uni politics is a murky world it seems

We sacked the international officer at out AGM:

http://www.inquirelive.co.uk/node/126

This makes it sound like Grace F-H has a HISTORY of violence. Which she does NOT.

Grace does not routinely strike students. Her politcal career has not been characterised by physical violence. Dan Taylor must have thought Christmas had come early when he received that clout; Grace isn’t the one who recently removed ‘fighting’ from the Favourite Activities as listed on Facey-B.

Let’s stick to the point.

From The ‘We Support a women-only Women’s Committee!’ group on facebook

Grace Fletcher-Hackwood wrote:
“Breaking news - the ‘Womens Committee open to men’ motion has the support of noted campus feminist Dan Taylor. Clearly they are on the side of the angels”

If seriously think she’s changed because of what happened then think again. Clearly her speech at the UGM meant nothing. What a joke.

It has been repeatedly reitterated by people who have no experience of the provision of welfare at York, and largely (if you’ll forgive my saying so) by people who have never given any of their time for the benifit of their fellow students. Listen to members of the Welfare ‘team’ and they will tell you that they NEED a full time Accademic and Welfare officer - as in fact they did at the UGM. Here’s why:

- College welfare reps (those team members) cannot provide the same level of support as a full time officer who has had the benifit of a full handover and months of in depth experience, nor can they provide any representation on Accademic issues. They are doing a degree, and on most issues they are a point of contact before reffering cases, if necessary, to the YUSU AcWelf officer.

- The officer elect will be a full time final year student who will be spend the rest of the year in the busiest examination period of his/her life, and will not have time to do a full time job as well. The AcWelf office will remain empty, and if someone needs the support of that role it will not be there for most of the time. They will not have any experience or training, and unlike normal, there will not be time for a handover period.

- The Sabbatical offiers have their own more than full time jobs, and while they would no doubt do their best, they do not really have any experience of the job or the time to do it. On top of this, they were elected for a variety of reasons, and their skills are not necessarily transferable: while I can think of nobody better than Matt Burton to be handling the accounts, he wouldn’t be my choice of contact to discuss an unexpected pregnancy (I’m sure he wouldn’t be extatica about it either).

I am not trying to scaremonger, I am merely trying to get accross that this is not a simple a situation as some would have it - You have to accept when voting that your decision will have an impact not just on Grace, but on the welfare of York students for the next 6 months. Anyone who has ever needed the support of an Accademic and Welfare officer, as I have, and known what a relief it is to have somebody proffessionally trained and dedicated to helping you with a situation that could otherwise overwhelm you, will not brush this consideraion away as an irrelevance.

However, I take your point that this argument, if carried to its extremes, would be illogical. If Grace had stabbed someone then a vote of no confidence would hardly be what we’d be talking about - it would, I expect, be a rather hefty prison sentence. Similarly, if Grace had actually hurt the student she ‘assaulted’, then she would be being prosecuted for ABH or GBH at the least. The only reason that we have to make this decision is that her actions were not of a seriousness to merit external (that is to say, legal) rammifications. Instead, she slapped somebody with whom she is intimately acquainted without causing him any physical harm outside the office and not in her contracted work hours, having subsequently apologised both privately and publicly.

We, as students of York University, are Grace’s boss, and it is up to us to make a decision about how to deal with this matter - whether to ignore it as a minor incident, treat it as very serious and officially censure and rebuke her, or treat it as of the utmost seriousness and dismiss her. When we make that decision, we have to take into account not only the particulars and details of the incident in question, but also the effects that our decision will have on our membership. It is our responsibility to ensure that whatever decision we make is carefully thought out and is fair both to Grace (our employee, to whom we owe this courtesy) and to our membership.

That is why we cannot afford to have this discussion in soundbites - if the rationale you will be voting on is ‘She hit a student, don’t care who, she has to go’ then you are not living up to the responsibilities that you have as a member of the Union.

Once more, I would take the opportunity to advise anybody voting to make sure they know the details of the incident, and they know what it will mean for York students - Only then can you responsibly make such a serious decision. If you can’t say confidantly that you know the situation inside out, and are just voting because you’ve heard a overly-simplified soundbite, then perhaps you should consider abstaining.

You’re using scare-mongering tactics to try and stop people from taking the necessary action with regard to an assualt committed. She hit a student, don’t care who, she has to go.

Is it Colin? Spoken like an ex-Sabb yourself..

The truth is that nobody’s word is any more important than anyone else’s in this vote - that’s the nature of the Union, and it is what makes it what it is. If your argument for a Sabb’s word being anymore important than a mere mortal’s rests on the fact that Joey has some experience of working with Grace, I would remind you that their areas seldom, if ever, come into contact. The truth is that Grace’s actions will have no effect on Joey’s role: if RAG week suffers becuase Taylor got a slap a few weeks ago I will eat my very large hat.

