THIS TERM’S Union General Meeting have been tainted with inquoracy, and a series of ridiculous ordinary motions. The most prominent amongst these included a motion to censure the president and more recently, one to demolish Langwith College.
The proposal to demolish Langwith College, apparently proposed by Tom Wells for the Week 9 UGM, notes that amongst other things, “That Langwith JCRC somehow lost the megaphone on the day of the 2004 bike auction resulting in both Environment Officers losing their voices.”
The motion also notes that, “Langwith College has the highest crime rate on campus”, and asks the meeting to take into account “Langwith College’s inquorate JCRC election of 2004”. It stresses that the Union believes that “Langwith College is at best an unsightly corridor between Vanburgh and Derwent.”
The satirical motion proposes that the Union should resolve to “mandate all Officers to campaign for the construction of an Eden Project-like ectopia in the place of said demolished college, which is then to be repopulated by the current Eco Reps.”
This motion comes at the end of a stream of negative proposals, calling the validity of the UGM as a ruling student body into question. During the first UGM of the term, members of the Conservatives Society put forward a motion to censure the President, Services Officer and Communications Officer.
This was proposed due to the fact “that the UGM to be held on Tuesday 25th January 2005 at 7.30pm in Goodricke did not take place”. This was despite the fact that the Union advertised the UGM, but did not hold it on that date.
Nick Reeves, Chair of the Conservatives Society, condemned the current SU’s approach to UGMs, making reference to the fact that most Officers hadn’t attended them and that they did not seem very professional. He remarked on the current state of UGMs, “students need to realise its a big deal”.
Reeves’ society has launched a campaign against the SU, as part of a tripartite strategy in the run up to the General Elections.
One of the posters that the society have plastered all over campus, condemns the SU, noting that “in an unprecedented step, SU President, James Alexander, imposed a new media charter – giving the SU complete power to censor uncomplimentary stories Failure by campus press to abide with the charter will result in the immediate withdrawal of funding and essential equipment. [sic]”
The continued negative press surrounding the SU, coupled with the failure of this term’s UGMs have led to increasing cynicism geared towards UGMs. One student commented, “What’s the point of going to Union meetings, if the officers can’t be bothered to turn up and the proposals aren’t in any way progressive.”