You may be right in that it wouldn’t be how the constitution was originally intended, BUT it is the way the law suggests we would have to follow it now. (Officers have to follow the law first and constitution second).

Hope that helps.

What I’m saying is that I don’t think the constitution is a problem, I think that those who, like Sam Bayley, said the EGM was an ‘appeal’ were misinterpreting the spirit of the constitution. It’s an appeal in the sense of a failure of process, not an appeal in the sense of a decision one doesn’t agree which.

You are of course quite right, but I think it is important to note, that as an elected official, a sabbatical officer agrees to be bound by the possibility of a no confidence motion. If we’re comparing it to another job, then there would be chance of an appeal via a tribunal but only if the grounds are there.

I simply cannot see what grounds there would be for appeal barring a procedural failure of the UGM/Voting Process, and that’s (in my opinion) why the EGM exists, not to allow a no confidence motion to be overturned on a whim.

If you agree to a job that effectively says “if a specific motion is tabled, and you lose the vote, you will lose your job” then I can’t see how you can appeal, unless the motion wasn’t tabled correctly, or you didn’t lose the vote!

A motion of no-confidence is completely different beast to any other motion. It means someone potentially losing their job, and it is only right and fair that there is an appeal process. In the YUSU constitution that process comes in the shape of an EGM.

If people are unhappy with an EGM being the appeal process, then they have every right to submit a constitutional amendment to change the constitution.

As soon as even one person was unable to trust her, she should have resigned from her post.