to managerial, bodies. It smacks rather of cronyism, and always will, however able or qualified the candidate.

[LK Today]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't think anyone is arguing whether the SRC can or cannot co-opt, but rather should that position be put up for election at the next election or should the person co-opted remain in that position until the end of that term of office.

Personally, I would rather see someone in the position, doing something with it, rather than the post being left empty. I just wanted to point out that Rob is a legal member of the SRC.

However, this thread has highlighted something- we seem to be more preoccupied with whether Rob is legitimate rather than with the stuff that he is actually doing in this position.

[hr]

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

[I say]

I'm more interested in what people do, than whether or not they should be allowed to do it under a particular name.

I'm all for following the rules and making sure things are done officially, but again, as long as stuff gets done and gets done well, I think that's more important.

[flarewearer]

Quoting I say from 09:27, 3rd Nov 2006
I'm all for following the rules and making sure things are done officially, but again, as long as stuff gets done and gets done well, I think that's more important.

Yes, fine job that chap Mussolini did mading the buses run on time.

[hr]