I was very disappointed to read your article ‘UGM’s riddled with mundane motions’. The motion of censor was not just against the President but two of his fellow officers, namely the Services and Communications Officers. You also claim that the censor motion was proposed by the Conservatives, it certainly was not. It was seconded by a couple of their members as well as several Liberal Democrats and people of no particular party allegiance.
Your article goes on to mention the humorous motion regarding the demolition of Langwith College as an example of the problems with the lack of serious motions yet you have ignored that there are motions for improved sports facilities and whether the Union should move its accounts to a fair trade bank. Both of these are serious issues and are worth debating. As for the presence of a frivolous motion, I don’t believe such motions bring the system into disrepute but can add some colour to the agenda; joke motions are certainly better than no motions.
Can I conclude by suggesting that societies have policy they want to see the Union implement actually right [sic] them up and submit them to a UGM. Next term I, and I am sure my colleagues on the SU Rules Committee, would be delighted to see more motions submitted and hopefully actually debated in quorate UGMs.
Simon Drage – SU Rules Committee