I think one possible way would be to have a fund set up to cover the possibility of officer absences, deaths, illnesses etc. by hiring a temporary replacement or financially compensating the other sabbs for the extra work. Obviously this would be a diversion from money for student resources, but it could be thought of as insurance.

Another change must be the creation of another disciplinary procedure, such as the docking of pay or removal of the individual from the executive commitee without firing them.

If you can give me some ideas, I might submit a motion to the next UGM to this effect.

I would be intrigued to know your suggestions about “providing in the constitution more recourses than a choice between a slap on the wrist and a sacking. We must also come up with a provision for replacing full time sabbatical officers with full time equivalents, so that if any future executive member has a lapse of self-control they don’t leave the Union with a probable vacancy”. I appreciate that you have written it in discursive and not aggresive way however.

The problem comes is that there really isn’t too many solutions to the problem. The most common reason for vacant sabbatical positions nationally is resignation, not no-confidence. York is fortunate in that it doesn’t suffer from this in the same way Unions at what would be classed as ‘lesser’ institutions do (not meaning to sound snobby). Unless it happens right at the start of the year it doesn’t allow much room for manouvre.

It is indeed a weakness of the Students’ Union system currently that this can happen. There are other clear weaknesses but if the desire is to have officer representation, rather than staff, which is the very foundations of Students’ Unions, Guilds and Associations it is a neccesary evil.

I appreciate that there is also more to it than just replacing the officer - discussions about penalties/warnings etc can come into it. But unless it is a violation of employment law (such as sexual harrassment etc inside a working environment) then the students remain the ‘boss’ of the officer. A fining system would be innappropriate, as it does little more than a censure.

It is a good question but sadly one the I feel doesn’t have an answer at the moment.

That may be very well, but I think it is safe to say that in this case the two are most definitely NOT on the same side, therefore it is only right and proper to keep personality out of the debate.

Matthew,

I completely agree with you.