If you want menaingful testimony about whether or not Grace should stay or go, I’d suggest talking to the officers, students and Union staff who work more closely with her and say that they can’t manage without her. Or, better still, talk to one of the many many many students who have gone to her with problems over the past 6 months. Failing that, talk to the people she has proffessional working relationships with in the University - how about the Deputy Vice Chancellor, for example, who said that Grace was the best AcWelf officer that he’d worked with, and that the incident would not prevent her doing her job?

The only possible reason to vote for this motion is if you honestly believe that it would be better to have nobody looking out for your welfare and representing you on Academic issues than to have one of the most able officers we’ve ever had who once made a serious mistake. Think extremely carefully before you vote.

If you vote for this motion and it does pass, then you better not need welfare support or academic representation; you better not get hauled up for academic misconduct through no fault of your own; you better not have a housing crisis, or problems at work, or difficulties with your supervisor; you better not find yourself wishing that welfare campaigns were being run or there was someone to tell your department off for losing your essay - if you do, you’ll be kicking yourself.

They would be able to work over Easter and some of the summer. The rest of the work could be picked up by the other officers and staff. It would mean a reduction in proactive work but shouldn’t affect reactive work.

I’m not saying that punching someone should go without condemnation; please refer to the paragraph above the one containing the quote you used. That should give you an indication to what I mean as lack of respect in these circumstances…

Grace clearly doesn’t properly subscribe to these views she so vocally supports. If she did, she would never attempt to down play her actions by claiming that what she did wasn’t so bad because she couldn’t possibly hurt someone much bigger and stronger than her.

The fact is, she must represent the interests of people and concerns regarding issues of violence to both men and women. Her decision to get so drunk, after having been elected to a position of trust (a job which also concerns alcohol consumption and its consequences) and to subsequently be unable to find any better way of venting her frustration than violence, means that her position is now brought into question.

Grace has demonstrated that she is not suitable to work on and uphold the welfare issues of students, such as violence and alcohol abuse, as her behaviour has been just the opposite of what she campaigns to achieve for other students.

Grace has let the student body down, her YUSU colleagues and most importantly herself down - not just with her actions, which alone do not warrant such a response - but combined with her confused and poor response and excuse.

What’s the appropriate level of respect to show someone how argues with their fists?

What an advert this whole ‘No confidence’ debacle has been for campus politics. There’s so much which has been said before. Grace made a mistake. An apology was accept then declined. Grace might not be the easiest person to negotiate with, blah, blah. But that’s not why I’m writing this. My own feelings here are that one incident is being used to crucify a friend and a great YUSU officer;

THE PUNISHMENT FAR OUTWEIGHS THE CRIME.

Grace has been on the receiving end of a lot of shit flinging during her time in York, but this is the vilest. The most ironic thing about it is that this time, everyone is getting sprayed. The all rumours and the stories available have all suddenly come to the surface. It’s very similar to the strategy the News of the World uses when it takes great pride in ‘ruining a person’s life every week.’ Isn’t it unnecessary when the no confidence focuses on one recent incident? Any sort of discussion about a person’s history is a low blow, and is only used to undermine someone. The vote is not about a year’s break from study or whatever, it’s only about what happened outside of Chav D. The sad thing is, it’s happening, and its punishment enough.

When I leave York, the thing I’ll remember which summarises Grace best is a conversation I once had with Robbie Dale in Toffs many moons ago. He said “Grace can really piss people off with the way she goes about things, and although I don’t always agree with it, I respect her because she is one YUSU officer who gets results.” It’s no secret that those two rarely saw eye to eye, yet he had respect for Grace, something which isn’t being exhibited by many at the moment.

On first hearing of the incident, I had a friend staying over who is currently on a year in industry. I told him what had happened, that sides where forming over facebook groups of all things. His response was “That’s exactly why I never got involved with campus politics.” That’s pretty sad, and I’d be more than willing to make a huge bet that he’s not the only one thinking that. The political manoeuvres here will only serve to damage those left in campus politics after the vote has been made. There aren’t going to be any winners from any move to remove Grace from office.

I implore those who have stuck the boot in over the last few days, those all too eager to put that damning golden soundbite in the campus media, those who are planning to vote against Grace to take a long, hard look in the mirror and just think about what you are doing; the fairness and the consequences of it all. When you are voting, take only into account the incident with Mr Taylor, and no other event that has occurred been yourself and Grace. That’s what any decent jury would do, and well, that’s the only way I think YUSU and campus politics can save any of it’s lost integrity over this whole affair. Having worked at YUSU and known many of you over the last three or four years, I know you can all make the right choice, although I’m disappointed that I see little evidence from some at present.

Voting opens on Monday. You all have the weekend to reconsider what you are doing and the time to realise that you should all do the decent and just thing…

Matt

Tom

I didn’t realise that fairness is less important than practicality.

I suppose the whole idea of voting for leaders is impractical- how much simpler things would be if we just had appointed officials to lead us, whatever their views or transgressions.

And then, if you challenge them, I suppose you get hit.